Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 15 To May 21

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 218-224] Mahesh Thampi v. The Deputy Director of Education & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 218Anoop K.A V. Biju Prabhakar 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 219Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 220Dhanya Martin v. State of Kerala & Anr. and other connected cases 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 221Jolly Vaerghese v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 222Jayaraj R. v. Kavya G. Nair 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 223 Sreedevi S. & Ors. v. The Selection Committee, Chennithala, Thripperumthara Grama Panchayat & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 224Judgments/Order This Week [Kerala Education Rules] Aided School Not Bound By Procedure For Dismissal Where Teacher Is Convicted On Criminal Charge: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Mahesh Thampi v. The Deputy Director of Education & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 218The Kerala High Court recently held that a teacher in an aided school governed by the Kerala Education Act (hereinafter, 'the Act') and the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter, 'the KER'), can be dismissed from service on the basis of conviction in a criminal case, without following the procedures prescribed under Rules 65, 74 and 75 of Chapter XIVA KER.The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice Sophy Thomas referred to Rule 77A of KER which stipulates that where a penalty is imposed on a teacher on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the authority taking action under the Rule, may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit. Explaining its scope the bench observed:"...where a penalty is imposed on a teacher on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the authority taking action under the Rule, may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit. In other words, where a penalty is imposed on a teacher on the ground of his conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge, it is not necessary to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 75 and the competent authority is empowered to pass appropriate orders in such cases as it deems fit."Vehicles With Multi-Colour LED, Neon Lights Can't Be Treated As Compliant With MV Act For Grant Of Fitness Certificate: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Anoop K.A V. Biju Prabhakar Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 219The Kerala High Court recently held that vehicles that install additional LED, laser, neon lights or flash lights cannot be granted certificate of fitness as they do not comply with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court observed that installation of such additional lights could 'dazzle' the drivers of approaching vehicles and could pose serious threats to safety of other road users. The Court also held that a fine of Rs.5,000/- per alteration must be imposed on vehicles installing lighting, light-signalling devices and retro-reflectors in violation of AIS-008.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran observed, "...vehicles which are fitted with after-market multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights, flash lights, as seen in the screenshots reproduced hereinbefore, which are being used in a public place, openly flouting the safety standards prescribed in AIS-008, which are capable of dazzling the drivers of the oncoming vehicles, pedestrians and other road users, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety of other road users, have to be dealt with in an appropriate manner, strictly in accordance with the law. In addition to the penal consequences provided in the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore, the owner of the vehicle has to be imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/- per such alteration; i.e, Rs.5,000/- for each after-market multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights, flash lights. Such goods vehicles cannot be treated as vehicles which comply with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness.”S.153 IPC | Expression 'Malignantly' Or 'Wantonly' Giving Provocation With Intent To Cause Riot Indicates Higher Degree Of Malice: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 220The Kerala High Court recently explained the scope and extent of Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which refers to the offence done malignantly or wantonly to give provocation to the extent of causing a riot. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas elucidated that the presence of the two expressions, 'malignantly' or 'wantonly' in the provision indicates that there ought to be a higher degree of malice or evil that is projected or evident in the act alleged.[Special Marriage Act] Registering Authority Cannot Refuse Online Solemnization Of Marriage: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Dhanya Martin v. State of Kerala & Anr. and other connected cases Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 221The Kerala High Court recently held that the registering authority under the...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 15 To May 21

Navya Benny

Tags