04/01/2008 (The Hindu), Kochi - The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused permission for discharging 3,000 tonnes of palm oil, for which the contract for import was signed after the new Central Government notification banning import through the ports in the State was issued.

Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, however, allowed the discharge of palm oil, for which the contract was signed before the issue of the notification through the Bypore port.

The court ordered that palm oil could be discharged on being satisfied by the competent authority that the contract was signed on December 22, 2007. The notification banning import of palm oil through the ports in the State was issued on December 24.

The order came on a writ petition filed by the Kozhikode-based Parrison Foods Private Limited challenging the ban order. The petitioner said that the foreign trade policy allowed the import.

Directive to Sidco
A Division Bench comprising Justice P.R. Raman and V.K. Mohanan on Friday directed Sidco to file a statement showing the number of containers it could supply to the Travancore Devaswom Board for packing ‘aravana’.

The Bench issued the directive on a report filed by the Ombudsman for the Travancore and Cochin devaswom boards. According to the report of the Ombudsman, Sidco failed to supply 60,000 containers a day as promised before the High Court.

Order produced
The State government on Friday produced the January 3 order enhancing the pay and allowances of government doctors before the court. It was produced before a Bench comprising Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice K.M. Joseph when the pending public interest writ petition filed by Dr. Ganapathy challenging the doctors’ strike came up. The strike was withdrawn later.

GO upheld
Justice V. Giri upheld a Government Ordinance reducing the retirement age of High Court employees from 58 to 55. Dismissing a batch of petitions by some employees, the judge said that the order was constitutionally valid. The court also held that the retrospective effect given to provisions of the ordinance from January 1, 2007, could not be considered invalid.