The high court affirmed closure of trial and acquittal of the accused on grounds that the trial could not continue indefinitely. Directing revival of trial, the Supreme Court held that for enforcing ?right to speedy trial? the accused must prove actual prejudice caused by such delay. Courts cannot prescribe a period of limitation beyond which trial must be closed. Further delay caused by congestion in the court calendar, unavailability of judges and delay caused by the accused himself must be ignored, effecting the right to speedy trial (State of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen).

A writ petition was filed in public interest to restore stoppage of a train travelling between Mangalore and Chennai at Neeleshwar as such non-stoppage inconvenienced the public. Dismissing the petition, the Kerala High Court held that in respect of decisions taken by authorities, the presumption is that the decision is correct. In absence of materials to prove the contrary, the court cannot interfere at the threshold. For seeking mandamus there must be a legal right upon which a corresponding legal duty can be inferred. The train being a useful means of communication, the court held that the decision does not preclude the petitioners from approaching the railway authorities if any hardship is caused to the passengers (Razak vs Union of India).

During pendency of an eviction petition, the landlord died. The tenants contended that the bona fide requirement (for a provisions store) had ceased to exist, as his heirs possessed another tenanted premise now vacated. The widow said the vacated premises were required as residence and the other for setting up a shop. The Kerala High Court held that if proceedings are pending against tenant A and tenant B vacates another premise, it is the landlord who should decide whether he should occupy the vacated premises. The court directed the tenants to vacate the same within a stipulated time (Valsan vs Furtal).

SOLON