Pre-Arrest Bail – Custodial Death Allegations – Seriousness of Offences – Petitioner, a police officer, sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of wrongful confinement, assault, and custodial death of complainant’s mother. Judicial inquiry suggested suicide, but conflicting evidence, including post-mortem reports showing multiple injuries, led to the denial of bail – High Court emphasized severity of allegations and upheld judicial finding of prima facie case – Application for anticipatory bail dismissed [Paras 2-14].

Custodial Torture – Judicial Inquiry and Evidence – Inquiry by ACJM-II found evidence of suicide but complainant’s deposition and medical evidence indicated custodial torture – Court noted multiple anti-mortem injuries and contradictions in the inquiry report – Highlighted need for thorough investigation and accountability in custodial death cases [Paras 5-12].

Decision- Applications for pre-arrest bail are dismissed. Petitioners may seek regular bail upon surrender within four weeks, to be considered on merits without prejudice from this order [Para 16].

Rent Control – Sub-Tenancy – Kudikidappu Rights – Petitioner challenged eviction order claiming kudikidappu rights – Original tenant sub-leased property without landlord’s consent – Land Tribunal dismissed kudikidappu application – Concurrent findings by Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority upheld – High Court emphasized limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [Paras 2-16].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – High Court reiterated that revisional powers under Section 20 are confined to jurisdictional errors and not to re-appreciation of evidence – No interference warranted as findings were based on sufficient evidence – Eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) confirmed [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. High Court found no jurisdictional error in the orders of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority, which justified the eviction based on the sub-tenancy and rejection of kudikidappu rights.
 

Appointment of Commissioner – Importance in Property Disputes – Petitioners challenged the order of the trial court dismissing their application for deferring the suit trial until a decision on changing the surveyor was made – Court stressed the necessity of commissioner’s report for property identification – Emphasized the need for thorough hearing before proceeding with the trial [Paras 1-5].

Joint Trial and Procedural Fairness – The trial court's decision to list the suit for trial despite the pending application for changing the surveyor deemed premature – Supreme Court directed the trial court to dispose of the application expeditiously and proceed with the trial only after ensuring proper identification of the property through the commissioner's report [Paras 3-5].

Decision:

Original Petition allowed – Trial court’s order set aside – Directed to dispose of IA No. 1/2020 within two weeks and proceed with the trial thereafter.

Transfer of Matrimonial Cases – Jurisdiction and Convenience – Husband and wife filed petitions for divorce and maintenance in Family Courts at Muvattupuzha and Thalassery respectively – Transfer petitions filed by both parties were disposed of by a Single Judge – Appeal by husband challenging the jurisdiction of Family Court, Thalassery, was dismissed – Appeals against transfer orders held proper considering balance of convenience in favor of wife [Paras 1-20].

Jurisdiction under Divorce Act, 1869 – Section 3(3) – Interpretation – Appellant contested that Family Court, Thalassery lacked jurisdiction as per Section 3(3) – Court held that jurisdiction under Section 3(3) pertains to the institution of petitions – Transfer of cases within competent Family Courts under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure permissible [Paras 11-14].

Section 24 of CPC – General Power of Transfer – Court’s discretion to transfer cases to any subordinate court competent to try – Competence refers to court’s status, not territorial jurisdiction – Family Court, Thalassery found competent to try transferred cases [Paras 13-18].

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 7(1) – Powers of Family Courts to exercise jurisdiction of District Courts – Family Court, Thalassery competent to try divorce and maintenance petitions – Convenience of wife justified transfer [Paras 14, 19].

Balance of Convenience – Consideration of Wife’s Circumstances – Court noted wife is residing abroad with minor daughter in care of parents – Balance of convenience supported transfer to Family Court, Thalassery [Para 19].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Orders of Single Judge upheld – Transfer of petitions from Family Court, Muvattupuzha to Family Court, Thalassery found justified [Para 20].

Administrative Law – Allotment of Government Accommodation – Writ of Mandamus – Petitioner, a National Political Party, sought a temporary housing unit from GPRA for office use until the allotment and construction of a permanent office. Respondents denied the request, citing acute shortage of GPRA accommodations and previous offers of alternate land. Held – National Political Parties are entitled to secure allotment of one housing unit from GPRA for a period of three years during which they are to construct a permanent office. Respondents directed to reconsider the request of the Petitioner and provide a detailed order within six weeks. [Paras 1-15]

Right to Temporary Office Space for National Political Parties – Analysis – Petitioner recognized as a National Party and thus entitled to temporary accommodation under the Compendium of the Allotment of Government Residences Rules. Previous offers of non-central land not relevant to temporary accommodation entitlement. The acute shortage of GPRA cannot be sole reason for denial. [Paras 12-14]

Decision – Grant of Temporary Accommodation – Court directed Respondents to reconsider and decide the Petitioner’s request for temporary office accommodation from GPRA within six weeks, ensuring detailed reasons are provided if denied. [Paras 14-15]

Adoption Law – Legal Heirship – Challenge to cancellation of relationship certificate – Revenue Divisional Officer set aside the certificate issued by Tahsildar and ordered fresh enquiry – Petitioner contends severance of ties with biological family upon adoption under Section 12 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Adoption legally severs ties with biological family, replacing them with adoptive family [Paras 1-6].

Legal Provisions – Section 12 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Adoption results in severance of all ties with biological family – Adopted child becomes legal heir in adoptive family – Previous legal heirship certificate rightly issued by Tahsildar in favor of petitioner – Respondent’s order contravenes statutory provision [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Order by Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.12.2020 quashed – Legal heirship certificate re-affirmed – Court emphasizes compliance with Section 12 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, ensuring legal ties and rights in adoptive family [Para 6].

Compensation Recovery – Land Acquisition – Petitioners directed to refund compensation for acquired land under National Highways Act – Land disputed and interim order from Supreme Court regarding partition suit – Affidavit from predecessor claiming no objection to compensation, later denied by same predecessor – Orders for refund challenged [Paras 1-14].

Partition and Title Disputes – Ancestral Property – Ongoing litigation about partition and title of land – Sale deed executed by predecessor in interest challenged in civil suit – Title of petitioners under cloud due to disputes, co-sharers entitled to share of compensation [Paras 10-17].

Procedure under National Highways Act – Sections 3H(3) and 3H(4) – Authorities required to determine rightful claimants of compensation or refer dispute to civil court – Entire compensation wrongly paid to petitioners – Correction of mistake by Competent Authority justified [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Competent Authority’s direction to refund compensation upheld – Authorities to follow due process under National Highways Act for apportionment of compensation among co-sharers.
 

Administrative Law – Regularization of Temporary Employees – Tribunal ordered to prioritize candidates from the ranked list for engagement on a temporary basis – Directions challenged on grounds of violating Supreme Court's dicta on regularization (Uma Devi case) – Tribunal’s order found non-maintainable due to lack of affected parties' participation – Kerala High Court emphasized that advice for vacancies cannot be made post ranked list expiry – Tribunal’s unauthorized relief criticized – Relief granted only within the scope of original prayers [Paras 1-7, 29-33].

Public Employment – Reporting of Vacancies – Kerala Public Service Commission directed to advise candidates for all reported vacancies before the ranked list expiry – High Court supported Tribunal’s interim order directing the report of substantial vacancies – Emphasized adherence to procedural norms in public employment [Paras 6, 31-32].

Judicial Review – Scope of Relief – High Court scrutinized Tribunal's jurisdiction in granting relief beyond the scope of original petitions – Reiterated importance of judicial restraint and adherence to established procedural norms – Highlighted the necessity of having all affected parties in judicial proceedings for valid adjudication [Paras 4, 7-8, 33-34].

Decision: Petitions by applicants: Dismissed due to expiry of ranked list and non-maintainability of challenge against regularization.
Petitions by KPSC and Government: Allowed. Relief granted by Tribunal set aside due to lack of prayer in original petitions.
 

Anticipatory Bail – Parity Principle – Applicant seeking anticipatory bail on grounds of parity with co-accused granted bail – Co-accused granted bail for similar offenses and under similar circumstances – Trial court failed to provide distinguishing reasons for denial of bail to applicant [Paras 5-8].

Consistency in Judicial Decisions – Judicial Officer’s failure to maintain consistency in orders concerning anticipatory bail – Subsequent orders must align with earlier orders in identical circumstances or provide sufficient reasons for deviation – Inconsistent orders undermine public confidence in judicial process [Paras 24-28, 35-36].

Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Applicability – Applicant not named in the FIR and no specific role assigned – Entitled to anticipatory bail considering absence of criminal antecedents, non-arrest during investigation, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents promoting bail as a matter of course where circumstances permit [Paras 10, 44-46].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Held – Applicant to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial upon fulfilling stipulated conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and trial processes [Paras 47-49].