Service Law – Public Appointments – Bypassing PSC Candidates – KSRTC continued engaging empanelled drivers under Exts.P6 and P9 notifications despite binding judgments in Antony Stejo and Venugopal cases mandating appointments only through PSC – Held: KSRTC's action violates Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR and amounts to contempt of binding court orders – Notifications quashed – KSRTC cannot invoke emergency clause when it has willfully avoided filling reported vacancies [Paras 1–14]

Administrative Law – Violation of Judicial Orders – Court found that KSRTC engaged over 900 previously terminated empanelled drivers under the guise of new temporary appointments despite earlier undertakings not to do so – Held: KSRTC’s conduct reflects a deliberate subversion of court orders through tortuous methods [Paras 9–14]

Constitutional Law – Locus Standi – First respondent was included in the 2012 PSC rank list and was eligible for appointment against 2455 vacancies reported to PSC – Despite expiry of the list, Ext.P6 gave preference to those in that list – Held: Petitioner had locus to file writ petition to enforce compliance with court orders and raise issues of public importance [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Ext.P9 quashed – KSRTC restrained from continuing engagement of empanelled drivers under Exts.P6 and P9 – Directions in Antony Stejo and Venugopal cases, as affirmed by Supreme Court, to be strictly complied with.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; Constitution of India, Article 14, Article 19(6)(ii), Article 226 – Stage Carriage Permits – Renewal of 'Saved Permits' – Distance Restrictions – Outcome: Impugned judgment modified, 140 km restriction inapplicable to saved permits for renewal – The High Court addressed multiple writ appeals concerning the renewal of stage carriage permits for private operators, specifically challenging the imposition of a 140 km distance restriction under various government schemes and rules – The Division Bench modified the Single Judge's common judgment, holding that the maximum distance criterion of 140 kilometers, as defined in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, cannot be applied to 'saved permits' (those issued to the private sector prior to 09.05.2006) when considering their renewal – This entitlement to renewal persists until the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) applies for and introduces a new service on the specific route, at which point the corresponding private permits shall not be renewed – The Court clarified that the rights and privileges granted to 'saved permit' holders through the Government Order dated 20.08.2015 were intrinsically linked to the earlier 2009 scheme, and the State Government's subsequent attempt to introduce new distance stipulations in the final modified scheme without proper procedure and notice was invalid, as established in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] – Regional Transport Authorities are directed to consider these renewal applications expeditiously within three months, ensuring an opportunity of being heard, strictly in accordance with the law laid down – The Court also noted that the Government's withdrawal of the 2015 G.O. by a 2020 G.O. had no effect on the operators' rights, as they were operating based on the binding declarations in Saju Varkey. [Paras 4, 7, 8, 21-23, 34.2, 34.5, 34.6, 35, 36, 37, 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 101, 102, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 132, 133, 144, 145, 146].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 99, 100, 102 – Scheme Formulation and Modification – Procedural Fairness – Natural Justice – Outcome: Restrictive clause quashed for procedural non-compliance – The High Court underscored that the statutory procedure for formulating or modifying transport schemes under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Sections 99, 100, and 102, is designed to ensure transparency and protect pre-existing rights of private operators – A scheme cannot be finalized if it deviates substantially from the draft proposal without inviting fresh objections and providing a fair hearing – The introduction of a new restrictive element, such as a maximum distance limit, in the final scheme when it was not present in the draft, constitutes a breach of statutory safeguards and principles of natural justice – Accordingly, Clause (4) of the modified scheme dated 23.03.2017, which sought to impose a maximum distance limit on 'saved permits', was quashed due to this procedural non-compliance – However, the challenge to the amendment of Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which defined 'Ordinary Limited Stop Service' with a 140 km distance limit, was repelled, as private operators did not possess a pre-existing right to operate OLS services without such restrictions, and the State Government had duly considered objections during its amendment. [Paras 34.2, 34.5, 34.6, 34.7, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 132, 133].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 104 – Temporary Permits – State Transport Undertaking (STU) – Non-utilization of Permits – Outcome: Temporary permits grantable to private operators under specific conditions – The Court affirmed that under the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the State Transport Undertaking (KSRTC) does not apply for or is not actively utilizing permits on a notified route or an area covered by an approved scheme, temporary permits can be granted to private operators based on a demonstrated temporary need – The application by an STU for a permit under a scheme serves as an indicator of such temporary need – In situations where the STU has obtained a permit but fails to operate services, the Regional Transport Authority is empowered to consider applications for temporary permits from private operators over those routes – However, granting regular permits to private operators in such circumstances would disrupt the established ratio under the scheme, which is legally impermissible. [Paras 26.3, 45, 46, 47, 50, 54, 78, 79, 80, 81, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 135].

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Scheme Validity – Outcome: Limited scope of judicial intervention in policy matters – The High Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in matters of policy and scheme formulation under the Motor Vehicles Act – Once the power to create a scheme, such as the Super Class Scheme of 2013, is established within the constitutional framework of the relevant statute, judicial intervention cannot extend to scrutinizing administrative wisdom or practical approaches in policy decisions – The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, against challenges alleging ultra vires or arbitrariness, finding no demonstrable violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Paras 24.2, 26, 26.1, 26.2, 43, 44, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 123, 124, 125].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Impugned judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 and connected matters modified – Regional Transport Authorities directed to consider applications for renewal of 'saved permits' within three months, without applying the 140 km distance criterion, subject to KSRTC not introducing new services on the route – Clause (4) of the modified scheme dated 23.03.2017 quashed. [Paras 63, 145, 146].

Patent Infringement – Interim Injunction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Discretionary Relief – Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 13 Commercial Courts Act against order granting temporary injunction restraining defendant from manufacturing and selling mobile brick-making machines – Held: Division Bench will interfere only if order is ex-facie perverse or a view which could not reasonably be taken – Learned Single Judge’s view found to be a plausible and reasonable view – No interference warranted at interim stage [Paras 50–51, 58].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Patent Infringement – Offer for Sale – Injunction Suits – Objection that Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction as defendant had no business in Delhi and no concluded sale – Quotation issued to Delhi-based party alleged to be trap sale – Held: For purposes of an injunction suit, preparedness, probability or offer for sale within territorial jurisdiction is sufficient – Actual concluded sale not mandatory where relief sought is prohibitory – Territorial jurisdiction upheld [Paras 46–49].

Patent Law – Pith and Marrow Doctrine – All Elements Rule – Applicability at Interim Stage – Contention that learned Single Judge wrongly applied pith and marrow doctrine instead of all-elements rule – Court held that determination of correct infringement test involves mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence – Such issues not to be conclusively decided at stage of appeal against interim injunction – To be examined at trial [Paras 52–53].

Patent Infringement – Mobile Brick-Making Machines – Essence of Invention – Plaintiff’s patents relate to integrated mobile brick-making machine eliminating manual labour by mechanically moulding and laying bricks on ground while moving – Mobility held to be the core and essence of the invention – Defendant’s machine, though moved by attachment to tractor and not self-propelled, still achieved same functional mobility through similar integrated assembly of hopper, roller and dies – Differences in mode of mobility held prima facie inconsequential at interim stage [Paras 54–56].

Differences in Design – Whether Sufficient to Avoid Infringement – Interim Assessment – Defendant relied on absence of cabin, steering mechanism, front wheels and motor-driven rear wheels – Court held that these differences all relate to the single aspect of mobility – Learned Single Judge correctly assessed that they do not detract from the fundamental inventive concept – Prima facie infringement made out [Paras 57–58].

Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury – Patent Rights – Court held that refusal of injunction would seriously prejudice patentee’s statutory monopoly and goodwill, injury whereof cannot be adequately compensated in money – Defendant, if ultimately successful, can be compensated monetarily – Balance of convenience favoured grant of injunction [Para 59].

Doctrine of Equivalence – Prima Facie View – Use of different means (tractor-driven kinetic movement instead of self-propelled motor) to achieve substantially same function and result does not, at interim stage, take defendant outside scope of patent protection – Substantial similarity sufficient for interim relief [Paras 54–56].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim injunction granted by learned Single Judge upheld – Observations confined to interim stage and not to prejudice final adjudication – Parties left to bear their own costs.

Minority Educational Institutions – Unrecognized Madarsa – Power of Closure by State Authorities – Article 30(1) of the Constitution – District Minority Welfare Officer directed closure of the petitioner Madarsa on the ground that it was being run without recognition – Regulation 13 of the 2016 Regulations only provides consequence of non-recognition as denial of government grant – No provision empowering authorities to stop functioning of an unrecognized Madarsa – Held: Mere lack of recognition cannot justify closure of the institution [Paras 2–4, 7].

Constitution of India – Article 30(1) – Classification of Minority Educational Institutions – Reliance placed on Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, (2025) 5 SCC 53 and In re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957 – Minority institutions categorized into (i) those seeking neither aid nor recognition, (ii) those seeking aid, and (iii) those seeking recognition alone – Institutions falling in first category fully protected under Article 30(1) – Petitioner Madarsa neither seeking aid nor recognition – Held: Its functioning is constitutionally protected [Paras 5–6].

Administrative Law – Absence of Statutory Authority – Invalid Executive Action – State argued that unrecognized Madarsa may create complications for students – However, no statutory provision enabling closure on this ground – Executive order without authority of law held unsustainable [Paras 7, 9–10].

Relief – Quashing of Closure Order with Clarifications – Impugned order dated 01.05.2025 directing closure quashed – Clarified that unrecognized Madarsa not entitled to government grants – Madarsa Board not obliged to allow students to appear in examinations – Qualifications acquired not to confer any benefit vis-à-vis State Government – Directions issued to remove seal within 24 hours [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 01.05.2025 quashed – Seal on Madarsa directed to be opened within 24 hours subject to conditions stated.

Press Council of India Act, 1978 – Constitution of Council – Notification of Associations of Persons – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Delay and Laches – Acquiescence – Writ petition filed after completion of substantial statutory process – Held: Discretionary relief declined – Petitioner–association participated in the selection process pursuant to notice dated 09.06.2024 without protest and challenged the process only after Scrutiny Committee report dated 10.09.2024 was accepted and notification dated 28.10.2024 was acted upon – Constitution of 15th Press Council already underway – Inordinate and unexplained delay fatal – Writ petition not entertained [Paras 40–46].

Administrative Law – Challenge to Advertisement / Notice – Estoppel by Conduct – Participation without protest – Petitioner submitted claim application pursuant to impugned notice and did not question its validity at the relevant time – Having taken a chance in the process, petitioner barred from challenging the notice after rejection – Doctrine of acquiescence squarely applicable [Paras 41, 47].

Press Council (Procedure for Notification of Associations of Persons) Rules, 2021 – Scrutiny Committee Recommendations – Acceptance by Council – Scope of Interference – Scrutiny Committee report dated 10.09.2024 accepted by Council on 27.09.2024 and acted upon by issuance of notification dated 28.10.2024 followed by further steps – Once statutory process has progressed, belated interference would disrupt constitution of a statutory body discharging essential public functions – Court declined interference [Paras 42–45].

Parity with Earlier Judgment – Distinguishing on Facts and Delay – Reliance placed on judgment dated 22.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 16202/2024 rejected – Said petition filed within reasonable time and decided on its own facts – No right to parity when petitioner approaches Court belatedly after acquiescing in the process [Para 48].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Not Examined due to Delay – Alleged violations relating to notarisation, minutes of meetings and documentary compliance not examined on merits – Once writ petition dismissed on ground of delay and acquiescence, Court refrained from adjudicating factual disputes [Para 49].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference under Article 226 on ground of inordinate delay and participation without protest – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder and Rape – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 376 IPC for alleged rape and murder of a young woman inside a house – Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and alleged “last seen” circumstance – No direct eyewitness to the occurrence – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 26–34, 53–55].

Circumstantial Evidence – Golden Principles – Failure to Establish Complete Chain – Prosecution relied on recovery of articles, alleged presence of accused at spot and medical evidence – Circumstances neither conclusively proved nor inconsistent with innocence of accused – Possibility of alternative hypothesis not ruled out – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained when circumstances fall short of the standard laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case [Paras 26–33].

Last Seen Theory – Limited Applicability – Accused allegedly seen leaving the house where deceased was found dead – Appellant not last seen together with deceased – Mere sighting of accused coming out of the house insufficient to complete chain of circumstances – Held: “Last seen” theory by itself cannot form basis of conviction without other clinching links [Paras 33–35].

Evidence – Chance Witnesses – Credibility and Cautious Scrutiny – Prosecution relied mainly on testimony of chance witnesses who were neither natural nor convincing in their presence at spot – Conduct of witnesses found unnatural – Failure to explain presence satisfactorily – Held: Testimony of chance witnesses unreliable and unsafe to base conviction upon [Paras 35–45].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injury – Weapon Not Established – Deceased sustained a deep, wide incised wound on neck severing vital structures – Alleged weapon was knife – Held: Injury of such magnitude could not be caused by ordinary knife – Prosecution failed to explain inconsistency between medical evidence and alleged weapon – Serious doubt created about prosecution story [Paras 47–49].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – Ante-timing and Doubtful Recoveries – Delay in recording statements, unexplained overwriting in Panchayatnama, late dispatch of FIR, doubtful recovery of book and postcard without witness signatures – Held: Though lapses alone may not be fatal, in a case resting on circumstantial evidence such defects assume significance and weaken prosecution case [Paras 46, 50–52].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Possible – Evidence on record gave rise to more than one plausible hypothesis – Possibility of involvement of persons other than appellant not ruled out – Held: Where two views are possible, one favouring accused must be adopted [Paras 52–54].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Power to be used sparingly – Prima Facie Case Absent – No Role Attributed – Names Not in FIR – Petitioners (except those named in FIR) not identified by witnesses and not linked to offences by any direct or circumstantial evidence – Held: Continuation of proceedings against such petitioners amounts to abuse of process – Cognizance order and criminal proceedings quashed qua unnamed petitioners – Trial to continue only against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, and 16 [Paras 1, 4–6, 12–13, 22–26]

Criminal Law – Protest Turning Violent – FIR Alleging Vandalism, Assault, and Outraging Modesty – Allegations Found Largely Omnibus – Prosecution Unable to Link Vandalism to Specific Accused – Recovery of Broken Furniture and ABVP Flags not Sufficient to Sustain Charges – Simple Injuries Alleged without Medical Proof – Acquittal of Juvenile Co-Accused on Same Evidence Considered Relevant – Petitioners entitled to relief under Bhajan Lal Guidelines [Paras 22–24]

Public Employment – Adverse Impact of Prosecution – Consideration of Career Stakes – Petitioner in CRLMC No. 1017/2024 selected for multiple public posts – Criminal case preventing joining – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: In absence of concrete evidence, continuation of proceedings would unfairly jeopardize future – Court considers such facts while applying discretion under Section 482 CrPC [Para 24]

Inherent Powers – Guiding Principles – Reiterated Principles from R.P. Kapur, Madhu Limaye, Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure – Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC not to be exercised arbitrarily – Meant to prevent miscarriage of justice – Must not result in a mini-trial – High Court must avoid appreciation of evidence unless case falls into recognised exceptions [Paras 14–21]

Decision: CRLMC applications allowed in part – Criminal proceedings and cognizance order dated 14.11.2018 quashed only in respect of petitioners not named in FIR – Proceedings to continue against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11 and 16 in CRLMC No. 2832/2024 – Trial court directed to expedite and conclude trial within six months [Paras 26–28]

Cooperative Societies – Recovery of Maintenance Dues – Non-Member Flat Occupants – Petitioners received possession of flats from developer under unregistered agreement and were never admitted as society members – Society initiated recovery proceedings under Section 154B-29 of MCS Act for unpaid maintenance since 2005 – Held: Petitioners, though not members, were in occupation, using common services, and liable under Section 154B-29 [Paras 2, 3, 4, 26, 27].

Limitation – Applicability to Recovery Proceedings under MCS Act – Petitioners argued that demand raised in 2023 for arrears since 2005 was barred under Article 137, Limitation Act – Held: Section 154B-29 is a special mechanism with overriding clause and no prescribed limitation period – Limitation Act not attracted – Dues are recurring in nature and cannot be barred merely by passage of time [Paras 7, 19, 21].

Continuing Wrong – Monthly Maintenance Dues – Maintenance and service charges are recurring and arise from continuous occupation – Each month’s default constitutes fresh cause of action – Held: Non-payment is a continuing breach and cannot be defeated on the ground of delay – Concepts of stale claim and reasonable time inapplicable [Paras 22, 23, 24, 25].

Promoter's Duty under MOFA – Flat Ownership and Liability for Dues – Petitioners, having received flats in consideration and treated them as owned units, fell within meaning of “promoters” under MOFA – Held: Duty to form society and be part of it exists regardless of registration of agreement – Conduct establishes ownership and liability [Paras 26, 27].

Interest on Arrears – Validity of 21% Interest Charge – Society levied 21% interest on unpaid dues as per its bye-laws – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any statutory violation or ceiling breached – Held: Interest charge valid and enforceable [Para 28].

Registrar’s Power and Finality of Recovery – Registrar’s power under Section 154B-29 is independent and overrides other provisions – Recovery certificates once issued are final and enforceable as arrears of land revenue – Held: Statute ensures efficient, litigation-free recovery of dues essential for cooperative housing society’s functioning [Paras 18, 20, 21].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Recovery certificates upheld – No interference warranted – Request for stay of judgment also rejected [Paras 29–31].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Bar Association – Bar Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Body of private lawyers formed for welfare of its members – Does not discharge public functions – Not ‘State’ or instrumentality under Article 12 of Constitution – Held: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against Bar Association not maintainable [Paras 15–17].

Mandamus – Preconditions – For issuance of mandamus, existence of statutory duty and failure to discharge such duty essential – Bar Association under no statutory obligation to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings against its members – No mandamus can be issued to compel a private body to act in a particular manner [Paras 17–18].

Advocate Chamber – Permissive Possession – No Enforceable Right – Appellant advocate not allottee of chamber – Occupation based on permissive possession granted by allottee – No independent legal or enforceable right over chamber – Held: Absence of legal right disentitles petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 10–11].

Alleged Criminal Trespass – Alternative Remedies – Allegations of trespass, threats and dispossession amount to criminal offences – Remedy lies under Code of Criminal Procedure – High Court will not issue directions for registration of criminal case when statutory remedies available – Reliance placed on Sakiri Vasu and Priyanka Srivastava [Paras 11, 18].

Bar Council of Delhi – Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Bar Council is statutory body empowered to take disciplinary action against advocates – Appellant neither approached Bar Council nor impleaded it as a party – Held: Mandamus cannot be sought without first invoking jurisdiction of competent statutory authority [Paras 19–21].

Prayer Partly Not Pressed – Effect – Even though prayer for restoration of possession was not pressed subsequently, remaining prayer seeking action against advocates still not maintainable – Lack of public law element fatal to writ petition [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Intra-court appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition as not maintainable affirmed – Liberty reserved to appellant to pursue appropriate civil, criminal or disciplinary remedies in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 22–24].