A. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 17, 18 -- SARFAESI proceedings – Challenge to order of DRT – Alternative remedy of appeal -- Writ jurisdiction -- By entertaining the writ petition straightway under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the DRT-I, the High Court has allowed / permitted the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – In view of alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal before the DRAT, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, Rule 8(1)(2) – Possession of secured assets -- Possession Notices were published in two leading newspapers having sufficient circulation in the locality -- Even the Possession Notices were served upon the borrowers also -- Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in holding that there was a breach of Rules 8(1) & (2) of the Rules, 2002 -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 6.2, 8)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, Rule 9(3)(4) -- Auction of secured assets -- Deposit of 25 % of auction price on next day – Deposit of 75% amount on 15^th day from communication by Bank – Permissibility of – High Court observed and held that there was non-compliance of the Rule 9(3) inter alia on the ground that 25% of the amount of sale price and thereafter 75% of the balance sale price was not deposited within the time stipulated under Rule 9 – Held, findings are just contrary to Rules 9(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2002.

-- Purchaser was required to deposit 25% of the amount of the sale price on the same day of sale or not later than the next working day -- Auction was held on 17.02.2017 -- Entire 25% of the sale price came to be deposited by 18.02.2017.

-- By communication / letter dated 08.03.2017, the secured creditor/ Bank directed the auction purchaser to deposit the balance 75% of the bid amount within 15 days and the auction purchaser deposited the balance 75% of the sale price on 23.03.2017, i.e., on the 15th day from the date of communication by the secured creditor/ Bank -- As per Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2002, the balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the Authorized Officer on or before 15th day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period, in any case not exceeding three months -- Therefore, the communication dated 08.03.2017 can be said to be the extended period by the secured creditor/ Bank.

Held, it can be said that the entire sale price was deposited within the time prescribed under Rules 9(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2002 -- Therefore, the High Court has committed an error in holding that there was a breach of Rules 9(3) & (4) of the Rules, 2002 -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 2.3, 6.3, 6.4, 8)

D. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 31(i) -- Agricultural property – Exemption from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act -- Once the secured property is put as a security by way of mortgage etc. meaning thereby the same was not treated as agricultural land, such properties cannot be said to be exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act under Section 31(i) -- No evidence was led at all on behalf of the borrowers that the secured properties in question were actually put to use as agricultural land and/or any agricultural activity was going on -- High Court has committed an error in applying Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act and quashing and setting aside the entire Possession Notice, Auction Notice as well as Sale etc. -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 7.2, 8)

E. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 31(i) -- Agricultural property – Exemption from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – Onus of proof -- When it was the case on behalf of the borrowers that in view of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the properties were agricultural lands, the same were being exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the burden was upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on.

(Para 7.3)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B -- Murder -- Life imprisonment – Suspension of sentence -- Appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court since 2018 -- High Court, however, declined to grant suspension of sentence pending the disposal of the appeal – Petitioner has undergone over twelve years and six months of actual imprisonment – Since the appeal before the High Court is likely to take time for disposal, Supreme Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail, pending the disposal of the appeal.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Protection of life and liberty --  Live-in Relationship -- Protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India -- Petitioners living in a “Live in Relationship” are entitled to the protection of their life and liberty.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- MBBS in Govt. Quota Seat (Backward Class Category) – Vacant seat -- Respondent No.5 surrendered the seat and on account of the same, one seat has fallen vacant -- Petitioner/College has filed representation before respondent No.3/ University, to declare the surrendered seat as vacant, however, till date, despite number of representations, no call has been taken – Submitted that portal is open till 31.12.2022 – Mop up round is also over -- However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3/ University to decide the representations by tomorrow, i.e. 31.12.2022 and take appropriate decision on the same, keeping in view the submissions made by the petitioner.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Run-away Couple -- Inter-caste marriage – Police protection -- Petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of respondents no.4 and 5 and sought protection to their life and liberty -- Petition dispose of with a direction to Senior Superintendent of Police to decide the representation of the petitioners and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(Para 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Run-away Couple -- Police protection to solemnize marriage -- Petitioner No.1 aged more than 20 years -- Petitioner No.2 aged more than 21 years is major – Both want to solemnize marriage against the wishes of respondents no.4 to 6 and sought protection to their life and liberty – Direction issued to Senior Superintendent of Police to decide the representation of the petitioners and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Mutation -- Long pendency of revision/ Stay – Writ jurisdiction -- Rejection of application for additional evidence by Collector in appeal -- Revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner on 08.08.2022 but has not been taken up for consideration till date, next date of hearing is 07.02.2023 – Meanwhile, the Collector is due to pass an order on the appeal on 27.12.2022 – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition on 07.02.2023 alongwith the stay application and till the decision of the stay application the Collector shall not pass the final order.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(b) – Charge of taking bribe -- Contradictory enquiry report – Dismissal of employee -- After the enquiry officer concluded that the charge against the petitioner was not proved, he went on to hold the petitioner guilty – Such a contradiction within the same enquiry report is irreconcilable -- Finding of guilt has been returned only because visuals of the petitioner could be seen in the CD which the enquiry officer himself describes to be doctored or edited as the same was also found to contain visual clips which were absolutely unrelated to the event which was being inquired into – Finding of guilt cannot be sustained -- Since, the impugned orders passed by the SP, the IG and the DGP are based solely on the afore finding of guilt by the enquiry officer, as a necessary corollary, such orders would also be unsustainable and accordingly, they too are set aside.

(Para 2, 21, 22)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Rent laws – Eviction of tenant – Direction for expediting execution – Eviction by Rent Controller on 21.02.2018, appeal was dismissed on 26.07.2022 -- Execution petition on 16.03.2022, respondent-tenant appeared before the executing court and the case was adjourned for filing objections -- However, objections were not filed on the adjourned date nor on the next date -- Case now stands adjourned to 20.01.2023 for filing objections – Direction given to Executing Court to decide the execution application as expeditiously as possible without affording unnecessary adjournments to the respondent-judgment debtor.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 311 – Cancellation of appointment --Graduation degree not produced -- De-recognition of University -- Petitioner failed to submit his graduation degree even though detailed mark-sheets of all three years had been supplied -- On account of not submitting his graduation degree, appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled -- At the time of admission of the petitioner, Karnataka State Open University was recognized by UGC -- Petitioner could not be made to suffer on account of de-recognition of the University in the year 2014 – It cannot be said that the petitioner obtained appointment on fraudulent grounds -- Moreover, the said University has already been recognized by UGC -- Petitioner ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(Para 2, 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Interim restoration of electricity connection -- Suit for possession and mesne profits by respondent no.1/plaintiff – Suit still pending -- Electricity being a basic necessity, is an integral part of right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- As long as the petitioner is in possession of the suit property, he cannot be deprived of electricity -- Electricity connection ordered to be restored subject to payment of requisite charges by the petitioner, if any, till the final decision of the suit -- Petitioner shall continue to pay the electricity charges regularly.

(Para 5-7)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Constable -- In BC Category the last selected candidate scored 26.41 marks whereas the petitioner has 26.50 marks -- Argument of respondent-State that the petitioner had refused to accept offer of appointment at Jalandhar District is not sustainable, as despite a specific direction given by Court to place on record any communication regarding non-acceptance of offer of appointment by the petitioner, no document has been placed on record -- Petitioner is duly entitled for appointment to the post of Constable under BC category in District Jalandhar -- Writ petition allowed -- Respondent-State directed to offer appointment with all consequential benefits.

(Para 5-9)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Promotion with retrospective effect – Fixation of pay – Monetary benefits -- Petitioner given promotion with retrospective effect from the date from which he was actually discharging the duties of HOD independently – Held, once he was given promotion w.e.f. 01.02.2012, it is unjustified on the part of the respondents to deny him the fixation of his pay from the back date -- Writ petition allowed, direction issued to the respondents to refix the pay and allowances of the petitioner w.e.f, 01.02.20212 in terms of the promotion order with all consequential benefits within one month and the monetary benefits be calculated and paid within the next one month.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Demarcation of property -- Application by defendant for appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation of the property -- Plaintiff-respondent is yet to prove his case by leading evidence -- Defendant-petitioner has not even started his evidence and it would be premature to come to a conclusion that there is any dispute or confusion regarding the demarcation of the land -- What in fact the defendant-petitioner is wanting is for the Court to collect evidence for him, which cannot be permitted.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Dismissal of application -- Maintainability of revision -- An order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Departmental proceedings against policeman -- Complainant in FIR turned hostile in view of the threat given by petitioner/policeman – Punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect given – Image of the police department lowered on account of the misconduct and threat in open public -- Punishment imposed upon the police officials does not suffer from any infirmity and neither it seems disproportionate to the misconduct in question -- Other delinquent official has chosen not contest the said punishment, which was imposed upon him – Held, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8-13)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Health worker -- Registration with Council --  Requirement of – Late issuance of registration -- Appellants except one had applied for U.P. Council registration before the date of advertisement i.e., 15.12.2021 -- Therefore, for no fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer – If it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him -- Respondent(s) directed to appoint the appellants to the post of Health Worker (Female) within a period of six weeks, if otherwise, they are found meritorious and fulfilling the other eligibility criteria and the appellants shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of their actual appointments.

(Para 4-6)

Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits – Rotation of quota rule -- Following questions need to be decided by a larger Bench of five Hon’ble Judges:

a. Whether the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra, 2020 (5) SCC 689 can be said to be a binding precedent in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo, 1966 (3) SCR 600 and the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy, 2004 (6) SCC 729?

b. In absence of specific statutory rules to the contrary, when the ‘rotation of quota’ rule is applicable, whether the seniority of direct recruits who were recruited in the recruitment process which commenced in the relevant recruitment year but ended thereafter, can be fixed by following ‘rotation of quota’ by interspacing them with the direct recruits of the same recruitment year who were promoted earlier during the same year?

(Para 35)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(2), 96, Order 7, Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Rejection of plaint – Revision – Appeal -- Plaint ordered to be rejected invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Held, rejection of plaint falls within the definition of decree as provided under Section 2 (2) of CPC and thus, becomes appealable u/s 96 CPC thereof -- Revision petition is not maintainable.

(Para 1-3)

Constitution of India, Article 21 – Bank loan Defaulter -- Right to travel abroad – Look Out Notice (LOC) – Fundamental right to travel abroad guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by seeking issuance of an LOC – Since the right to travel abroad flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a very high threshold is mandated to deny such a right to an Indian citizen -- At the time the LOC was issued against the petitioner, he is not an accused of having committed a cognizable offence in India -- Originating agency can only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases -- Since in the instant case, petitioner is admittedly having ‘permanent residency certificate’ of USA and has business interests in the USA, the petitioner cannot be prevented from travelling abroad -- However in view of declaration of loan account as fraud and declaration of petitioner as a “willful defaulter” and filing of a police complaint, though after filing of the Writ Petition, subject to certain conditions, he can be permitted to travel abroad – Writ Petition allowed, subject to depositing an FDR/TDR for Rs. 10 lakhs with the Registrar General within 2 weeks, the LOC issued against the petitioner set aside -- In the event of petitioner returning to India and producing his passport before the Registrar (General) within the time of 2 months as aforesaid, the FDR/TDR deposited by him shall be returned otherwise it shall be forfeited.

(Para 34-51)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 2(2), 7, 8 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Scheduled Tribe daughter’s right of survivorship -- Whether the appellant/petitioner being the daughter is entitled to the share in the compensation with respect to the land acquired, on survivorship basis under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act? -- As per Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Succession Act will not be applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.

-- If the claim of the appellant on the basis of the survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act is accepted in that case it would tantamount to amend the law. It is for the legislature to amend the law and not the Court.

-- To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.

-- Direction given to Central Government to consider it just and necessary to withdraw the exemptions provided to the Scheduled Tribes and whether to bring a suitable amendment or not – Court shown hope and trust that the Central Government will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision taking into consideration the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 6-7.2)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Covid-19 pandemic – Hostel charges -- Entire course conducted online -- As a necessary corollary, it has to be held that petitioner did not avail the hostel facilities at all – Demand of hostel rent is unreasonable -- Demand raised quashed to the extent of the demand for payment of hostel rent only -- Amenities charges upheld -- Writ petition partly allowed.

(Para 1-6)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Void ab initio appointment – Pensionary benefits -- Once the appointment is held to be illegal and void ab initio the services rendered cannot be considered/counted for the purpose of pension.

(Para 1)

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 30 – Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Election of office bearers – Non-holding of – Writ petition -- Elections of the members of the Managing Committee held on 21.08.2022 but the elections of the office bearers not conducted so far which has to take place within 60 days of the election of the Managing Committee – Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the legal notice within a period of 15 days.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Police protection in run-away marriage -- Concealment of previous marriage – Proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C -- Proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. are to be initiated in exceptional circumstances and considering the impact of commission of offence upon the administration of justice -- Only the directions were issued to the SSP to look into the representation with regard to the threat perception – Held, not a fit case for initiating enquiry for making false pleadings in the writ petition.

(Para 5-10)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 136, 226 – Pharmacy Act, 1948 (8 of 1948), Section 10, 18 -- Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 -- Public Interest Litigation – Fake pharmacist – Registered pharmacist in hospitals -- Serious allegations made against the Bihar State Pharmacy Council and the State of Bihar for not taking any action with respect to fake pharmacist and/or running the Government’s hospitals and/or other hospitals without registered pharmacist and the in-action on the part of the Bihar State Pharmacy Council/State Government has resulted into the affected health of the citizen – Held, State Government and the Bihar State Pharmacy Council cannot be permitted to play with the health and life of the citizen – Under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 as well as the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, it is the duty cast upon the Pharmacy Council and the State Government to see that the hospitals/medical stores, etc., are not run by the fake pharmacist and are run by the registered pharmacist only – Appeal allowed, matter remanded to the High Court to consider the writ petition afresh after calling the detailed report/counter from the State of Bihar and Bihar State Pharmacy Council on: -

(i) how many Governments’ hospitals/hospitals/medical stores/private hospitals are being run either by fake pharmacist or without registered pharmacist;

(ii) whether any action is taken by the State Government on the fact-finding committee report submitted by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council which was reported to be forwarded to the State Government;

(iii) whether there are any fake pharmacists as alleged in the writ petition;

(iv) any action is taken by the State Government or by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council against such fake pharmacist;

(v) whether the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 are being followed in the entire State of Bihar or not.

While considering the writ petition the High Court should bear in mind the public interest and the health of the citizen.

Constitution of India, Article 21, 32 – Writ for fair investigation and transfer of trial -- Murder -- Petitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamental right to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation that criminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner and uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations – Justice is not to be done but the justice is seen to have been done also -- As per the settled position of law, free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution -- If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system -- However, at the same time, looking to the large number of witnesses to be examined during the trial and no hardship is caused to those witnesses, instead of transferring the trial to New Delhi, case transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad -- CBI also directed to complete the further investigation/investigation in the FIR on the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence, at the earliest independently and in an unbiased manner.

(Para 13-15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Right to expeditious trial -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- High Court declined to grant bail on the ground that the quantity seized was a commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 would preclude the grant of bail -- There has been no progress in the trial -- Appellant is in custody for over four years -- A period of five years would be completed in February 2023 -- Having due regard to the right of the appellant to an expeditious trial within the ambit of Article 21, the appellant should be released on bail -- Appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 8-10)

Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (15 of 2022), Section 12(11) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Parole – Non-decisioning of application – Writ petition – State that decision with respect to the grant of parole is to be taken within a period of 7 weeks -- 7 weeks have already elapsed, petition disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to take a final decision on the application within a period of 10 days.

(Para 2-6)

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (19 of 1976), Section 16, 17 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Bonded labour/ Detenue at brick-kiln –  Writ of habeas corpus -- Criminal Writ Petition disposed of with direction to District Magistrate to treat the petition as a complaint under the Act of 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week.

(Para 2-4)

A. Constitution of India, Article 19(1), 21 – Life and liberty – Arrest of accused -- Object of arrest is neither punitive nor preventive -- It has become very common to put criminal law in motion even though dispute involved is purely contractual or civil in nature -- Many times arrest entails deprivation of source of income of entire family besides forever stigma in a closely knit society like ours -- There is neither mechanism to compensate a man who is later on found innocent nor acquittal can return valuable time, energy, status, future of family members especially children which is lost on account of incarceration of bread earner of the family -- Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1) of our Constitution --  Life of every human being is most precious gift of God and everyone has very limited span of life which cannot be spoiled on account of incompetence, personal grudge, vengeance of someone; or brutal, illegal, unethical action of the State machinery.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 365, 302, 328, 201, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 446, 482 -- Constitution of India,  Section 21 – Murder trial -- Jump of bail – Quashing of Non-bailable warrants/ Cancellation of bail bond. Held,

i) The object of cancellation of bond or declaration of anyone as proclaimed offender/person is to secure his presence. The petitioner has come forward to face trial and undertakes to appear before trial court on each and every date, thus, his presence would meet ends of justice;

ii) The Petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of courts as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-;

iii) The Petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the satisfaction of the trial court;

iv) The petitioner is resident of Jagraon and trial is pending at Ludhiana, thus jurisdictional court and police authorities have direct access over the activities of the petitioner.

v) The petitioner was initially granted regular bail by this Hon'ble High Court;

vi) Trial is pending since 2017 and petitioner is ready to face trial, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to prosecution or complainant;

Petition allowed, petitioner directed to appear before Trial Court on 09.12.2022 and furnish fresh bail bond/surety bond to its satisfaction.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41A, 439 – Regular bail -- Binding precedent -- Though, it is always said that the High Court is not a Court to subordinate to the Supreme Court -- However, when the High Court deals with judgments of Supreme Court, which are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is expected that the judgments have to be dealt with due respect -- The learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court in the impugned judgment has observed “27. A parental guidance by the Supreme Court through the judgment in Arnesh Kumar’s case is thus not a sword of Damocles either in respect of police officers or Magistrates who exercise the power of arrest and remand respectively.” – Held, with great respect to the learned Judge, such observation is totally unwarranted – Observations made in the judgment, which are contrary to the observations made in the case of Arnesh Kumar’s case would not be treated as a binding precedent in the State of Telangana.

(Para 4-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 10 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Non-filing of written statement – Defence struck off – Civil Revision -- If the petitioner is not granted one more opportunity to file his written statement, he would suffer irreparable loss which in turn would result in miscarriage of justice – For just and proper adjudication of the case, one last effective opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement granted without issuing noticed to respondents subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1/plaintiff.

(Para 4, 5)

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 27 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Society laws -- Appointment of Chowkidar – Appointment made without advertisement -- Merely because approval has been granted to the appointment by the Assistant Registrar cannot justify an appointment which had been carried without notice to the public at large – By impugned order appointment set aside -- No merit in petition warranting interference – Petition dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226, 309 – Disturbance in seniority – Opportunity of hearing -- Petitioner was initially working as UDC in field cadre and thereafter adjusted in the head office – Impugned order passed after a representation had been received against the change of cadre of the petitioner to head office -- Petitioner had not been issued any notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside -- Respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order after issuance of notice along with furnishing a copy of representation and by affording an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.

(Para 5, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 21, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Order 41 Rule 5 -- Execution of decree for specific performance – First Appeal and Stay application pending since 2019 – Objection to execution dismissed on the ground that there is no stay – Ld. Lower appellate Court directed to decide the application Order XLI Rule 5 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking stay on operation of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, on the next date of hearing -- Till then execution proceedings shall remain stayed.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 62 – Banking default case -- One Time Settlement/ OTS – Extension of time – Writ jurisdiction -- Borrower as a matter of right cannot claim extension of time – By the impugned judgment and order rescheduling the payment under the OTS Scheme and granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Impugned judgment/ order quashed and set aside -- Consequently, the original writ petition filed by the respondent/borrower stands dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 164-A, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Rape case Guidelines -- Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna, (2014) 8 SCC 913 exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution issued interim directions in the form of mandamus to all the Police Stations-in-Charge in the entire country to follow:

“10.1. Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. A copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be handed over to the investigating officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person till charge-sheet/report under Section 173 CrPC is filed.

10.2. The investigating officer shall as far as possible take the victim to the nearest Lady Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate.

10.3. The investigating officer shall record specifically the date and the time at which he learnt about the commission of the offence of rape and the date and time at which he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as aforesaid.

10.4. If there is any delay exceeding 24 hours in taking the victim to the Magistrate, the investigating officer should record the reasons for the same in the case diary and hand over a copy of the same to the Magistrate.

10.5. Medical examination of the victim : Section 164-A CrPC inserted by Act 25 of 2005 in CrPC imposes an obligation on the part of investigating officer to get the victim of the rape immediately medically examined. A copy of the report of such medical examination should be immediately handed over to the Magistrate who records the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.”

Supreme Court gave suggestion to every High Court that the appropriate modifications/amendments be made to the Criminal Practice/Trial Rules incorporating provisions consistent with the directions issued in the decisions in Shivanna’s case (2014) 8 SCC 913.

(Para 1-7)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Title dispute -- Vacation of interim relief – Writ jurisdiction -- No reason recorded, which called for vacation of interim relief by ADC -- Writ petition disposed of with the direction that petition u/s 11 of the PVCL Act filed by the petitioners be finally decided by the ADC within a period of three months -- Till then, status quo with regard to possession maintained.

(Para 3-6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Public appointment – Registration of FIR – Effect of – FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence – Therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment – Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, effective from the date the candidate immediately lower to her in the merit of selection was appointed -- Petitioner shall also be, accordingly, entitled to all service benefits including seniority and pay fixation on notional basis -- However, petitioner will not be entitled to arrears of salary upto the date she actually joins.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Public appointment – Registration of criminal case -- Induction of a term in the appointment letter; to the effect that if a criminal case is registered then the appointment would be denied, would be totally without any legal sanction.

(Para 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Collusive proclamation – Writ jurisdiction -- Merely because one of the applicants was the father of the petitioner collusion cannot be inferred -- Two other candidates had also applied and there is no evidence that either of them was closely related to the petitioner – Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, upset by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Writ allowed, impugned orders set quashed and appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld.

(Para 2-5)

A. Circumstantial evidence -- In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused – A very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt.

(Para 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 – Constitution of India, Article 20(3) – Murder -- Confession before police – Videography of statement by police – Recovery therefrom -- Evidential value – Conviction by Session Court affirmed by High Court – Setting aside of -- Entire case of the prosecution is built upon the confessional/voluntary statements made by the accused persons before the police and the recovery of the alleged weapon of murder recovered at the pointing out of the accused and the recovery of alleged stolen gold material from a jewelry shop, again, on pointing out of the accused – They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them -- Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court – Session Court and High Court taken this evidence of voluntary statements made by the accused and hence admitted it as evidence -- Held, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements -- Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself -- Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence -- Appeals allowed, the order of the Sessions Judge and the High Court set aside, the appellants ordered to be released from jail.

(Para 13, 17)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 -- Compassionate appointment – Concession not a right -- Appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms -- Compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

(Para 6)

B. Compassionate appointment -- Object of -- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment -- Whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis -- Object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

(Para 7)

C. Compassionate appointment to married daughter – Right of – Effect of delay -- Claim rejected on 18.08.2011/ 23.4.2013 – Respondent-daughter cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother -- Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.

(Para 2.1-2.3, 7.1)

A. Compassionate appointment to daughter – Wife already employed -- Widow of the deceased employee was serving in the Kerala State Health Services Department and, therefore, as such was not eligible and/or entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Government employment -- Compassionate appointment – Object of -- Concession not a right -- For all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms -- Compassionate ground is a concession and not a right -- Whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis -- Object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

(Para 8, 9)

C. Compassionate appointment to daughter – Application after 14 years of death – Case rejected after 24 years of death – Held, after a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground -- If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.

(Para 9.1)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition by NGO – Locus standi -- None of participated in the tender process and/or could have participated in the tender process have challenged the tender conditions -- Writ petition before the High Court was not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation -- In that view of the matter, it is not appreciable how respondent No.1/ original writ petitioner being an NGO would have any locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the tender conditions in the respective RFPs -- Respondent No.1 cannot be said to be an” aggrieved party” – Held, High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition, ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of locus standi.

(Para 5)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Challenge to Terms of tender – Writ jurisdiction -- Terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide – Terms of the Invitation to Tender are realm of contract -- Government/ tenderer/ tender making authority must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 9 -- Necessary party -- Necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed by the Court -- if a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Cancellation of Fair Price Dealer – Subsequent allottee – Writ petition -- Necessary party -- Even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation -- Appellant had been selected by the Tehsil Level Selection Committee in its meeting and thereafter, he was appointed as Fair Price Dealer vide order of the Competent Authority, on a regular basis – Held, appellant was a necessary party to the proceedings before the High Court.

(Para 13-15)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Cancellation of Fair Price Dealer – Concealment of facts – High Court allowed the writ -- Respondent No. 9/ writ petitioner was very well aware that during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant was appointed as a Fair Price Dealer -- Respondent No.9 has not only suppressed the fact about the subsequent allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant but has also tried to mislead the High Court that the fair price shop of respondent No.9 was attached to another fair price shop holder -- Impugned order of the High Court quashed and set aside – Order cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent No. 9 and order dismissing the appeal of respondent No.9 affirmed.

(Para 16-22)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail – Parity -- High Court proceeded to grant bail to the respondent No. 2 only for the reason that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail -- Order granting bail to the co-accused met with its strong disapproval by Supreme Court – High Court granted bail to the co-accused while ignoring the relevant considerations and with a mere reference to the mandate of Article 21 -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 12-14, 20)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Regular bail – Custody period – Relevancy of -- Gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest -- Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves, do not make out a case for grant of bail – Respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or improbable – Bail by High Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 15-20)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Arbitrariness violates Article 14, 16 -- State is bound by the fundamental rights of its employees under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India -- Arbitrariness violates the right to equality under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 12)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, Rule 25(2) – Resignation/ appointment after seeking permission -- Resignation from service may entail forfeiture of past service -- However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Rules carves out an exception, clarifies that a resignation with proper permission to take up another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government shall not entail forfeiture of past service -- Respondent was selected through Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), while he was still in service of the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, which is also an entity fully controlled by the State of Rajasthan -- Respondent having retired after working for about 26 years, the Petitioner-State cannot raise the question of proof of prior permission before resignation, more so when the appointment had been made through the RPSC to a Government post -- It is to be deemed that there has been disclosure of past service and the application has been made through proper channel by obtaining the requisite approvals -- It is to be presumed that prior permission had been taken unless the contrary could be established by the State.

(Para 23-26)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay of six years in filing the Writ Petition – Limitation -- Laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Relief being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled – Pension is a lifelong benefit, denial of pension is a continuing wrong -- Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints.

(Para 26-27)

D. Interpretation of pension rules – It is settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee.

(Para 28)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 73 – Comparison of signatures/ thumb impressions – Validity of documents -- Neither the nomenclature of the document, nor the content of a document, nor the legality, validity, authenticity or veracity of the document is required to be gone into, while making consideration of the prayer for comparison of signature/L.T.I. of two documents.

(Para 35)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 73 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Comparison of signatures/ thumb impressions – Defendants did not admit the purported document produced by the petitioners/ plaintiffs -- Basis of denial of such document is oral assertion only without any supportive evidence -- When the court below upon due discharge of discretion vested to the court has allowed comparison of the two documents, due to the failure of defendants to cause production of original deed, such discretion being lawfully exercised, would not suggest for any revisit of such prayer in aid of a recalling application filed by defendants.

(Para 37)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre and Service) Rules, 1975 -- Superannuation of employees – Retiral and terminal benefits -- In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to go into the question of law as raised by the parties, since all the appellants have superannuated -- Appellants give up their claim for arrears and that they restricted their claim only insofar as the terminal benefits and pension as payable to them – Appeals disposed of with a direction to the respondents to calculate terminal benefits on the basis of the orders passed by the learned CAT dated 26th May 2008 and 7th July, 2010 as the learned CAT order dated 26th May 2008 was not challenged by the respondent-Union of India and has, therefore, attained finality -- Pension would be paid to the appellants w.e.f. 1st January 2023 -- Appellants held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the terminal benefits payable to them from the date of their superannuation till the date of actual payment.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004 – Appointment / Promotion as District Judge – Direct recruitment – Jump promotes --  Promotion – Right of -- Issuance of Draft gradation list – Challenge to -- Writ Petition, as filed, ought not to have entertained on draft gradation list calling for objections – No error in the administrative decision taken by the High Court in facilitating the issuance of the impugned communication calling for objection on the premise that eligible officers will have to be fitted against the vacancies for the period from 1.10.2004 to 31.12.2008 -- It is the fair acknowledgment on the part of the High Court to redeem the mistake committed in not promoting the officers at the appropriate time -- One cannot withhold the due promotion of the promotes till the date of recruitment of the direct recruits or appointment of the jump promotes -- High Court and the State Government directed to give effect to the impugned draft gradation list insofar as the appellant alone, within a period of 12 weeks.

(Para 10-13)