Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. Since these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 6/10/2015 in separate writ petitions, they are heard and decided together. 2. WA No.2476/15 is filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No.31911/2014. The writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to the Vandazhy Grama Panchayat and the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short 'SEIAA') to ensure that respondents 8 and 9 and their men do not conduct any quarrying operations, crusher unit or construction of M sand unit in the property without permission and licence from the Panchayat under Sections 233 and 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for other consequential directions. 3. The petitioners are residents of Ambazhakode and they claim to be agriculturists. They own different pieces of land. According to them, the 8th respondent, claiming to have ownership of about 1.5 acres of land adjacent to their properties, intends to start a stone crushe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Co-operative Societies are supposed to showcase the spirit of co-operation among the people, even at the grassroots, to come together and organize themselves for mutual benefit or the common good. Unfortunately, they have become miniature training grounds for deception, simulation, and abuse of power at least, this case demonstrates thus. 2. For the eleven seats in the Managing Committee, the Society had intended to hold elections as the term of the then Managing Committee was coming to an end soon. Accordingly, the Committee at the helm of the affairs passed a resolution proposing to hold an election on 30.06.2015. Only eleven nominations were filed obviating any contest. 3. During the scrutiny of nominations, among eleven persons, one person was found disqualified. There could have been election or confirmation of the remaining ten candidates in the absence of any contest, but that was not to be. The moment one of the persons was found to have been disqualified, all the rest of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions raise identical questions of facts and law and have been heard together. Writ Appeal No.1056 of 2008 is being treated as the leading Writ Appeal and reference of pleadings in the said Writ Appeal shall suffice in deciding all the cases. 2. W.A. No.1056 of 2008 has been filed by the State of Kerala challenging the judgment dated 22.08.2007 in W.P.(C) No.22236 of 2005. W.P(C) No.22236 of 2005 was filed by the Kerala Land Development Corporation Employees' Union and 82 employees challenging the decision of the State Government refusing to approve the proposal of the Kerala Land Development Corporation to increase the age of retirement of its employees from 55 to 60 years. The Learned Single Judge quashed the order of the State Government and directed that employees of the Corporation shall be entitled to continue in service till 60 years as resolved by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 14.05.1998. 3. The other Writ App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner who contested the election from Ward No.35 of the newly constituted Feroke Municipality questions the notification issued by the Kerala State Election Commission for a re-poll. The Electronic Voting Machine (J.34139) installed in one of the booths developed a technical snag in the midst of poll on 2.11.2015 and refused to record votes. A Control Unit error was shown in the Electronic Voting Machine and about 135 voters had by then exercised their right in the polling booth in question. The Returning Officer summoned the technician deputed by the manufacturer of the Electronic Voting Machine who after inspection opined that the same is not fit for further use. Another Electronic Voting Machine (G.58307) was supplied and the polling resumed after 45 minutes as evident by Annexures R1(A) letter, R1(B) receipt and R1 (C) report of the Returning Officer. 2. It was found during the counting of votes on 7.11.2015 that the votes recorded by the Electronic Voting Machine (J.34...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. These writ appeals are filed by the Respondents in W.P. (C) Nos.19204 and 26208 of 2005, 19427 of 2009, 6316, 20180, 30569 and 33110 of 2010, 9959 and 32207 of 2011, viz. the State and the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by a common judgment dated 29.05.2015 and directed the State Government to implement the order bearing No. G.O.(Rt.) No.81/2002/TD dated 20.02.2002, by which the Government have launched a scheme to provide 25% daily wage employment arising in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Bevco') to the displaced arrack workers. Since the issue involved in the appeals are common, they are considered and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Arrack (country liquor) in eternity is the heart and soul and fuel and spirit of these litigations. Arrack was banned in Kerala with effect from 01.04.1996, as a result of which 12,500 workers were rendered jobless. To tide over...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ramachandra Menon, J. Common grievance involved in these writ petitions, stated as filed in public interest, is in respect of the alleged illegal reclamation of paddy land/wet land, mostly lying water logged, for commercial activity in connection with setting up of a resort involving Crores of rupees, causing much environmental hazards and damage to the eco-system, adversely affecting the free flow of water, blocking water channels joining the backwater (Vembanadu Kayal) bordering the northern boundary of the property in question; that too, in violation of the Coastal Zone Regulations. 2. It is contended that illegal reclamation and construction activities are being pursued, based on the orders/clearance obtained without revealing the actual facts and figures and also without obtaining any sanction from the Ministry of the Environmental and Forest, Government of India in terms of the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification 1999. It is asserted from the part of the petitioners that the rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. WA Nos.1817, 1898, 1910, 1911 and 1913 of 2015 are filed by State of Kerala challenging the common judgment dated 5/8/2015 in WP(C) Nos.14218, 14244, 14808, 16149 and 14144/2015. WA Nos.1832, 1838 and 1839/15 are also filed challenging the very same common judgment. WA No.1832/15 is filed by the additional 5th respondent in WP(C) No.14808/2015. WA No.1838/2015 is filed by additional respondents 5 and 6 in WP (C) No.14144/2015 and WA No.1839/15 is filed by the additional 3rd respondent in WPC No. 14244/2015. 2. Since the questions involved in all these writ appeals are the same and since it arises from a common judgment, all these appeals are heard and decided together. 3. The contentions urged on behalf of the writ petitioners, who are the respondents in these appeals are common in nature. The challenge in the writ petitions are with reference to delinking of certain wards from Thiruvananthapuram Corporation as well as Kozhikode Corporation and formation of such wards ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Vinod Chandran, J. 1. The State is in appeal against the judgment in a writ petition in which the petitioner, who was running a unit manufacturing mineral water, was permitted to carry on such activity even without an environmental clearance. It was found that the petitioner, for carrying on the activity concerned, did not require an environmental clearance and the order of the District Collector [Exhibit P18] was set aside. It was also held that the remedy of the impleaded respondents, whose grievance was in respect to indiscriminate extraction of water, was independent of the issues decided in the writ petition and was left the remedy to move appropriate authorities to redress their grievances. 2. The parties are referred to as is their status in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company [Exhibit P1], having SSI Registration [Exhibit P2], obtained Exhibit P3 Green Channel Clearance of the District Industries Centre, Palakkad for establishment of a factory carryi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Facts: 1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. It had, posted by the Government, a contingent of officers one Circle Inspector, one Inspector, two Preventive Officers and eight Guards to supervise the day-to-day functioning of the petitioner factory. Following Section 14 of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity) read with Rule 14 of the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1968 (Part-I) ('the Rules' for brevity), the Government has deployed the supervisory staff to ensure that there is no evasion of the duty on the manufacturer's part. 2. As per the statutory mechanism, the petitioner continued to pay to the said supervisory staff the salary and allowances. It is the specific case of the petitioner that from November 2010, the Circle Inspector, heading the supervisory staff and being the competent authority to raise the necessary bills for payment of salary and other allowances by the petitioner, did not make any demand for the overtime allowance due for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner in this writ petition runs a unit in the Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai. The said unit is engaged in the manufacture of essential oils, natural extracts and products of sandalwood. As part of its business operations, the petitioner sources sandalwood from Marayoor in Kerala, where it participates in auctions conducted by the Forest Department of the State of Kerala and purchases sandalwood. The issue in the present writ petition is regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act', on the purchases of sandalwood. While the petitioner maintains that she is not liable to pay local tax on the sandalwood purchased by her at the auction, since the goods so purchased are taken by her directly to the unit in the Madras Export Processing Zone, it is the case of the respondents that the transaction of sale would attract tax under the KVAT Act since the sale was concluded in the...
Tag this Judgment!