Kerala High Court
Changanacherry Bar Association vs High Court Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
WA NO. 813/2025 1
2025:KER:48054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO.813 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.12370 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
CHANGANACHERRY BAR ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.A.SUJATHA BAR
ASSOCIATION BUILDINGS, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686101
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
SMT.ANGEL GYLES LIKE
SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE REGISTRAR (DISTRICT JUDICIARY)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WA NO. 813/2025 2
2025:KER:48054
4 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE BUILDING, COLLECTORATE P.O,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
ADDL. R5 -
5 KANJIRAPPALLY BAR ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, REG NO.BCK/34/81,
COURT COMPLEX, PONKUNNAM PO, KOTTAYAM- 686506, IS
IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R5 AS PER THE ORDER DATED
28/3/25 IN IA NO.1/2025 IN WP(C) NO.12370/2025.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R3
SRI.ANEESH JAMES, R1, R2 & R4
SRI.LIJI J.VADAKKEDOM, R5
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.06.2025, THE COURT ON 03.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 813/2025 3
2025:KER:48054
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the interim order dated
01.04.2025 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.12370 of 2025. Appellant was the petitioner in the said
proceedings.
2. The Writ Petition was filed inter alia seeking to call for and
quash the Official Memorandum bearing No.OM HCKL/3413/2025-
D11-2-HC dated 18.03.2025 issued by the Registrar (District
Judiciary) of this Court, Ext.P6 notification dated 19.03.2025 and
Ext.P7 order dated 19.03.2025 issued by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kottayam whereby it was decided that the jurisdiction of
Karukachal Police Station limits should be shifted from the
jurisdictional purview of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I,
Changanasserry to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II,
Kanjirapally. Along with the Writ Petition, the appellant had sought
an interim relief to stay the implementation of the relevant
2025:KER:48054
notification till the disposal of the Writ Petition. The grievance of the
appellant is that the learned Single Judge had declined the interim
relief. Aggrieved by such denial, this appeal has been preferred.
3. Heard Sri.Jayakumar K., learned Senior Advocate
instructed by Advocate Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, for the appellant
Sri.Aneesh James, Advocate, for R1, R2 and R4, Sri.K.P.Harish,
learned Senior Government Pleader, appeared for R3 and Sri.Liji
J.Vadakkedom, Advocate, appearing for R5.
4. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate that the
impugned notification Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 which has been issued
under the direction and dictation of the High Court is contrary to the
provisions of Section 12(1) of the BNSS, 2023 and that the appellant
association is aggrieved by the redefining of the jurisdiction which
has resulted in divesting the cases under Karukachal Police Station
from the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I,
Changanasserry and vesting it with the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court - II, Kanjirapally. The learned Senior Counsel
submits that the High Court has no authority, power or jurisdiction to
dictate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, to shift the
2025:KER:48054
jurisdiction of Police Stations. It is also contended that the High
Court is only expected to exercise overall control of the exercise of
statutory power and jurisdiction by the Magistrate. The learned
senior counsel also assails the premise on which the learned Single
Judge had declined the interim order by contending that the
wordings in Section 12 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023 which commences with the words "Subject to the
control of the High Court" would not save, Ext.P7 from the vice of
dictation. He thus seeks to set aside the interim order of the learned
Single Judge and prays for a direction to put the implementation of
Ext.P7 on hold.
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Advocate for respondents
1 and 2 vehemently opposed the challenge of the interim order inter
alia on the ground of maintainability.
6. We have heard all parties in detail and have considered
the submissions put forth. At the outset, we note that this Writ
Appeal has been filed from an interim order passed in a pending
Writ Petition. Such appeals from interim orders are seldom
maintainable unless the same have the effect of finally disposing of
2025:KER:48054
the Writ Petition. We note that the learned Single Judge had not
passed any positive directions in the interim order and had declined
the interim relief sought. Thus, on the said count itself, the Writ
Appeal is not maintainable.
7. Further coming to the contentions raised, we note that
Ext.P7 has been issued by the Magistrate, in pursuance of Ext.P11
Official Memorandum issued by this Court whereby this Court had
specifically requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam,
to issue necessary notification regarding vesting of jurisdiction over
Karukachal Police Station with the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court - II, Kanjirapally. There was a specific instruction in Ext.P10 to
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, to issue notification under
Section 12(1) of the BNSS, 2023 transferring the jurisdiction over
Karukachal Police Station from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court
- I, Changanasserry to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II,
Kanjirapally. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, was
also requested per Ext.P10 to transfer all the pending cases from
the limits of Karukachal Police Station to the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court - II, Kanjirapally. Prima facie, we note that the
2025:KER:48054
learned Single Judge had, for interim relief, correctly relied on
Section 12 of the BNSS, 2023, which commences with the words
"Subject to the control of the High Court" and the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Kottayam, who had acted on the relevant official
memorandum as duty-bound, cannot be termed to have acted under
dictation. Nevertheless, we leave the said question open for
consideration in the W.P.(C) pending before the learned Single
Judge and desist from expressing any opinions thereupon.
Given the above, we find no reason to interfere with the
interim order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is
dismissed. All questions are left open.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
