Court : Kerala
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These matters are listed today following the order dated 12.4.2016. 2. Two issues are focused for consideration on the basis of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General. The first issue relates to a particular statement in the aforenoted order; imminently relevant to the ensuing Thrissur Pooram. The second issue relates to the ongoing proceedings as regards the incident at Paravoor in Kollam district. 3. We first proceed to state our decision and reasons therefore, as regards the first issue. According to the learned Advocate General, the problem that is faced in the conduct of the Thrissur Pooram which, apart from being a religious event, is an indispensable, social and cultural event of Thrissur, is the contents of the second sentence of paragraph no.6 of the order minuted by us on 12.4.2016. Through that sentence, we had stated that the use of explosive in accordance with the laws relating to explosives, inter alia, includes complete ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Thottathiil B. Radhakrishnan J. 1. WP(C) 14978 of 2016 is registered suo motu in exercise of authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of the letter and materials furnished by learned Brother Honourable Mr Justice V. Chitambaresh and the report made available by the District Legal Services Authority, Kollam by mid-night following the day of the incident that occurred on 10.04.2016 in Puttingal Devi Ternple, Paravur, Kollam, in which we are told that as of now, around 109 persons are reported dead and large number are still in hospital. Some of the dead bodies appear to have been charred beyond identification and are awaiting classification through DNA finger printing processes. 2. Brother Honourable Mr. Justice V.Chitambaresh has, in his erudite letter, emphasised the value of life and fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 2l of the Constitution of India. He has, in our view, quite rightly, pointed out that the right to profess, practice and pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. A question regarding the compliance of principles of natural justice has arisen in this writ petition in the context of an enquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act 14 of 2013 ). 2. In view of the legal question that is involved in this writ petition, this Court is only addressing the legal issue bereft of facts involved. 3. The petitioner is working as an Officer Apron in the Ground Services Department (GSD) of Air India Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. The ICC of Air India Limited, Southern Region received a complaint forwarded by the Airport Director. This complaint alleged to have been raised by 17 lady employees of Air India-SATS (AI-SATS), a joint venture company of Air India and Singapore Air Transport Services Limited. The Committee conducted an enquiry against the petitioner based on the complaint. The report of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge on 08-11-2013 in W.P.(C) No.21987 of 2013. The writ petition was preferred by the appellant praying for a declaration that he is entitled to treatment benefits as provided by paragraph 2.30(a) of the E.S.I. Medical Manual and for other reliefs. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to claim extended sickness benefit in terms of E.S.I.C. Circular No.6-1/91/71(M)-II dated 03-01-1978 issued by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, for short, the E.S.I. Corporation, as he had not availed himself of any treatment for sickness from September, 2007 and to July, 2012. Aggrieved by the C. R. impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal. 2. Heard Smt.A.K.Preeta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 354 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C No.526/2005 of the Court of Session, Kozhikode. One Saranya aged 19 years was outraged and molested by the appellant herein at about 5.45 pm on 17.6.2005 on the public road at Villyappally in the presence of her friends and others. Due to the mental agony and humiliation caused by the said incident, Saranya committed suicide on 19.6.2005 at her residence. Nothing was suspected initially regarding the cause of commission of suicide, but when Saranya's father came to know of the incident that happened on 17.6.2005, he made a complaint before the police. The police registered a crime and proceeded for investigation. The accused was arrested as part of investigation, and after completing the investigation the police submitted final report in court. On committal, as provided under the law, the case came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.02.2007 in O.P. No.24885 of 1998. Learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has come up in appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the appeal are: Both the petitioners entered in service as trainee Police Constables in Armed Police Bettalionon 01.08.1974. After training they were regularly appointed as Police Constables with effect from 01.06.1975. They were promoted as Hawildar on 20.04.1981. On their willingness they were reverted as Police Constables and transferred to District Armed Reserve on 07.06.1982 where they were promoted as Head Constables on 08.06.1982. On their written request petitioners were transferred to local police. They joined local police on 18.12.1991. From 18.12.1991 they were working as Police Constables but due to administrative dela...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. This appeal is filed against judgment dated 09/10/2015 in WP(C) No.2772 of 2014 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directed respondents 1 and 2 to transmit Ext.P4 review petition before the competent authorities in terms of Regulation 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), so as to to enable the said authority to take an appropriate decision on the said review petition, in accordance with law. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the respondent herein, who is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, retired from service of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) on 31/05/2013. He was placed under suspension with effect from 16/11/1993 as he was involved in a criminal case on allegations of commission of offence under Section 120B read with 302 of IPC. He was acquitted from the charges and accord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the 1st respondent in writ petitions/State of Kerala challenging judgment in W.P.C.Nos.23638 and 31569 of 2009. The writ petitions were filed by respondents 1 to 8 herein challenging Ext.P15 Government Order dated 07/08/2008 (in W.P.C.No.23638/2009), for a direction to the Government to implement Ext.P4 Government Order dated 30/01/2001, for a further direction to settle and disburse State Government pension and Gratuity admissible to the petitioners in terms of Ext.P4 Government Order dated 30/01/2001, to pay the arrears of pension with interest, for a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to transfer the employer's contribution of EPF in respect of the petitioners, to the 1st respondent, and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to transfer the employer's contribution to the 1st respondent to enable the petitioners to receive pension immediately. W.P.C.No.31569/2009 is filed seeking similar reliefs. Ext.P13 dated 07/08/2008 is the impugned order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C J. 1. These Writ Appeals raise an important issue pertaining to the extent of power which can be exercised by the District Disaster Management Authority (for short, the DDMA ) in reference to a disaster management, i.e., Whether in exercise of the power under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 2005 Act ), the District Management Authority can direct for demolition of the construction belonging to a private individual standing on an underground canal so as to carry out renovation and repair works of the said canal which became imminent due to the fact that the structure of the canal has outlived its life and would have led to a disaster within the meaning of the 2005 Act? 2. Writ Appeal Nos.2745, 2767 and 2768 of 2015 have been filed against the common judgment dated 23.09.2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge in three Writ Petitions filed by respondent No.1 in the above appeals. Writ Appeal No.57 of 2016 has been filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C J. 1. This writ petition filed as public interest litigation prays for issue of writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P1 order, by which, the Central Government has constituted State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Kerala and State level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), Kerala. A writ of quo warranto has also been prayed for against respondents 5 to 8. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2, 5 to 8. Statement has also been filed by the counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the writ petition are :- In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, a notification has been issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests dated 14.9.2006 providing for obtaining environmental clearance for construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or act...
Tag this Judgment!