(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Release of seized boats - Prayer for - Petitioner's boats were seized alleging illegal excavation of sand - Continued seizure would deprive petitioner of his livelihood, as boats constituted his source of income, and prolonged retention would result in their deterioration and damage - Pending adjudication of proceedings, interests of justice warranted interim release - Authorities were directed to release the seized boats on petitioner depositing the prescribed amount for each boat, subject to the outcome of the proceedings. (Para 6, 7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ jurisdiction - Scope - Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing authorities to stop discharge of village drainage water into his land and to pay compensation for alleged acquisition of the land - Petitioner had already submitted a representation before the Collector, which was pending consideration - Without adjudicating the merits of the claim, Court directed the competent authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within a reasonable time. (Para 4)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Appointment - Post of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) - Cancellation of candidature - Ground that petitioner had pursued two degrees during same period, which was not allowed as per norms and impermissible - There was no guideline, direction or instruction of UGC which bars candidate from pursuing two courses, one through regular/physical mode and second through distance mode - UGC had issued modified guidelines which clearly stated that student could pursue two academic programmes, one in full time physical mode and another in open/distance learning and same to be treated as valid - Direction was issued upon authority to consider guidelines issued by UGC to take decision on validity of qualification of petitioners for appointment to posts. (Para 21,22,25,26)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 483 - Bail - Prayer for - Allegations that brother of petitioner produced forged death certificate of petitioner so as to avoid his appearance before Court - Veracity of prosecution case shall be adjudicated upon during course of Trial - Bother of petitioner was granted concession of bail - Petitioner was in custody since 14.11.2025, but only 02 of 13 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far - Trial of case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon - Bail was granted subject to conditions. (Para 5)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 151 - Early hearing of writ petition - Prayer for - Applicants submitted that recruitment process for posts of Under Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher had already been initiated by Teachers Recruitment Board and further stages of selection, preparation of merit list, recommendation and appointment were likely to be undertaken shortly - Date was fixed for hearing of matter with further direction that no further accommodation will be allowed. (Para 4)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Promotion - Post of Lower Selection Grade (LSG) - Denial of - Ground of delay and laches - Petitioner sought promotion to said post under Fast Track Promotion (FTP) scheme - During pendency of petition, petitioner stood superannuated - Claim of petitioner that he repeatedly submitted representations from year 2005 to 2010 seeking promotion - Petitioner had not approached Tribunal or any other competent judicial forum for relief during said period - Mere filing of repeated representations and eventual disposal thereof cannot resurrect dead claim or create fresh cause of action - Order dismissing petitioner's claim for promotion was proper. (Para 10,16)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.432 - T. N. Suspension of Sentence Rules (1982), R.25 - Emergency leave without police escort - Permission for - Wife of convict prisoner was suffering from Chronic Kidney disease - Also considering poor financial status and family circumstances of convict prisoner, emergency leave without escort was granted. (Para 6)

(A) M. P. Municipal Corporation Act (23 of 1956), S. 308A - M. P. Municipal (Compounding of offence of Construction of Buildings, Fees and Conditions) Rules (2016), R. 4 - Application for compounding - Pendency of - Respondents submitted that pending compounding application shall be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within seven days by giving proper opportunity to petitioner to make written submissions before taking such decision and decision shall be communicated to petitioner within three days thereafter - Commissioner was directed to decide application for compounding along with other material in accordance with law. (Para 4, 5)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Maintainability - Availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to selection of dealer for Public Distribution System Shop - Petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Cl. 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 - In absence of exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction, petition held, not maintainable - Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail statutory appellate remedy. (Para 3, 4)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 483 - Bail - Prayer for - Admittedly, compromise was arrived at between parties - Application seeking quashing of FIR was filed which was pending adjudication - Accused was in custody since 30.07.2024, but only one out of 20 witnesses were examined - Trial was not likely to be concluded soon - Further incarceration of accused was not required - Moreover two accused persons were already granted bail - Bail was granted subject to conditions. (Para 7)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.187(3), S.193(8) - Default bail - Refusal to grant - Appellant, accused in a CBI investigation involving cyber fraud, criminal conspiracy, corruption, and information technology offences, pleaded that although charge-sheet had been filed within statutory period, copies of charge-sheet and related documents were not supplied to him within prescribed time - Right to default bail arises only when charge-sheet itself is not filed within statutory period of sixty or ninety days - While S.193(8) of the BNSS requires investigating officer to file additional copies of charge-sheet for supply to accused, non-compliance with this procedural requirement does not invalidate a charge-sheet validly filed under S.193(3) nor revive right to default bail - Since charge-sheet had been filed within prescribed period and cognizance had also been taken, right of appellant to default bail stood extinguished - Refusal to grant default bail was proper. (Para 21,23,26,27,28,29)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.432 - Constitution of India, Art.161 - Remission of sentence - Applicability of policy - Convict convicted in 2009 for murder committed in 2007 - 'Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts, 2002' provides that orders thereunder are to be placed before the Governor for orders under Art.161 of the Constitution, whereas 'Premature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2008' specifically provides for orders to be passed by the Chief Minister under S.432 of Cr. P. C. - This clearly demonstrates the constitutional ambit of the former and statutory ambit of the latter - Statutory policy cannot override the exercise of power under Art.161, being distinct, independent and uninfluenced by any other power, more so a statutory one - 1993 Policy and 2002 Policy held identical in source of power, both traceable to Art.161 - Since the 1993 Policy had already been declared, by a three-Judge Bench, to be an exercise of constitutional power, the identical 2002 Policy must also be treated as such - 2008 Policy, being statutory, cannot supersede or override the 2002 Policy - Convict entitled to have his case for remission considered under the 2002 Policy. (Para 9, 12, 13, 15, 16)

Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art. 54 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R. 11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Suit barred by limitation - Appellant/LRs of original owner, pleaded that land was reserved by Govt. for construction of police station, possession was taken in 1988 and alternate land was allotted to them in 2019 - Respondents claimed rights through unregistered agreement to sell and filed suit for specific performance 38 years after agreement - No explanation offered for not seeking execution of sale deed for more than three decades and nothing on record to show that respondents were in possession of property - Non-filing of any substantive civil suit till date to establish rights on property would by no stretch of imagination could become basis for fresh period of limitation or fresh basis for finally filing such suit - Limitation commences when right to sue first accrued - Suit filed beyond period of three was barred by limitation - Plaint was rejected. (Para 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

(A) Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act (7 of 2014), S.37 - Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bye-Laws (Amendment) (2020), Chap.1, Para 2(d) and Chap. 2, Para 4(g) - Essential Service Provider - Definition - Scope - Notification issued in 2020 expanded definition of 'Essential Service Providers' under Para 2(d) to include categories such as Tandoor, Chhole Bhature, Kulche Chhole, Parantha, fruit/vegetable sellers and florists, and permitted vending hours under Para 4(g) to 6 A.M. to 10 P.M. - Said Notification was brought out during peculiar, stressful and unique conditions of national disaster of COVID-19, and had since outlived its object, purpose and utility - Definition, if allowed to continue in its expanded form, would dilute the very concept of 'Essential Service Provider' and permit misuse as a shield against legitimate enforcement action - Notification was accordingly quashed, and it was held that earlier Notification/Bye-Law would govern the field. (Para 7)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 23, R. 3 - Compromise of suit - Compromise furnished to Court recorded that there was no objection on behalf of defendant and statement had come through his counsel whose vakalatnama was filed in 1992 - There was no express authorisation by defendant allowing his counsel to sign compromise on his behalf, nor was there anything on record to demonstrate exigent circumstances which prompted counsel to act without seeking clear approval from defendant - In absence of same, 'voluntary' aspect mandated by O. 23, R. 3 which is essential for compromise decree cannot be established - Therefore, resulting compromise was contrary to law. (Para 5.3, 5.6)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 23, R. 3, S. 151 - Compromise decree - Challenge against - Although compromise was not signed by defendant, his rights in property which was not miniscule were directly affected by compromise - Admittedly there was huge delay in challenging compromise decree - However, if delay had been ground to dismiss miscellaneous case, effect would be to perpetuate something which is not in accordance with law which cannot be permitted - Law of limitation, while undoubtedly important facet of legal system, cannot be used as means to defeat substantive rights - Further, all essential facts which form basis of compromise were itself contested - Moreover, after nearly 22 years of death of original defendant, plaintiffs sought to dispossess his LRs - Setting aside of compromise decree was proper. (Para 6.5, 6.6)

(A) Commercial Courts Act (4 of 2016), S.12A - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.11 - Rejection of Counter-claim - Challenge against - By impugned order, counter-claim was rejected holding that independent compliance with S.12A of Act constituted precondition for institution of counter-claim - Application was filed for rejection of counter-claim on ground of non-compliance with S.12A of Act - Compliance with S.12A was mandatory in case not involving urgent interim relief - Whereas present matter was not mandatory in character, but circumstances in which such mandate could be regarded as having been fulfilled in context of counter-claim arising between parties who had not undergone process of pre-institution mediation - No pre-institution mediation proceedings were undertaken prior to institution of commercial suit, same had been instituted on basis of exception carved out under S.12 A of Act in respect of urgent interim relief - Dispute agitated by way of Counter-claim was never subjected to statutory process - Impugned order was proper. (Para 26,31,33,34)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Recruitment - Joining of new post - Consideration of candidature - Petitioner was regularly appointed as Rifleman Cook, and he was also selected as Warrant Officer - Petitioner did not seek NOC before putting application to post of Warrant Officer - Later, petitioner was subjected to unfortunate series of events where he was discharged from his regularly appointed post, but he could not also join new post to which he had been recruited - In such situation, it was necesary to examine as to whether it was due to petitioner's actions himself that has resulted in situation where he had been left without appointment, or whether authorities can reconsider his case - Matter remanded to authority to consider petitioner's case and review the same. (Para 5, 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 227 - Revision petition - Maintainability - Alternative statutory remedy - Petitioners challenged the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissing their application against an order passed under S.14 of the Securitisation Act and invoked the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction - Where an efficacious statutory appeal under S.18 of the Act is available, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, though it may grant limited interim protection to preserve the petitioners' right to avail the statutory appeal - Revision petition disposed of with liberty to file appeal and temporary interim protection granted. (Para 13, 15)

(A) Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (2005), R.19 (1) (d) - Constitution of India, Art.311, Aty.309 - Disciplinary proceedings - Imposition of punishment - Punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect was imposed on petitioner and further he would not be paid any amount for period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid - Petitioner was unskilled labourer had abused and used objectionable language against Assistant Engineer and threated to kill him - Grievance of petitioner that detailed reply to second show cause notice was not considered by authority - There was no consideration of petitioner's reply to second show cause notice in order of punishment - Order of punishment not having considered reply of petitioner and being absolutely devoid of any reason or ground for passing order was unsustainable - Matter was remanded. (Para 13,15,17)

(A) Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order (2016), Cl. 32(vii) - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), S. 3, S. 5 - Writ petition - Challenging cancellation of PDS licence - Availability of alternative remedy under Cl. 32(vii) of Order of 2016 - When efficacious alternative remedy exists, writ petition is not maintainable - Petitioner directed to file representation within stipulated period. (Para 5, 6)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.14 (3) - Production of documents - Permission for - Plaintiff sought permission to produce birth certificate and school leaving certificate in suit for declaration of title - Plea that photocopies thereof, though handed over to counsel, remained in his brief due to oversight - Documents relevant for adjudication of controversy and their production would not prejudice defendants - Defendants did not specifically dispute plaintiff's plea regarding omission on part of counsel - Party ought not to suffer for lapse of counsel - Order permitting production of documents, held, proper. (Para 10,11,13)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.8, R.9 - Additional written statement - Permission to file - Rejection - Legal representatives of deceased defendants sought leave to file additional written statement incorporating material facts not pleaded earlier - Application filed before commencement of plaintiff's evidence, suit being at initial stage - Plaintiff would have opportunity to rebut additional pleas by filing replication and no prejudice would be caused - Rejection of application, held, improper - Leave to file additional written statement granted. (Para 19,21)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Service benefits - Grant of salary - Claim of petitioner was that he continued to work without receiving any salary for a period of more than 30 years - Petitioner also prayed for posting him as Medical Officer - In absence of any counter affidavit by employer, facts required to decide service dispute were incomplete - Petitioner was directed to file a detailed representation along with all supporting documents before Director-in-Chief of Health Services. (Para 6, 7, 8)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226, Art.309 - Bihar Group ‘D’ (recruitment & service condition) Rules (2010), R.3 - Appointment - Group D/class iv posts - Authorities published advertisement for preparation of panel for appointment on said post, petitioners being eligible applied against same and their names were found in district panel prepared - Further decision was taken by authority that against earlier advertisement, one time measure as entrance examination would be conducted and merit list would be prepared and appointments would be made - Successful candidate whose name appears in select/merit list does not acquire legal right to be appointed - Petitioners were not entitled to appointment. (Para 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Alternate remedy - Selection of P.D.S. dealer - Petitioner sought quashing of selection of private respondent as P.D.S. dealer and a direction to consider his own candidature - Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order provides an efficacious alternative remedy by way of complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner - In absence of exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Art.226, petitioner relegated to avail the statutory remedy - Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Divisional Commissioner. (Para 3,4,6)

(A) Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order (2016), Cl.32 - Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Selection of P.D.S. dealer - Alternate remedy - Petitioner sought cancellation of selection of private respondent and grant of P.D.S. licence in his own favour - Though Cl.32 provides an appeal before the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate, being the head of the Selection Committee, could not effectively examine the challenge to the selection - Petitioner relegated to avail the statutory remedy by filing a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner. (Para 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Grant-in-aid - Claim for - Petitioner was appointed as PET at GHS by school management committee of Govt. school - Department did not object to appointment of petitioner as PET, denial of benefit to petitioner was arbitrary and discriminatory - Similarly situated persons were granted benefit of grant-in-aid -Act of Department if not releasing Grant-In-Aid in favour of petitioner is arbitrary - Directions were issued upon authorities to pay to petitioner Grant-in-aid in accordance with law from date of his appointment. (Para 7,8)

(A) Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order (2016), Cl.32 - Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Alternate remedy - Cancellation of P.D.S. licence - Petitioner challenged appellate order of District Magistrate affirming cancellation of P.D.S. licence - Statutory remedy of revision before Divisional Commissioner is available under Cl.32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 - Petitioner expressed willingness to avail revisional remedy but limitation for filing revision had expired - Writ petition disposed of relegating petitioner to avail revisional remedy - Divisional Commissioner directed to condone delay in filing revision and decide the same on merits within stipulated time. (Para 5)

(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002), S. 13(6), S. 13(7), S. 14 - Auction sale - Rights of auction purchaser - Subsequent proceedings by another secured creditor - Respondent-SBI, taken possession of secured asset under provisions of Act, conducted auction sale and issued registered sale certificate in favour of petitioners, who were put in possession and remained in occupation for more than eight years - By virtue of S.13(6), all rights in secured asset vested in transferees as if transfer had been made by owner thereof - Security interest stood exhausted upon completion of proceedings under Act and transfer of secured asset - Respondent-Saraswat Bank, after remaining inactive for about eleven years from date of taking symbolic possession under S.13(4), could not thereafter invoke S.14 and dispossess petitioners from subject flat - Action of respondent-Saraswat Bank in physically dispossessing petitioners held wholly unsustainable - Petitioners held entitled to restoration of possession. (Para 35,37,38,41,50,51,52,53)

(B) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002), S. 11, S. 13(7) - Competing claims of two secured creditors - Priority of charge - Competing claims are raised by two secured creditors in respect of same secured asset and dispute pertained to recovery of dues and priority of claims - Dispute being one inter se between secured creditors is required to be resolved only by recourse to conciliation or arbitration under S.11 of Act - Secured creditor having completed sale of secured asset under provisions of Act holds sale proceeds in trust in terms of S.13(7) and claim of other secured creditor, if any, lies against such proceeds in accordance with law - Auction purchaser cannot be made to suffer on account of dispute between secured creditors. (Para 39,41,42,43,44)

(C) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002), S. 14, S. 17 - Alternative remedy. - Petitioners, being auction purchasers holding registered sale certificate and having been dispossessed pursuant to action taken by respondent-Saraswat Bank under S.14 after security interest had already been exhausted by earlier proceedings of respondent-SBI, challenged such action in writ jurisdiction - Since respondent-Saraswat Bank could not have proceeded under S.14 after completion of proceedings by respondent-SBI and transfer of secured asset, action complained of was without authority of law - Availability of remedy under S.17 did not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction - Petition held maintainable and respondent-Saraswat Bank directed to restore possession of subject flat to petitioners, leaving inter se rights of two secured creditors to be worked out in accordance with S.11 of Act. (Para 41,42)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Compensation - Victim compensation and welfare measures - Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority reported that final compensation of Rs.3,00,000 had been sanctioned and forwarded for disbursement - Application for sponsorship support under the Mission Vatsalya Scheme (Child Protection Services) in respect of respondent's daughter was approved with effect from 01.07.2026 - Enrolment of respondent under the scheme was under process through the District Child Protection Officer in coordination with the District Medical and Health Officer - Considering that compensation of Rs.3,00,000 had been disbursed, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority was directed to keep the amount in a fixed deposit in the name of respondent till she attained the age of 25 years - Respondent held entitled to receive the quarterly interest accruing on the fixed deposit during the intervening period. (Para 3)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Offences u/Ss. 337,338,506 of Penal Code- Allegations that accused left surgical towel inside abdomen of informant during operation conducted by him - Evidence establishing that after victim underwent treatment at different medical institutions and was subjected to multiple diagnostic examinations over considerable period of time - Nothing to show any contemporaneous medical document unequivocally establishing presence or recovery of surgical towel from her abdomen - Neither chargesheet nor materials accompanying it disclosed any independent medical opinion indicating that accused had acted in manner amounting to gross negligence so as to attract criminal liability under alleged offences - F.I.R. not revealing any specific allegation constituting essential ingredients of criminal intimidation - In absence of material demonstrating gross medical negligence - Continuation of criminal proceeding against accused would not advance cause of justice and would amount to permitting criminal process to be used in matter essentially unsupported by requisite medical evidence - Proceedings liable to be quashed. (Para 25,26,27)