Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 685-702Udayakumar v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 685The Corporate Manager v. Beena Hilkushi and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 686Babumon K.G. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 687 Sreekuttan S. v. Sree Keralavarma College & Ors.,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 688P.N.Saseendran V Kalamassery Municipality,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 689Jayakrishna...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 685-702
Udayakumar v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 685
The Corporate Manager v. Beena Hilkushi and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 686
Babumon K.G. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 687
Sreekuttan S. v. Sree Keralavarma College & Ors.,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 688
P.N.Saseendran V Kalamassery Municipality,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 689
Jayakrishna Menon v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
Faizal Abdul Samad v. A.N. Sasidharan & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
Krishnapriya K P V State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
Afsal Hussain v. K.S. Muhammed Ismail & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
S. Sadananda Naik v. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
Shihad M.P. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
M. Liju v. Kerala State Election Commission & Anr.,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
XXX v. District Collector & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
Elambilan Nani Amma and Ors. v. Mulavana Antony and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
Lalu Mathew v. Bino Alexander, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
Ushakumari O. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
Ali K @ Ragam Ali v Union of India and connected case, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 701
Gopakumar V.G. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
Case title: Udayakumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 685
The Kerala High Court has said that when a FIR is registered at the directions of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, the High Court may not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quash such FIR unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons.
Justice Sophy Thomas said that in such cases, the accused may raise a challenge if final report is filed charging him/her for a cognizable offence or if he/she is aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Court reasoned that when a is crime registered by the Police on the basis of a complaint forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, it cannot be said that the person arrayed as an accused in the FIR is aggrieved by registering that crime. When a complaint is forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation, the SHO concerned is duty bound to register a crime and to investigate the matter, the Court clarified.
Case Title: The Corporate Manager v. Beena Hilkushi and Ors.,
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 686
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld order of a Single Judge, whereby the transfer order of a teacher working under Corporate Managers was quashed.
The Bench, comprising Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen, observed that as the transfer order was issued in accordance with Rule 10(4) of the Kerala Education Rules ("KER"), the authorities should have ensured that principles of natural justice were followed by initiating enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the teacher to prevent bias.
Case Title: Babumon K.G. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 687
The Kerala High Court has held that in order to vitiate an award passed by a Legal Services Authority, it would have to be established that the Authority had no jurisdiction to pass such an award, and mere procedural violations would not suffice.
A division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen dismissed an intra-court appeal against a single judge's order affirming an order passed at a Lok Adalat organised by the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Kochi, and held:
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 688
Case Title: Sreekuttan S. v. Sree Keralavarma College & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 36659/ 2023
The Kerala High Court set aside the declaration of Students Federation of India (SFI) candidate, Anirudhan K.S., as the Chairman of the College Union of Sree Keralavarma College, Thrissur, in the plea moved by Kerala Students Union (KSU) candidate alleging arbitrariness in the recounting of votes pertaining to the election to the said post and seeking the conduct of a re-election for the same.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice T.R. Ravi observed that the counting and re-counting of votes that were done were not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It thereby ordered the conduct of re-counting of votes to the post of Chairman to be carried out strictly in accordance with the bye-laws, and to declare the result accordingly.
Case title: P.N.Saseendran V Kalamassery Municipality
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 689
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that advance notice has to be served to the Secretary under Section 239(3) of the Municipality Act in the half-year claiming remission for the succeeding half-year, otherwise, no remission of property tax could be granted.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that advance notice was mandatory for claiming remission of property tax and held thus: “In the present case, it is evident that after 2020-21, no valid notice has been delivered as is required under sub- section (3) of Section 239 of the Kerala Municipality Act. In the absence of the notice, there arises no occasion for the Municipality to grant remission of the property tax as claimed by the petitioner. Delivery of notice by the owner in advance to claim remission in the succeeding half-year of the financial year is sine qua non to claim remission.”
Case title: Jayakrishna Menon v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
The Kerala High Court held that when a property is produced before the Trial Court during an inquiry or trial under Section 451 CrPC, the Court can hand over the interim custody of the property to the person possessing a better title. Section 451 CrPC pertains to the power of the criminal court to order for custody and disposal of property pending trials and the provision states that the ‘Court can order as it think fits for the proper custody of the property’.
In setting aside an order of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally which dismissed the petitioner's plea for interim custody of the elephant, a single bench of Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed: “It is clear that the point to be decided at the stage of Section 451 Cr.P.C. is who is the best-suited person for possession of the property pending trial. If there are rival claimants, who has got the better title can be decided by the Court at the stage of Section 451 Cr.P.C. subject to the final decision to be taken under Section 452 Cr.P.C. upon the conclusion of the trial."
Case Title: Faizal Abdul Samad v. A.N. Sasidharan & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that Courts are required to pass a speaking order while fixing the quantum of interim compensation under the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act').
Perusing Section 143A(2) which states that interim compensation, varying from 1% of the cheque amount, up to 20% of the cheque amount could be ordered by the Court while trying a case for dishonour of cheque, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, noted that the Court would be duty-bound to state the reasons while fixing the quantum.
Case title: Krishnapriya K P V State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
The Kerala High Court held that when a detenu under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short “KAAPA Act”) absconds, the Magistrate Court shall treat the detention order issued against him as a warrant and initiate steps for compelling his immediate presence before the Court.
In allowing the release of the detenu in the present case, a division bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that in such cases, the Magistrate shall immediately initiate proceedings of proclamation and attachment of the detenu’s property as per the provisions of CrPC and KAAPA Act to secure his presence before Court.
Case Title: Afsal Hussain v. K.S. Muhammed Ismail & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
The Kerala High Court held that the directors of a company are not liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 138 ('Dishonour of Cheque') of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act') when the company itself is not found to have committed the offence.
In setting aside an order of the trial court and acquitting the petitioner, a single bench of Justice Sophy Thomas observed "The liability of persons referred to in Section 141 of the N.I. Act ('Offences by Companies') is co-extensive with that of the company, firm or association of individuals, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. When it is found that the company has not committed the offence, and it is acquitted, its directors are not liable to be convicted, for the offence for which the company has been acquitted."
Case Title: S. Sadananda Naik v. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
The Kerala High Court has set aside a government order ("GO") issued by Kerala State Government, prescribing uniform period of validity of Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificate for all categories of vehicles, irrespective of whether they had been manufactured under BS-IV (Bharat Stage Emission Standards-IV) or BS-VI (Bharat Stage Emission Standards-VI) norms.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the impugned order/notification prescribed 6 months' validity for PUC Certificate in all categories of vehicles, which was violative of Rule 115(7) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 ("1989 Rules").
Case Title: Shihad M.P. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
The Kerala High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the restaurateur of 'Le Hayath Restaurant', who was alleged to have caused the death of a customer through adulterated and non-consumable 'shawarma'.
Taking note of the serious nature of the prosecution allegations, as well as the violation of the mandatory guidelines issued to the hotels, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. was of the considered view that proper investigation ought to be conducted in the matter.
Case Title: M. Liju v. Kerala State Election Commission & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
The Kerala High Court laid down that a member elected under the name of one party who subsequently supports the opposite party would be disqualified for voluntarily giving up membership under Section 3(1)(a) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (' 1999 Act').
In upholding the disqualification of the 2nd respondent under the 1999 Act, for "voluntary giving up membership" of the party under which he was elected, by 'supporting the opposite party' in a no-confidence motion raised against his own party member, a single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed: "If the conduct of a particular member indicates that he had, after being elected under the banner of one party, supported the opposite party, the same is sufficient to attract the disqualification of voluntarily giving up membership."
Case Title: XXX v. District Collector & Ors., RFA NO. 9 OF 2003-A
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
The Kerala High Court refused compensation claim of a 39-year-old woman, who alleged that she conceived and gave birth to a fifth child despite having undergone Post Partum Sterilization (PPS) surgery due to the negligence of the doctor who performed the same.
After referring to several precedents and medical opinions which affirmed the possibility of a pregnancy even after PPS surgery in certain exceptional cases, Justice CS Sudha noted that the appellant/plaintiff had conceived and delivered her fifth child nearly 5 years after the PPS surgery.
Case Title: Elambilan Nani Amma and Ors. v. Mulavana Antony and Ors., RSA NO. 420/2007
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
The Kerala High Court dismissed a regular second appeal finding that decisions of survey authorities under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules will not affect the right and title of the property which was acquired by a party under a valid title deed.
Justice K. Babu held that title over property can be claimed primarily based on a valid title deed and not with reference to survey demarcation carried by survey authorities. The court further held that the survey result was conclusive proof for the determination of boundaries in a boundary dispute and not for the determination of title or possession of land.
Case Title: Lalu Mathew v. Bino Alexander
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
The Kerala High Court laid down that the first proviso to Section 11(3) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('Act, 1965') does not apply to situations where the landlord obtains vacant possession of a building after the institution of the eviction petition.
The first proviso to Section 11(3) restricts the power of the Rent Control Court in issuing an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if the landlord has another building of his own in possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so, and not in a manner conferring benefit on the tenant.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John reasoned that, "...a landlord who establishes the bona fides of the need for occupation of a tenanted premises and who does not have another building in his possession as on the date of institution of the eviction petition and obtains an order of eviction on that basis, the fate of the order of eviction would depend on the question whether he obtains possession of any other building till the order has become final. In other words, if the tenant in the proceedings is able to prolong the proceedings by hook or crook, the landlord would be deprived of the benefit of the order of eviction".
Case Title: Ushakumari O. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
The Kerala High Court directed the State Chief Secretary to take necessary steps to ensure time-bound and immediate investigation in medical negligence cases, in consultation with the State Police Chief and the Director of Health Service.
"In medical negligence case, both sides want immediate action. Sometime, unnecessary complaints will be there against the doctors alleging medical negligence, and if the investigation is delayed, the doctors may have to face unnecessary humiliation. Similarly, the victims also want early decisions in medical negligence case. Therefore, a time bound investigation is necessary in these types of cases," the Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed.
Case title: Ali K @ Ragam Ali v Union of India and connected case
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 701
The Kerala High Court has held that under Section 6 (5) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, the central government has the power to direct the National Investigation Agency to investigate not just pending cases, but also offences where no case was registered.
In dismissing the pleas of the accused, a division bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John also observed that a High Court had the administrative power to transfer cases from one Court to another, akin to how the matter had travelled from the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad to the Special Court Ernakulam, in this case.
Case Title: Gopakumar V.G. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
The Kerala High Court laid down that Section 91 CrPC, which provides for the issuance of summons to produce document or other thing for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding, is enabling in nature and the power under it would have to be judged commensurate with the stage or point of time it is exercised.
"The powers conferred under Section 91 are enabling in nature aimed at arming the court or any officer-in-charge of a police station concerned to enforce and ensure the production of any document or other things necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code by issuing summons or a written order to those in possession of such materials," Justice K Babu observed.
Other Significant Developments
Case number: WP(C) 28153/2023
The Kerala High Court passed an interim order directing the Registry to remove name and details of a lady published on the court’s website in connection with a matrimonial appeal, as it affected her reputation and dignity.
Justice Devan Ramachandran directed:“Since the issue is delicate and affecting the reputation and dignity of the petitioner, I direct R5 to take steps to anonymise the judgment with respect to her name and address and upload it as per the usual terms. Action in this regard shall be intimated to this Court in due course.”
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Adv. Sojan Pavanios
Case Number: Con. Cas. (Crl.) 6/ 2023
The Kerala High Court issued notice in suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated by it against twenty-nine lawyers who protested and allegedly hurled abusive language against a female Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), in Kottayam, last week.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish found that a prima facie case had been made out against the lawyers, as was evidenced from the video clippings of the protests and from the court hall of the CJM which were viewed by the Court.
Case title: Shiju Joy A. v Nisha and connected matter
Case number: OP(FC) Nos.352/2020, 89/2021 and connected cases
In a significant order, the Kerala High Court has directed the state government and police to provide adequate police protection in all court premises and to the officers of the district judiciary.
The Court observed that there was an increase in sporadic untoward incidents in the Courts of the district judiciary and it cannot wait for untoward incidents to happen for providing security arrangements in Courts. Thus, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice C.S. Dias suo moto impleaded Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Home Department) and State Police Chief as 5th and 6th respondents and directed thus:
“In the result, we direct the additional respondents 5 and 6 to immediately provide adequate police protection in all the court premises in the State of Kerala and to the officers of the District Judiciary as stated in Annexure A report. The Registrar (District Judiciary) and the Chief Security Officer of this Court shall coordinate with respondents 5 and 6 and work out the modalities to implement the order. A compliance report shall be placed on record before the next posting date.”
Case Title: Beena P.R. @ Beena Sasidharan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 39668 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court categorically laid down that the State Government cannot direct Municipalities to expend its own funds for the conduct of 'Nava Kerala Sadas'.
The Chairperson of Paravur Municipality had approached the Court with the present plea, challenging the Order issued by State Government stating that the Local Self Government Department shall issue permissive sanction to the local authorities to incur expenditure for Nava Kerala Sadas programme. Municipal Secretaries were also granted permission to expend amounts for the organization and promotion of the programme, as per the specified limits, vide an order issued by the Additional Chief Secretary on behalf of the Governor.
Perusing the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Constitution (74th) Amendment Act, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas discerned that no provision in the said statutes conferred power on the State Government to direct the local authority to expend its own funds for the Government.
Case Title: Daya Gayathri & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 40030 of 2023
The Kerala High Court expressed strong criticism of a cyber attack launched on persons belonging to the LGBTQ+ community. The Court was seized of a plea by certain persons belonging to the community seeking action against a registered society, named 'Youth Enrichment Society' for circulating fake news, unscientific data, and spewing hatred and derogatory remarks against the transgender community and sexual minorities through their social media platforms. The petitioners were aggrieved by the 'cyber lynching' carried out against them by the 'Society,' and submitted that such hateful remarks was likely to mislead the general public to instigate offences against the LGBTQ+ community, akin to mob lynching.
Emphasizing that every citizen had the right to live which could not be 'attenuated or suppressed by persons having propagandist ideas or deleterious philosophies', the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed: "Cyber space is no longer a myth, it is a reality. It is one where reputations of persons are easily attacked and deracinated and the perpetrators believe that they can do so being without any accountability. This has to necessarily change because, in a civilized world, the Authorities are to acknowledge the issues involved and to take necessary repertory action because, otherwise, it is possible that certain sections would certainly be subjected to great prejudice".
Case Title: Rajeev Chandrasekhar v State of Kerala
Case number: Crl MC 10206/2023, Crl MC 10216/2023
The Kerala High Court ordered no coercive action shall be taken against Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar for allegedly making provocative remarks and causing religious disharmony in the State after the Kalamaserry bomb blasts.
Justice C.S. Dias (Special Judge for MP/MLA) issued an interim order directing that no coercive steps shall be taken against the Minister till December 14, 2023.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Adv. Sojan Pavanios
Case Number: Con. Cas. (Crl.) 6/ 2023
The Kerala High Court has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against twenty-nine lawyers who had protested and allegedly hurled abusive language against a female Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), in Kottayam. The advocates of the Kottayam Bar Association had abstained from attending court proceedings last week to protest against the initiation of criminal proceedings against Advocate Nawab M.P.
Today when the matter was taken up by a division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish, the Court directed the registry to hand over a copy of the concerned documents to the Advocates.
Case Title: S. Sreesanth v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 10582/ 2023
The Kerala High Court passed an order granting interim protection from arrest to cricketer S. Sreesanth in a cheating case. A single bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. passed the interim order upon being told by the public prosecutor that the matter had been mutually settled between the parties. The Bench subsequently posted the case to a later date in order to implead the de facto complainant in the matter, as well.
“The petitioner is directed to implead the defacing complainant as the public prosecutor submitted that the matter is settled. File an application at the earliest. Post on December 8, 2023. Interim order granted," the Court said.
Case Title: V. Rajendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case number: W.P. (C) 27660/2023
Several senior citizens holding savings bank accounts and enrolled under various fixed deposit/other schemes in the Kandala Service Co-Operative Bank have approached the Kerala High Court seeking disbursal of monetary benefits due to them.
Notably, the Bank is under scrutiny for alleged irregularities pertaining to several. crores of rupees and was raided by the Enforcement Directorate earlier this month. In an interlocutory application filed by one of the petitioners seeking disbursal of the monetary benefits on the ground of his wife's medical emergency, Justice N. Nagaresh directed last week that the Bank include the petitioner's fixed deposit amount of Rs.10 lacs in the priority payment list in terms of the priority fixed by the Registrar.
Case number: WP (C) No. 39389/2023
The Kerala High Court on considered a plea moved by petitioners who were arrayed as first and second accused in a criminal case which was later settled amicably between the parties. The petitioners stated that the FIR was quashed vide a judgment of the Court in the year 2012. They allege that the judgment of the Court with their names were available on the High Court website as well as on websites like Indian Kanoon violating their right to privacy and right to live with dignity.
Justice Devan Ramachandran issued notice and sought response from the High Court administration, Indian Kanoon and Google India.
Case Title: Dr. M.K. Mukundan v. Union of India & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court by a Scientist retired from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), seeking equitable representation of backward classes such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Latin Catholics, etc. in the appointment of High Court Judges in the State.
Dr. M.K. Mukundan, who himself belongs to a backward community alleged that the principles of Social Justice as envisaged in Articles 38, 46, and 335 of the Constitution were not being adhered to in the appointment of Judges to the High Court of Kerala.
Case Title: Jasar K.P. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 39105 OF 2023
The residents of Athavanad Grama Panchayat, Malappuram, have approached the Kerala High Court against alleged illegal construction of a telecommunication tower in the environmentally high hazard hilly terrain area, Nellithada Kunnu, without permission from the Secretary of the Panchayat. The petitioners alleged that the construction of the telecommunication tower in the environmentally hazardous area had commenced without any permission being obtained from the Panchayat.
Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas sought response of the respondent State authorities.
They averred that when they approached the local authorities with representations stating the possible dangers that could befall the lives of the residents of the area due to such construction, the Panchayat informed them that as per the Kerala Building Amendment Rules, 2023 ('Rules, 2023'), it was only required to be informed about the construction of a telecommunication tower, and that no building permit was necessary for the same.
Case title: Abdulla. H. Naushad V The State Of Kerala Transport Department
Case number: WP(C) NO. 39289 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court passed an interim order directing that all India tourist vehicles cannot be permitted to operate as stage carriers. The Court also directed that authorities can take appropriate actions against tourist buses with all India tourist permits that operate as stage carriages.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also directed the petitioners who were tourist bus operators to pay fifty per cent of the fine amount imposed by the penalty challans for using their tourist bus in violation of the all India tourist permit conditions.
Case Title: Jins Francis v. State of Kerala, BAIL APPL. NO. 10695/2023
The Kerala High Court granted interim protection from arrest to a 37-year-old man accused of assaulting a female doctor and staff nurses who examined and treated him at the hospital.
Justice Gopinath P ordered that the petitioner-accused shall not be arrested for a period of 10 days.
The petitioner, who is reported to have inappropriately touched and assaulted doctor and staff nurses of St. James Hospital, is accused of the offence under Section 4 of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012.
Case title: High Security Registration Plate (HSRP) Manufacturers Association of India v Union of India & Connected Cases
Case number: WP(C) 29866/2023 & Connected cases
The Kerala High Court directed the Central Government and state government to file affidavits in a petition filed by High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) Manufacturers challenging the Centre's notification mandating approval from Original vehicle manufacturers (OEM) for affixing high security number plates in vehicles registered before April 1, 2019 in Kerala.
The petitioners challenge the advisory letter issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on 09.06.2023 to all States/Union Territories mandating that only HSRP manufacturers approved by the State Government or vehicle manufacturers should be allowed to affix number plates. The petitioner also challenged an order issued by the Kerala Government Transport Commissioner, pursuant to the Union's advisory, warning punitive action HSRP manufacturers having no approval from vehicle manufacturers. The petitioners allege that the advisory letter was issued by the Union Government to help a few influential HSRP manufacturers and to exclude other HSRP manufacturers who are not vendors of OEM (Vehicle Manufacturers).
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, who heard the matter, expressed a prima facie view that the Union advisory intended that the dealers of the HSRP manufacturers should have the State's approval and that State approval is not envisaged for the manufacturing facility.