Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 13 - October 19, 2025

Stephen V Thomas v Bar Council of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 643

Rajasimhan v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 644

P P Rajan v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 645

Prabhu Prakash and Anr. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 646

Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 647

Kerala Bank and Anr v Jishith Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 648

Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar K.R., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 649

Shoranur Metal Industries LLP and Anr. v. The Metal Industries Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 650

Jaimon Joseph v. KSRTC and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 651

State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Kolusu Babu and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 652

SJR Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 653

Shinoj v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 654

Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 655

P T Babu v Vijaya Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456

XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 657

Judgments/ Orders This Week

Kerala High Court Closes Plea Seeking Conduct Of Enrollment After Bar Council Of Kerala Enrols New Batch Of Advocates

Case Title: Stephen V Thomas v Bar Council of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 643

The Kerala High Court has closed a plea seeking to conduct enrollment of law graduates to the Bar Council of Kerala.

Justice N Nagaresh closed the matter after the counsel for the petitioner told the court that the enrollment for the new batch of advocates had been conducted on 11 and 12th October 2025.

The Court has previously invoked Section 58 of the Advocates Act to protect the interests of law graduates awaiting enrollment and has directed the Bar Council of Kerala to conduct enrollment of advocates.

Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Arundhati Roy's 'Mother Mary Comes To Me'

Case Title: Rajasimhan v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 644

The Kerala High Court on Monday (October 13) dismissed the Public Interest Litigation filed seeking action against author Arundhati Roy's book 'Mother Mary Comes To Me' for having a photo of the author smoking on the cover. The petitioner had sought a stay on the book's sale without a statutory label.

The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji delivered the judgment.

"Authorities Must Prevent Unauthorised Constructions": Kerala High Court Orders Restoration Of Mangrove In Kunhimangalam

Case Title: P P Rajan v State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 645

The Kerala High Court has observed that the state Authorities are under a statutory mandate to ensure unauthorised constructions are prevented in protected zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications.

The observations were made by the division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, while delivering judgment in a public interest litigation filed by an agriculturist from Kannur who alleged large-scale destruction of thick mangroves classified under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) I A and I B in Kunhimangalam Village by two private individuals for commercial real estate development.

Violation Of Mandate U/S 53A & S.38 Abkari Act Gives Benefit Of Doubt To Accused: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Prabhu Prakash and Anr. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 646

The Kerala High Court has recently held that when there is a violation of the mandate under Sections 53A and 38 of the Abkari Act, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court was considering an appeal preferred by two persons, who were convicted of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Act.

Justice Johnson John observed: “As noticed earlier, in this case, there is violation of the mandate of Sections 53A and 38 of the Abkari Act and there is also no satisfactory evidence to establish a fool proof chain of custody to prove that it was the sample taken from the contraband liquor which ultimately reached the hands of the chemical examiner in a fool proof condition and therefore, I find that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.”

Kerala High Court Sets Aside Injunction Against Forcible Possession Of Elephant Obtained By Suppressing Material Facts About Earlier Cases

Case Title: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 647

The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment setting aside an ad-interim injunction granted against the defendants from taking forcible possession of an elephant in the plaintiff's custody after noting that the impugned order was obtained through suppression of material facts regarding earlier litigation.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim further opined that since the plaintiff came before court with unclean hands, he is not entitled to a relief of fresh consideration by the trial court. He also clarified that the trial court has to dispose of the suit untrammeled by the observations in the judgment.

[SARFAESI Act] HC Cannot Interfere In Commercial Matters When Relief Is Available Before DRT: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kerala Bank and Anr v Jishith Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 648

The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that the interference of the High Court in commercial matters under Article 226 was not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S were delivering the judgment in a writ appeal filed by Kerala Bank against a single judge decision which allowed an instalment relief and return of possession of a mortgaged property under SARFAESI Act.

Family Courts Must Evaluate Oral Evidence In Background Of Normal Human Behaviour Without Generalising Or Stereotyping: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar K.R.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 649

The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that family courts must avert evaluation of testimonies in the background of normal human behaviour without generalisation or stereotyping when there is hardly any evidence other than oral evidence.

It further held that Family Courts should also weigh the oral evidence and resort to preponderance of probabilities.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by a wife against the dismissal of her plea for divorce from the respondent husband.

“Descriptive & Generic”: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Injunction Granted Over Use Of 'Metal Industries' Trademark

Case Title: Shoranur Metal Industries LLP and Anr. v. The Metal Industries Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 650

The Kerala High Court has recently set aside an injunction granted to government company Metal Industries Limited against use of trade mark 'Metal Industries' after noting that the words metal and industries are generic and descriptive.

Even though the company was the registered owner and long-term user of the trade mark 'Metal Industries', Justice C. Pratheep Kumar found that there was no ground to grant relief to it under infringement or passing off.

'Colourable Exercise Of Power': Kerala High Court Sets Aside Order Transferring KSRTC Bus Driver Over Bottle Row

Case Title: Jaimon Joseph v. KSRTC and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 651

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 16) set aside the order transferring KSRTC (Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) bus driver Jaimon Joseph, who came to limelight following the 'bottle' row involving State Transport Minister, K.B. Ganesh.

After a detailed hearing, Justice N. Nagaresh observed that Jaimon's transfer from Ponkunnam in Kottayam district to Pudukkad in Thrissur district was punitive in nature since there was no justifiable reason for the same.

No 'Inflexible Rule' Of Holding Test Identification Parade In Every Case To Rely Upon Identification Made By Witness: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Kolusu Babu and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 652

The Kerala High Court has observed that there is no stringent rule which requires holding of a test identification parade (TIP) in every case in order to rely upon an identification made by a witness.

A division bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:

“There is no inflexible rule that, in order to rely upon an identification made by a witness, there must invariably, be a test identification parade. If the accused is already acquainted with the witnesses, identification for the first time in the dock would be sufficient. Likewise, if the witness had sufficient opportunity to see the accused, at the time of the incident, and the court is satisfied about the credibility of such identification, the absence of a test identification parade would not, by itself, render the evidence unreliable”.

Global Ayyappa Sangamam: Kerala High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Conduct Of Event

Case Title: SJR Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 653

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 17) dismissed all petitions related to the conduct of 'Global Ayyappa Sangamam' which was held on September 20 in the premises of Sabarimala Shrine and at the banks of the River Pamba.

The petitions had claimed that the event was a political and commercial one, veiled as one related to devotion, tourism and secular promotion.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar orally noted:

“All these writ petitions were preferred challenging the conduct of the Ayyappa Sangam on the bank of River Pamba. By order dated 11.9.2025, this Court had refused to grant the interim prayer. The matter was taken up before the Apex Court and it refused to interfere. The Sangamam was held on September 20. In that view of the matter, we do not think there is absolutely any reason to retain these petitions on file. These petitions are dismissed."

Electronic Document Must Be Produced In Entirety To Be Admissible Even If Supported By Certificate U/S 65B Evidence Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shinoj v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 654

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that a person relying on an electronic document must produce the same in its entirety even though only parts of it is relied on. It also made it clear that the specific portions of the document can be marked.

Justice Gopinath P. referred to Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act and observed:

“redacted portions of a conversation cannot be admissible in evidence even if they are supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act...It is evident from the provisions referred to above that any information contained in an electronic record printed on paper, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed a document. Consequently, all the provisions applicable to a document shall also apply to an electronic record printed on paper or stored in any other form such as pen drives, discs, magnetic tape and so on. While it may be permissible for a person relying on a document to mark specific portions of it, it is beyond cavil that a document must be produced in its entirety.”

Kerala High Court Dismisses BCI's Review Plea Against Order Limiting Power Of State Bar Council's Ad-Hoc Committee

Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 655

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the Bar Council of India against the order confining the power of the State Bar Council's Ad-Hoc Committee to the completion of the verification process.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V. M., delivered the judgment.

“No case for review is made out. Review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed” the bench orally stated while dismissing the review petition.

Limitation Act | S.14(2) Does Not Apply To Cases Where Court With Jurisdiction Erroneously Declines To Entertain Plea: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P T Babu v Vijaya Bank

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456

The Kerala High Court has held that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not extend to a case where the Court, which possesses jurisdiction, erroneously declines to entertain the proceeding on a mistaken perception or wrong application of legal principles.

For context, Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with the exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.

Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a case arising from a suit for recovery of money passed on January 2, 2002,by the first respondent bank.

Kerala High Court Aids Youth With Substance Abuse Disorder To Secure College Admission, Pay Tuition Fees

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 657

The Kerala High Court recently aided a youngster suffering from substance abuse disorder and other mental illnesses to secure admission in the college of his choice. The Court also ensured that his course fee was paid.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering the plea by the youth's father seeking the Court's direction for ensuring proper medical treatment and protection for his son, a 'Person in Need of Care'.

Other Important Developments This Week

Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges Tribunal Reforms Act, Appointments Of DRT Ernakulam Presiding Officer & DRAT Chennai Chairperson

Case Title: M/s Jis International Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) No. 37508/2025

A petition has been moved before the Kerala High Court challenging the appointments of Retired Justice G. Chandrasekharan as the chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Retired District Judge, Su Williahm, as presiding officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam.

The plea states that the two appointments were not in accordance with the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd., mandating selection of tribunal members to be judicially dominated and overseeing of appointments by an independent National Tribunals Commission (NTC).

Kerala High Court Seeks State's Response On PIL Seeking Regulation Of Pre-Primary Institutions Including Daycare, Anganwadis

Case Title: Mehna Ibrahim v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: WP(PIL) No. 126 of 2025

The Kerala High Court on Monday (October 13) sought the state government's response to a plea seeking directions for framing and implementing comprehensive guidelines for the regulation of pre-primary institutions in the state, including pre-schools, daycare centres, anganwadis, etc.

When the case came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, it gave time to the state government to respond to the plea.

Traffic Improved But Toll Suspension Hurting Maintenance: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Tells Kerala High Court In Paliyekkara Toll Case

Case Title - Shaji J Kodankadath v Union of India and connected cases

Case No - WP(C) 20253/2021 and connected cases

The Kerala High Court has said that it will pass orders on Friday, deciding whether toll collection at Paliyekkara Toll Plaza (Thrissur district) on NH-544 highway should be resumed, in light of the repair works carried out by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI).

The division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon were considering the petitions concerning the traffic congestion in NH544 due to construction works. The bench had previously suspended toll in Paliyekkare Toll Plaza for a period of four weeks which was extended by subsequent orders.

KSRTC 'Bottle' Row: Driver Moves Kerala High Court Challenging 'Arbitrary' Transfer Order

Case Title: Jaimon Joseph v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 37736/2025

Jaimon Joseph, the driver of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) who came to limelight following 'bottle' row, has moved the High Court challenging his transfer from Ponkunnam (Kottayam) to Pudukkad (Thrissur).

The controversy arose on October 1, when the State Transport Minister, K.B. Ganesh, called up the media and stopped the fast passenger bus at Ayoor on its route from Mundakayam to Thiruvananthapuram and found the bus in an unclean condition with empty water bottles piled up inside the cabin.

Kerala High Court Grants Police Protection To School After Mob Intrusion Over Hijab-Uniform Row

Case Title: St. Rita's Public School v Director General of Police Kerala and Others.

Case No: WP(C) 37785/ 2025

The Kerala High Court has granted police protection to St. Rita's Public School, a Christian management school affiliated with CBSE, following alleged threats and mob intrusion for not allowing a Muslim girl student to wear hijab with school uniform.

Justice N Nagaresh passed the interim order.

Haal Movie: Kerala High Court To Hear On Friday Producer's Plea Against CBFC Direction To Cut Scenes With Beef Biriyani, Burqa

Case Title: Juby Thomas and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) No. 37251/2025

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 13) orally told that it was prepared to hear the plea preferred against the grant of A certification given by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to Shane Nigam starrer movie 'Haal'.

The producer and director of the film had preferred the plea challenging the Revising Committee's decision to cut around six scenes in the film, including a beef biriyani eating scene, a sequence in song where heroine uses Muslim religious attire to hide her identity, scenes where the police are stated to be portrayed in "a bad light", etc.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted before Justice V.G. Arun, that there were no scenes in the movie warranting a cut by the CBFC.

Kerala High Court Issues Notice On VHP's Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Sabarimala Gold Loss, Auditing Of Precious Articles In Other Temples

Case Title: Viswa Hindu Parishad, Kerala v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) No. 37585 of 2025 and connected case

The Kerala High Court on Monday (October 13) issued notice on a plea filed by Viswa Hindu Parishad seeking CBI inquiry into Sabarimala gold loss case.

The petitioner organisation has also sought directions to the four devaswom boards (Travancore Devaswom Board, Cochin Devaswom Board, Malabar Devaswom Board and Guruvayur Devaswom Board) to conduct an exhaustive and comprehensive auditing and appraisal of precious articles possessed by the various temples under them.

When the matter came up for consideration, the Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was told by the Malabar Devaswom that it has only a supervisory role over more than 1,008 temples under it and that the trustees are in charge of individual temples.

Centre Notifies Transfer of Justice C S Sudha From Kerala To Delhi High Court

The Centre has notified the transfer of Justice C S Sudha from Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court under the power conferred under Article 222 of Constitution.

Debate For Women's Reservation In Judiciary Undermines Merit Of Judges Like Justice CS Sudha: KHCAA President

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 15) bid farewell to Justice CS Sudha, who is set to assume office at the Delhi High Court following her transfer.

On Tuesday, the Central Government notified the transfer of 11 high court judges including that of Justice Sudha.

'Imminent Danger To Citizens': Kerala High Court Expresses Alarm Over Periyar River Pollution, Slams Centre–State Rift For Delaying Cleanup

Case Title: Periyar Malineekarana Virudha Samithi v State of Kerala and connected Matters

Case No: WP(C) 996/ 2012 and Connected Matters

The Kerala High Court on Thursday expressed concern over the continuing pollution of the Periyar river and the apparent lack of coordination between the Union and State Governments.

The division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M B Snehalatha while considering a batch of petitions concerning the pollution of Periyar river noted that the situation had reached an “imminent danger” to citizens due to the large-scale dumping of hazardous waste in the Kuzhikandam Thodu, a tributary of the Periyar.

'You Can't Shunt Him For Keeping Water Bottles, Shocks Conscience': Kerala High Court On KSRTC Driver's Transfer Over Bottle Row

Case No: WP(C) 37736/2025

Case Title: Jaimon Joseph v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 16) orally observed that the transfer of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) driver Jaimon Joseph, who came to limelight following 'bottle' row, has shocked its conscience.

The controversy relates to transfer of driver, after the State Transport Minister, K.B. Ganesh, stopped the bus on its route and found it to be in an 'unclean condition' with empty water bottles inside.

Justice N. Nagaresh heard the matter in detail with Senior Advocate K.P. Satheesan representing Jaimon and Advocate Deepu Thankan, the standing counsel for KSRTC.

Kerala High Court Asks BCI To Fix Date For General Body Meeting To Decide On Reservation Under Transgender Category In Govt Law Colleges

Case Title: Esai Clara v State of Kerala

Case No: WP(C) 30999/ 2025

Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 16) orally told that the Bar Council needs to fix a meeting date and convey the same to the Court by next Friday (October 24) to decide on creation of additional seats reserved for transgender persons in law colleges.

It was hearing a writ petition seeking reservation under the 'Transgender category' for admissions to integrated Five year LL.B courses in Government Law Colleges.

The oral observation was made by Justice V.G. Arun when it was told that this month's meeting was already over and the meeting to decide on reservation of seats for transgender persons has not yet been conveyed.

NH-544: Kerala High Court Lifts Suspension Of Toll Collection At Paliyekkara

Case Title - Shaji J Kodankadath v Union of India and connected cases

Case No - WP(C) 20253/2021 and connected cases

The Kerala High Court today lifted suspension of toll collection at Paliyekkara Toll Plaza (Thrissur district) on NH-544 highway.

The division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon passed the order on condition that enhanced fee shall not be collected without further orders from the Court.

Kerala High Court Lawyers Express Concern Over Supreme Court Criticizing HC For Directly Entertaining Anticipatory Bail Pleas

Kerala High Court lawyers have expressed concern over Supreme Court's recent observation in Mohammed Rasal. C & Another v. State of Kerala critising the Kerala High Court for directly entertaining anticipatory bail pleas under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 CrPC) which confers concurrent jurisdiction on sessions courts and high court.

'Hurts Christian Sentiments': Catholic Congress Says Opposing Haal Movie, Kerala High Court Decides To Watch Film

Case No: WP(C) No. 37251/2025

Case Title: Juby Thomas and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 17) allowed the petition filed by Catholic Congress to implead itself in the plea preferred by director and producer of Shane Nigam starrer movie 'Haal' against CBFC's grant of A certification to the film. It also orally told that matter would be taken up on October 21 to decide on a date for the judge to view the movie.

Justice V.G. Arun allowed the impleading petition after the petitioners' counsel submitted that there is no objective to the same.

Hijab Row: Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay For Now DDE's Order Permitting Muslim Girl To Wear Headscarf In School, Seeks State's Stand

Case Title: Manager, St Rita's Public School v State of Kerala and Ors

Case No: WP(C) 38698/ 2025

The Kerala High Court has directed the State attorney to get instruction on a directive issued by the Deputy Director of Education (DDE), Ernakulam, asking St. Rita's Public School, a Christian management school affiliated with CBSE, to permit a Muslim girl student to attend classes wearing headscarf.

Justice V G Arun directed the State to get instructions in the matter, while refusing to grant an interim order of stay.

“Status Quo Only Applies To Fees”: Kerala High Court Modifies Interim Order In Plea Challenging 2400% Hike In Bar Election Nomination Fee

Case Title: Adv Rajesh Vijayan v Bar Council of India and Another

Case No: WP(C) 36545/ 2025

The Kerala High Court has modified an interim order directing to maintain status quo in conduct of election in the State Bar Council in the writ filed challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to hike the nomination fee for State Bar Council elections from ₹5,000 to ₹1,25,000, a 2400% increase.

Justice V G Arun, in his order stated, "the status quo to be maintained only with respect to the nomination fee to be remitted by the candidates and is not meant to interdict the conduct of the election."

Kerala High Court Pulls Up Travancore Devaswom Board Over Financial Mismanagement; Orders Immediate Digitisation Of Accounts

Case Title: Joint Director v The Secretary, Travancire Devaswom Board

Case No: DBAR 2/ 2018

The Kerala High Court has ordered immediate digitisation of accounts of Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) while observing that the continued reliance on archaic manual record-keeping and failure to conduct timely audits revealed gross administrative indifference by the board.

The division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar passed the order in a matter which arose based on a report by Ombudsman referring to a complaint filed by retired Deputy Devaswom Board Commissioner, regarding non - payment of pensionary benefits.

Kerala High Court Issues Notice On Plea By Deceased Student's Father Seeking Action Against Classmates Over Alleged Abetment To Suicide

Case No: WA No. 2488/2025 in WP(C) No. 30520/2025

Case Title: Sajeev T. v. Aleena Dileep and Ors.

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 17) admitted the writ appeal filed by the father of Ammu Sajeev, a nursing student, who had committed suicide allegedly due to harassment of her three classmates (respondents 1 to 3).

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. admitted the writ appeal and issued notice to the respondents.