Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JOBIN SEBASTIAN
James Mathew, S/o. Late K. Poulose – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, (Forests And Wildlife), Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legality of state government's notification (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments on invalidity of notifications (Para 4) |
| 3. state's defense on notifications (Para 5) |
| 4. requirement of gazette publication for legality (Para 10) |
| 5. strict adherence to statutory procedures (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. conclusion and order (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The above two writ petitions, being in the nature of public interest litigations, were initially posted before the bench of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, who by his order on the administrative side thought it apposite to post these matters before this bench. It is thus that these matters were taken up by us for consideration and disposal on merits.
Brief Facts:
2. The petitioners before us are essentially aggrieved by the action of the respondent State Government in issuing notifications in terms of Section 40 (4) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as the “1972 Act”] that permitted a celebrated film actor from the State to declare two pairs of Ivory Tusks and 13 Ivory artifacts before the Chief Wild Life Warden of the State, and the subsequent action of the State Government in issuing ownership certificat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
