Disposed

M.Jenny Thankam, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2022WP(C)/31327/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their exclusion from the panel of Special Public Prosecutors, alleging the District Collector prepared the list without following Rule 8 of KGLO. The court found the procedure defective as the District Judge deleted names without specific grounds and failed to assess suitability properly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the District Collector to include the petitioners in the list of candidates and permit them to undergo the further selection process.

M.Jenny Thankam, Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 31269 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

MOHAMED SAGHEER K.U., AGED 55 YEARS S/O USMAN, RESIDING AT KALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, CK VALAVU DESAM, P.O., MTHILAKAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR-680685. BY ADVS. K.SHAJ C.IJLAL RESHMA.P. ARUN CHAND VINAYAK G MENON BHARAT VIJAY P. MAJID MUHAMMED K. MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶9

2 THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT (INSPECTION), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶10

3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION, KOMBARA, KOCHI - 682018.

¶11

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680003.

¶12

5 THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680003. BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.T.B.HOOD, SPL.G.P. TO A.G.()

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2022, THE COURT ON 11.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).31327/2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶15

-2-

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶19

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 20TH KARTHIKA,

¶20

1944

¶21

WP(C) NO. 31327 OF 2022

¶22

PETITIONER/S:

¶23

M.JENNY THANKAM, AGED 54 YEARS

¶24

ADVOCATE, VAIMELIATH HOUSE, CANAL ROAD, SM LANE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513.

¶25

BY ADVS.

¶26

P.CHANDRASEKHAR K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF C.RAMAN

¶27

ANAND SANKAR

¶28

RESPONDENT/S:

¶29

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 695001.

¶30

2 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR, G5CQ+3Q6, AYYANTHOLE CIVIL LINE RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA- 680003.

¶31

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, G5CQ+GJ, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA 680003.

¶32

BY ADVS.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶34

-3-

¶35

ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.T.B.HOOD, SPL.G.P. TO A.G.()

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2022, THE COURT ON 11.11.2022, ALONG WITH WPC NO.31327/2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶38

-4-

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2022

¶41

The petitioners are lawyers practicing before

¶42

various courts in Thrissur District. At the instance of the State Government, the District Collector, Thrissur, invited applications for appointment to the post of Special Public

¶43

Prosecutor in Fast Track Special Courts under POCSO Act, 2012 in Thrissur District. The petitioners also submitted their applications and are aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names in the panel of eligible candidates published by the District Collector. The petitioners allege that their names were illegally excluded, as the panel was prepared without following the procedure prescribed under Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 32 of the POCSO Act and Rule 8 of the Kerala Government Law Officers

¶44

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶45

(Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Case Rules, 1978 (“KGLO Rules”)

¶46

Advocates P.Chandrasekhar and K.Shaj

¶47

appearing for the petitioners put forth the following contentions;

¶48

In the absence of any Rules under the POCSO Act prescribing the procedure for appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, a Division Bench of

¶49

this Court in Aju Mathew and others v State of

¶50

Kerala, rep. By its Secretary, Tvm and others

¶51

[2018 (5) KHC 770] had observed that the

¶52

procedure for appointment of Special Public Prosecutors could be in accordance with Section 24(4) of Cr.P.C and the KGLO Rules. In the KGLO Rules, the procedure for appointment of Law

¶53

Officers is prescribed under Rule 8, as per which

¶54

the appointment is to be made by the Government from a panel of eligible Advocates prepared by the District Collector in consultation with the

¶55

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶56

-6-

¶57

concerned District and Sessions Judge. For this purpose, the District Collector has to draw up a list of Advocates who, according to his opinion, are fit to be appointed. Thereafter, the list should be sent to the District and Sessions Judge for consultation. On receipt of the list, the District and Sessions Judge should assess the suitability of the enlisted persons and return the list with his remarks within ten days. Thereupon, the District Collector should prepare the panel of Advocates based on the list forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge. While preparing the panel, the District Collector shall not include the name of any Advocate whose name was disapproved by the District and Sessions Judge on specific grounds. For the purpose of assessing suitability, the character and antecedents of all persons included in the panel should be verified through the Superintendent of

¶58

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶59

-7-

¶60

Police. In complete derogation of the above procedure, from the list of 38 Advocates forwarded by the District Collector to the District and Sessions Judge for consultation, names of 21 Advocates, including the petitioners were deleted and the truncated list returned to the District Collector. Not only does the District Judge have the authority to delete names from the list but the deletion itself was done without assessing the suitability of individual candidates.

¶61

material is available in the records to show as to how the suitability of 38 Advocates was assessed by the District and Sessions Judge. On the other hand, the statement shows that the assessment was done in a very casual manner, without considering any of the relevant aspects, including the character and antecedents of the

¶62

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶63

-8-

¶64

candidates. It is pointed out that the admitted

¶65

case of the respondents is that the police verification report was not made available to the District Judge at the time of assessment of suitability of the candidates. Even otherwise, the District Judge can only make his remarks about the Advocates included in the list sent by the District Collector. It is for the District

¶66

Collector to prepare a panel of suitable candidates based on the remarks of the District Judge. The Division Bench decision in Vindo E.R

¶67

v State of Kerala and others [2016 (4) KHC 737] ,

¶68

had clearly delineated the difference between terms 'list and panel'. The 'list' is only a collection of names by the District Collector, who after consultation with the District Judge, has to decide upon the suitable candidates and prepare the 'panel'. The Division Bench had clearly spelt out the difference between the

¶69

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶70

terms 'list' and 'panel' as it appears under the different clauses of Rule 8 of KGLO. The instant selection and the preparation of panel was conducted without noting this essential difference. This had resulted in the District Judge himself preparing a panel, which, as per Rule 8, is the absolute prerogative of the District Collector.

¶71

It is asserted that the District Judge had decided upon the suitability of candidates without considering the essential aspects like qualification, experience, integrity, reliability, reputation, character and

¶72

antecedents. An assessment of the candidate's suitability based on the above parameters is held to be mandatory by the Division Bench in Aju

¶73

Mathew.

¶74

Adv.T.B.Hood, learned Special Government

¶75

Pleader pointed out the limited scope of judicial

¶76

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶77

-10-

¶78

review over a decision regarding suitability. It is submitted that the District Judge had assessed the suitability of the candidates based on his personal assessment with respect to the candidates who had appeared and argued cases before him and inputs with respect to the other candidates were collected from the respective court centres, where they are practicing. Referring to the decision in M.Manohar Reddy and another v Union of India and others [(2013) 3 SCC

¶79

99] , it is contended that suitability pertains to the realm of opinion, which is not amenable to judicial review. Further, going by Rule 8 of KGLO, the District Collector cannot deviate from the opinion expressed by the District Judge and therefore, the selection proceedings does not warrant interference merely for the reason that, instead of expressing negative opinion about certain candidates, the District Judge had

¶80

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶81

removed their names while returning the list to

¶82

the District Collector. It is submitted that the

¶83

name of the short listed candidates were forwarded to the District Police Chief and after receipt of police report on 21.09.2022, the

¶84

District Collector and District Judge had a face to face consultation on 22.09.2022. During the consultation, the District Judge opined that one more candidate, against whom criminal cases are registered, ought to be eliminated. Accordingly, that candidate's name was also removed from the list and a panel of 16 candidates prepared by the District Collector. Thus, the procedure prescribed in Rule 8 was substantially complied with.

¶85

The short question arising for

¶86

consideration is whether the panel of eligible candidates was prepared in accordance with Rule 8 of the KGLO. For deciding this question, it is

¶87

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶88

-12-

¶89

essential to scrutinise Rule 8 which reads as follows;

¶90

“ 8 Method of appointment of Government Law Officers at District Court, Additional District Court and Sub Court Centres - (1) Government Law Officer at a District Court Centre, Additional District Court Centre or Sub Court Centre shall be appointed by the Government from a panel of names of Advocates furnished by the District Collector concerned.

¶91

Provided that the Government shall try to give adequate representation to members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Communities in the manner of appointment of Government Law Officers.

¶92

*(2) For preparing the panel, the District collector shall follow the following procedure, namely -

¶93

(a) A list of advocates from the roll of advocates of the Bar Court of Kerala having at least seven years of practice in the Bar and who having regard to their qualification, experience, integrity, reliability, reputation and character and antecedents, are, in the opinion of the District Collector, fit to be appointed as a Government Law Officer shall be prepared

¶94

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶95

-13-

¶96

and sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for consultation, the District and Sessions Judge shall return the list with his remarks within ten clear days from the date of receipt of the same by him

¶97

Provided that in preparing the list it shall not be necessary to advert the vacancies or invite applications for the appointment.

¶98

(b) After the expiry of the time limit mentioned in Clause (a) for return of the list from the District and Sessions Judge the District Collector shall prepare the panel of advocates based on the list forwarded by him to the District and Sessions Judge under the said clause.

¶99

(c) In preparing the panel, the District Collector shall not include the name of any Advocate whose name was not included in the list prepared by him under clause (a) or whose name was specifically disapproved by the District and Sessions Judge on specific grounds.

¶100

(d) The character and antecedents of all persons included in the panel shall be got verified through the concerned Superintendent of Police.

¶101

Provided that if members of the

¶102

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶103

-14-

¶104

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Communities are qualified to be appointed as Law Officer, the panel shall contain the name of one member from such community.”

¶105

A careful reading of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 shows that, at the first instance the District Collector should prepare a list of Advocates having at least 7 years practice, who, in the opinion of the District Collector, are fit to be appointed as Government Law Officers. Such opinion should be formed with due regard to the qualification, experience, integrity, reliability, reputation, character and

¶106

antecedents of each Advocate. Although such procedure is not seen followed in this case, inasmuch as the District Collector had prepared and forwarded a list of all applicants, I am not delving into that issue in the absence of any challenge on that ground. Even then, it may be apposite to point out as to how the proper

¶107

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶108

procedure to be followed was dealt with by the

¶109

Division Bench in Aju Mathew;

¶110

“37. A reading of S.24(3) along with R.8 of the KGLO Rules, would persuade us substantially to an opinion that if its provisions are scrupulously followed, it would achieve the objectives declared in the afore judgments in the matter of appointment of persons as Prosecutors to various Courts. This is because, as per a conjoint operation of these provisions, the District Collector of a particular district will have to first collate a list of aspirants, verify the character and antecedents of all such persons through the concerned Superintendent of Police and then forward such list to the District Judge concerned for his/her assessment of professional merit, capacity and competence of each other. The District Judge, in turn, is enjoined to make his assessment of each of the candidates from the touch - stone of qualifications, experience, integrity, reliability, reputation and character of each of such candidates and he has to make his opinion as to the eligibility of such persons to be appointed as a Prosecutor. We are certain in our mind that these provisions, fully, if

¶111

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶112

not, substantially, are in conformity with the declarations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court as afore and a selection made through that process should normally be beyond controversy.”

¶113

As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench, while collating the list of aspirants, the District Collector should take into account the qualification,experience, integrity, reliability, reputation, character and antecedents etc to decide whether the candidate is fit to be appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor. The names of candidates who, the District Collector, finds fit need be forwarded to the District and Sessions Judge. Therefore, at the stage of forwarding the list to the District and Sessions Judge, the role of the District Collector is not merely that of Post Office, viz; forwarding the names of all applicants. In the case at hand, the records do not reveal any such an exercise having been undertaken by the District Judge. Of course,

¶114

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶115

the assessment of suitability is within the realm of opinion, but at the same time, such opinion should be based on intelligible data gathered by the opinion maker. As rightly pointed out by the

¶116

Counsel for the petitioners, the report of

¶117

antecedents and character prepared by the police is an essential data for deciding the suitability of a candidate is to be assessed. Indisputably, no such report was available with the District Judge while assessing the suitability of the candidates. I need not belabor much on the manner in which suitability of candidates ought to be assessed, in view of the erudite exposition contained in paragraphs 62 to 64 of Aju Mathew

¶118

extracted hereunder;

¶119

“62. As is limpid from the afore - extracted Rule, the panel of advocates will have to be prepared by the District Collector in consultation with the District Judge and only those who are found fit to be appointed from the touchstone of

¶120

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶121

-18-

¶122

qualifications, experience, integrity, reliability, reputation, character and antecedents shall be included in the panel. After stipulating so, clause (iii) thereafter provides that the character and antecedents of the candidates in the panel shall be got verified through the concerned Superintendent of Police.

¶123

63. We notice that it is because the prescription of verification of character and antecedents through the Superintendent of Police being included in clause (iii) of R.8(2) that the State now takes the stand that such verification need be done only after the panel is first prepared in consultation with the District Judge, as per clause (ii) of R.8(2). It is in this singular manner that the State attempts to support the appointment of the aforementioned three persons because, according to them, the concerned District Judges found nothing adverse against them.

¶124

64. When we examine these submissions from the touchstone of the purpose of these provisions, it becomes irrefragible that when the District Judge is consulted, he must be made available with all inputs with respect to the character and antecedents of the persons included in the list by the

¶125

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶126

-19-

¶127

District Collector, since R.8(2)(ii) makes it clear that such consultation must be with respect to the qualifications, experience, integrity, reliability, reputation, character and antecedents. We cannot, therefore, countenance the stand of the State that the inputs regarding the character and antecedents do not require to be placed before the District Judge and that, the verification of such factors are to be done only after the panel of advocates is prepared. If we are to accept this contention, the whole purpose of the process will be lost and to even suggest that while the District Judge is consulted, the inputs regarding the character and antecedents do not require to be given to him would render the entire process otiose.”

¶128

There is also substance in the

¶129

contention that the District Judge could not have deleted the names of the candidates while returning the list to the District Collector. For this, one need only to refer to Rule 8(2)(a), wherein, it is specifically stated that the District Judge shall return the list with his

¶130

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶131

-20-

¶132

remarks. The position becomes further clear from

¶133

a reading of Rule 8(2)(b), as per which it is for the District Collector to prepare the panel of Advocates based on the list forwarded by the District Judge. The distinction between the terms 'list' and 'panel' was analyzed and explained by the Division Bench in Vindo E.R. Being contextually relevant, paragraph 43 of the judgment is extracted hereunder;

¶134

“43. From the above, it is quite obvious

¶135

that there is much difference in the terms 'list' and 'panel'. In the first place, as mentioned already, the 'list' is only a collection of names by the District Collector, who has to satisfy the requirements and on finalising the process in consultation with the District and Session Judge, it becomes a 'panel', where the names of the persons who are specifically disapproved by the District and Sessions Judge are never to be included. The safeguard mentioned in sub-clause (c), that such 'panel' shall not contain the name of anybody who was not there in the 'list' prepared by the District Collector under sub-clause (a) is intended only to see that nobody from

¶136

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶137

-21-

¶138

outside who has not undergone the scrutiny under the magnifying glass used by the District and Sessions Judge does secure a place in the 'panel' to be prepared by the District Collector. This is only to assert the distinct role of the District and Sessions Judge to play in the preparation of 'panel' with reference to the different traits and to ensure that no undesired element does get a chance to be enlisted in the 'panel', to be forwarded to the Government, making it open for the Government to appoint appropriate / competent persons from such 'panel'. The difference between the two terms - 'list' and 'panel' as it appears under the different clauses of the above Rule, the sanctity attached to the same, the circumstances in connection with the preparation of such 'list' and 'panel' were not seen pointed out before the Division Bench while considering Omanakuttan's case and as a natural consequence, the same was not adverted to by the Bench as well.”

¶139

Going by Rule 8(2) (c) of KGLO, the District Collector does not have much leeway while preparing the panel, since he cannot

¶140

include any name disapproved by the District Judge on specific grounds. The words 'specific

¶141

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶142

grounds' assumes relevance, as it indicates that rejection of names can only be for valid reasons. Here, other than stating that the suitability of the candidates was assessed, the District Judge has not stated the specific grounds on which the names of certain candidates including the petitioners was omitted from the list. In this context, it will be probable to refer to the relevant portion of District Judge's letter under which the list of suitable candidates was returned to the District Collector;

¶143

“I have assessed the suitability of candidates who had appeared before me to conduct cases on the basis of my personal assessment. With respect to other candidates I have assessed their suitability on the basis of the relevant inputs of suitability received from respective Court centres where they are practicing”.

¶144

No doubt, as pointed out by the Special

¶145

Government Pleader, there was a subsequent face to face consultation between the District Judge

¶146

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶147

-23-

¶148

and the District Collector and the name of the

¶149

one candidate was removed from the panel at the direction of the District Judge. While such face to face consultation is a welcome procedure, that, by itself, is not sufficient to cure the defect of the District Judge having assessed the suitability without materials and having removed the names of certain candidates from the list, without specifying the grounds on which it was done.

¶150

The above discussion leads me to the

¶151

conclusion that the panel of suitable candidates for appointment as Special Public Prosecutors for Fast Track, POCSO Courts in Thrissur was not prepared in accordance with the procedure prescribed. I refrain from interfering with the selection as a whole, since none of the selected candidates are made parties to the writ petitions.

¶152

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶153

The writ petitions are hence disposed of, directing the District Collector, Thrissur to include the names of the petitioners in the list of candidates for selection to the post of Special Public Prosecutors in the Fast Track POCSO Courts in Thrissur District and to permit

¶154

them to undergo the further selection process.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶159

-25-

¶160

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31327/2022

¶161

PETITION	ER EXH	IBITS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPIES TRUE COPIES OF APPLICATIONS DATED 29-08-2022 OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 29-08-2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT .
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF A TRUE COPY OF THE BIO DATA OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DCTSR 1613/2022-LI DATED 22.08.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NUMBERED KHCAA/1720/2022 ISSUED BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION CERTIFYING THAT THE
		PETITIONER IS A MEMBER OF THE SAID BAR ASSOCIATION AND IS ACTIVELY PRACTISING IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10/10/2022.
Exhibit	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 03/10/2022 ISSUED BY ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE II, NORTH PARVUR CERTIFYING THAT THE PETITIONER IS A MEMBER OF THE PARAVUR BAR ASSOCIATION AND ACTIVELY PRACTISING AT VARIOUS COURTS AT NORTH PARAVUR AND ERNAKULAM SINCE 31/10/1994.

¶162

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶163

-26-

¶164

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31269/2022

¶165

PETITION	ER EXH	IBITS
Exhibit	P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF LAWS DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/02/1995 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENROLLMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 06/02/1994 ISSUED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P3	THE TRUE COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DCTSR 1613/2022-L1 DATED 22/08/2022 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED LEGIBLE COPY.
Exhibit	P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION.

¶166

W.P.(C) No.31269 & 31327 of 2022

¶167

-27-

¶168

The first sentence in the common judgment dated 11.11.2022 in WP(c).31269/2022 and WP(c).31327/2022 “ The petitioners are lawyers practicing before various courts in Thrissur District ” is corrected as “ The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31327 of 2022 is a lawyer practicing before various courts in Kerala and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31269 of 2022 is a lawyer practicing before the courts in Thrissur ” as per the order dated 14.06.2023 in IA.1/2023 in WP(c).31327/2022.

¶169

Sd/JOINT REGISTRAR

M.Jenny Thankam, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jenny Thankam, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.S.Sasikumar Vs Anupama T.V. IAS

Anurag P.A. Vs the Managing Director

Dr. Anju Deepak Unnithan Vs the Travancore and Cochin Medical Council

Zubair.v Vs State of Kerala

Elsy Poulose Vs the District Collector

Mohamed Sagheer K.U., Vs the State of Kerala