Judicial Vision August 2021

August 2021 Judicial Vision Issue # 8
At a glance…
Sl
No
Court Parties Journal Provision of
law
Dictum
16 High Court Aravindan v.
Udayakumar
2021(4) KLT
76
Easements
Act-Sec. 52
the final report. The rest is for the Court to do. Nowhere
is it said that the cognizance has to be taken forthwith.
Hence the fact that the court remanded the accused
without assigning a number to the case, will not revive
the right to seek statutory bail. Once the final report is
filed, the indefeasible right to seek statutory bail
without going into the merits of the case comes to an
end. Thereafter, the accused is entitled to seek bail on
merits. (Para 5)
Merely because other modes of eviction are available to
the plaintiff, the remedy by way of mandatory injunction
cannot be denied. The owner of immovable property on
termination of the license is entitled to maintain a suit
for mandatory injunction against the licensee to vacate
the property. In Rajappan v. Veeraraghava Iyer (1969 KLT
811), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that when
the owner of immovable property terminates a licence,
he can sue for mandatory injunction directing the
licensee to vacate the property without praying for
possession since the licensee's possession cannot in the
eye of law exclude the owner's possession. (Para 15)
17 High Court T.O. Sooraj v. State
of Kerala
WP(C) NO.
12672 OF
2021 dated
23.07.2021
PC Act-Sec.
17A
A close scrutiny of the provisions contained in Section
17A of the Act would reveal the following: (1) The bar
under Section 17A of the Act operates against a police
officer (2) It prohibits a police officer from conducting
any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence
alleged to have been committed by a public servant
under the Act without the previous approval of the
prescribed authority (3) The bar under the provision
operates or applies only when the offence allegedly
committed by a public servant under the Act relates to
any recommendation made or decision taken by such
public servant in discharge of his official functions or
duties (4) The authority competent to grant previous
approval for enquiry or inquiry or investigation is the
Central Government in the case of a person employed
in connection with the affairs of the Union (5) The
authority competent to grant previous approval for
enquiry or inquiry or investigation is the State
Government in the case of a person employed in
connection with the affairs of the State (6) The authority
competent to grant previous approval for enquiry or
inquiry or investigation in the case of any other person
is the authority competent to remove the public servant
from his office (7) The provision also applies in case of
a retired public servant. The previous approval
envisaged under Section 17A of the Act is necessary
even if the public servant has retired from service (8)
Section 17A of the Act does not apply to cases involving
arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting
or attempting to accept any undue advantage for
himself or for any other person (9) The time which shall
be taken by the authority concerned to convey its
decision on granting of approval is three months (10)
The authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
extend the above time by a further period of one month.
(Para 11)
18 High Court P.K. Gopi v.
Gopinathan
RSA No.463
OF 2021
CPC- Sec.
151, O.2.R.2
Sub-rule (1) to Rule 2 of Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C.
deals with the frame of the suit and enables the plaintiff
to abandon or relinquish a part of his claim before filing
his plaint. The provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 indicate that
Page Page | 10 | 10
Go to: In this Issue