Short Summary
This writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by Mujeeb A.K challenging an order of the 6th respondent (Jofin Lukose). During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the service of the 6th respondent had already been terminated. In light of this submission, the court closed the writ petition while leaving open all contentions of the petitioner.
Detailed Summary
This writ petition (WP(C) No.32136 of 2025) was filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by Mujeeb A.K, aged 49 years, son of Hussain, residing at Beypore, Kozhikode. The petition named six respondents, including the State of Kerala (Department of Fisheries and Ports), the Kerala Maritime Board, the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala Maritime Board, the Centre for Management Development (CMD), the Alapuzha Port Officer, and Jofin Lukose as the 6th respondent. The petitioner was represented by a panel of advocates led by Sri. P.A. Mohammed Shah, while the respondents were represented by Sri. K.P. Sudheer (Standing Counsel for Kerala Maritime Board), Sri. S.K. Premjith Menon, Sri. Ajay N.S (Government Pleader), and others. The matter was heard by the Honourable Mr. Justice Viju Abraham on 18 September 2026. The writ petition was filed challenging the order of the 6th respondent. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service of the 6th respondent had already been terminated. Taking note of this submission, the court disposed of the matter by closing the writ petition, while expressly leaving open all the contentions raised by the petitioner. The judgment was delivered on the same day it was heard. From the exhibits referenced in the petition, it appears that the underlying dispute related to the appointment, qualifications, and conduct of the 6th respondent in connection with vessel surveys conducted under the Kerala Maritime Board, including issues regarding his suspension and subsequent revocation of suspension, as well as complaints raised by the petitioner regarding the 6th respondent's credentials.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in other matters before Kerala High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Mujeeb A.K vs State Of Kerala is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
State Of Himachal Pradesh & AnrvsM/S Ech Ess Builders
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another challenged the judgment dated 09.08.2024 of the District Judge, Kinnaur, which had dismissed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award dated 05.12.2019 in a construction contract dispute with M/s Ech Ess Builders. The High Court held that since the dispute was a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the District Judge was not designated as a commercial court at the time the objections were filed on 17.07.2020, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the District Judge's judgment and directing return of the objections for presentation before the appropriate forum.
Atul Bhaleraav PatilvsState Of Gujarat & Ors.
The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.11191037211559 of 2021 registered at Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, arising from seizure of duplicate Honda two-wheeler accessories bearing counterfeit Honda stickers. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the application, holding that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was disclosed and that the remedies under the Copyright Act operate independently of the Trade Marks Act.
Sanjeet PrakashvsThe State Of Bihar
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjeet Prakash and Abhishek Kumar, directors of Glowline Poly Plast Pvt. Ltd., in connection with Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 246 of 2026 registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The case arose from allegations by Usha Polytubes that the petitioners' company was manufacturing and selling PVC pipes bearing the counterfeit 'Usha Gold' trademark. The Patna High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing that the petitioners be enlarged on bail upon arrest or surrender within eight weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Md. Gyas Alam @ Gyas AlamvsThe State Of Bihar
The petitioner, Md. Gyas Alam, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arising from the alleged manufacture and sale of counterfeit lubricant products at a godown in Nawada. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated merely because he was the brother of co-accused Md. Niyaz, the actual proprietor of the firm from whose premises the counterfeit goods were recovered. The Patna High Court, considering the nature of the accusation and the petitioner's clean antecedent, allowed the anticipatory bail application subject to conditions.
Sh Shashi Bhushan & OrsvsState Of Delhi & Ors
The petitioners (10 in number, led by Mr. Shashi Bhushan) filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 0896/2022 registered at P.S. Sadar Bazar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging stocking and sale of counterfeit products bearing infringing marks. The parties entered into a compromise deed dated 27.07.2026, and the court, applying the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding that the non-compoundable offences were essentially against the rights of the IP proprietor and were of a commercial/civil character.
State of Himachal Pradesh & OrsvsNitin Sonkhla
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the District Judge's dismissal of their Section 34 objections against an arbitral award in favor of contractor Nitin Sonkhla. The dispute arose from a road construction contract that was rescinded after the contractor failed to complete the work within the stipulated time. The High Court set aside the District Judge's judgment on the ground that the District Judge was not designated as a 'commercial court' under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 at the time of filing or adjudicating the objections, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the commercial dispute.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.