Civil Writ - Temple Management – Online Darshan – Hybrid System – Petitioners sought restoration of online booking facility for darshan at Guruvayoor Temple citing hardships to elderly and differently-abled devotees – Managing Committee cited practical difficulties including ritual unpredictability and past conflicts between online and offline devotees – Held: Online mode cannot be ruled out altogether – Court directed introduction of at least two online-only darshan days per week [Paras 3-6, 12-15, 29, 30, 36, 40(F)]

Constitutional Law – Right to Worship – Temple Queue System – Petitioners contended that the absence of regulated queue systems violates the dignity and spiritual purpose of darshan – Court held that the Devaswom Committee is duty-bound under Section 10 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act to ensure proper facilities and order – Mandated scientific study of temple’s carrying capacity and implementation of systematic grouping of devotees with assigned time slots [Paras 4-5, 17, 31-36, 40(A)-(D)]

Administrative Law – Duty of Public Authorities – Crowd Management – In light of repeated complaints, Court held that temple authorities failed to address logistical and civic concerns – Directed formation of a multi-departmental coordination committee and creation of a real-time digital monitoring system for queue progress – Emphasised use of mobile applications and digital displays to inform and guide devotees [Paras 22-28, 37-39, 40(E), (L)]

Welfare of Devotees – Fundamental Religious Rights – Citing scriptures including Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, Court emphasised the sacred obligation to protect interests and dignity of pilgrims – Noted that no devotee should leave with grievance – Directed construction of air-cooled waiting halls, provision of water, shade, restrooms, and priority darshan for senior citizens and other special categories [Paras 18-20, 32, 33, 40(G), (K)]

Devaswom Committee – Compliance and Training – Court underscored the obligation of temple staff to uphold decorum and devotee dignity – Directed regular staff training and monitoring – Mandated report on action plan within two months from receipt of judgment [Paras 14, 32, 40(I)-(J)]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Alteration in Amount – Cheque dishonoured with endorsement “alterations require drawer’s authentication” – Complaint filed alleging legally enforceable debt of ₹14 lakhs – Accused contended that cheque was forged and amount was altered by complainant – Held: Dishonour on account of unauthenticated material alteration can attract Section 138 if alteration is attributable to drawer with intent to prevent honour of cheque – Whether alteration was made by drawer or payee is a pure question of fact to be determined at trial [Paras 9–13, 15].

Material Alteration – Section 87 NI Act – Effect – Alteration in cheque amount constitutes material alteration – Instrument becomes void only against a party who did not consent to alteration – If alteration made by drawer himself or with his consent, drawer cannot take advantage of Section 87 – Determination of consent or authorship of alteration requires evidence [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing at Threshold – Disputed Questions of Fact – Accused sought quashing on plea of forgery and manipulation by complainant – Held: Such defence cannot be examined in proceedings for quashing – Issues relating to genuineness of cheque, extent of liability and responsibility for alteration must be adjudicated during trial [Paras 13–15].

Statutory Notice – Section 138(b) NI Act – Non-response by Drawer – Accused did not reply to statutory demand notice despite being informed of reason for dishonour – Held: Failure to respond strengthens necessity of trial to determine factual controversy regarding alteration [Para 16].

Precedential Guidance – Supreme Court Decisions – Reliance placed on M/s Lakshmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat – Dishonour due to acts or omissions intended to prevent honour of cheque covered under Section 138 – Veera Exports v. T. Kalavathy – Question whether alteration made by drawer or payee is factual and cannot be decided at quashing stage [Paras 10–11, 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Complaint and summoning order under Section 138 NI Act sustained – Petitioner at liberty to raise all defences before Trial Magistrate during trial.

Criminal Law – Murder – Last Seen Theory – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Govind last seen alive with accused Ashok Kumar and his two accomplices (identified later as Gore @ Ujagar Singh and Ramdas) on 9.4.1983 at 8:30 PM – Dead body recovered on 10.4.1983 at 2 PM – Post-mortem confirmed death by strangulation around 11 PM on 9.4.1983 – Held: Narrow time gap between last seen and death established a strong presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused failed to offer any explanation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent with guilt of accused [Paras 62–69].

Evidence – Recovery of Property – Tractor and Trolley – Tractor No. URB-7911 recovered from Tabarak Ali to whom it was sold by Akil Ahmed in presence of accused Ashok Kumar – Trolley recovered from Sonipat – Accused failed to explain how tractor reached Akil Ahmed – Presence of Ashok Kumar at sale established nexus with misappropriation – Recovery of bricks loaded on tractor from house of Ramdas – Though not stolen property, concealment showed intent to erase trail – Held: Recovery further corroborates involvement of accused in post-murder conduct [Paras 58, 59, 61(ix–xii), 61(xiv–xix)].

Identification Evidence – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Defence claimed identification unreliable due to delay and single witness identification – Court held: TIP not substantive evidence but corroborative – Parade conducted with due precautions and delay not fatal in absence of cross-examination of IO or Magistrate – Identification in court by PW-1 and PW-2 supported TIP – Held: Identification of accused Gore and Ramdas legally sustainable [Paras 65–74].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Delay – FIR registered on 15.4.1983 though written complaint given on 12.4.1983 – Court found delay justified due to informant’s genuine search for son and subsequent identification of dead body – No suggestion of false implication – Conviction upheld [Paras 61(iv–v), 61(xxi–xxii), 74].

Criminal Law – Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused Failed to Explain Circumstances of Departure from Company of Deceased – Tractor and bricks traced to their knowledge and presence – Non-explanation by accused treated as additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Conviction sustained [Paras 68–69].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 201, and 404 IPC affirmed – Accused Ashok Kumar and Ramdas directed to surrender – Trial court to initiate coercive steps in case of failure – Compliance to be reported within two months [Paras 75–78].

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Driving Licence – Statutory Grace Period – Expired licence remains valid for 30 days under proviso to Section 14 – Licence expired on 04.06.2001; accident on 04.07.2001 within grace period – Driver legally licensed – No breach of policy conditions – Insurer not entitled to recovery rights – Tribunal’s award upheld [Paras 3–6].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 14 Proviso – Effect of expiry of driving licence – Statutory extension of validity – Held: Proviso explicitly provides that a driving licence continues to remain effective for 30 days from the date of expiry – Licence of driver expired on 04.06.2001; statutory grace period ran from 05.06.2001 to 04.07.2001 – Accident at 10:45 AM on 04.07.2001 fell squarely within grace period – Licence deemed valid at time of accident [Paras 3–4].

Insurance Law – Breach of Policy Conditions – Absence of valid licence – Insurer’s plea rejected – Renewal made after accident irrelevant as licence had statutory efficacy on accident date – No willful breach attributable to insured – Recovery rights cannot be granted to insurer [Paras 2–4, 6].

Interpretation – Computation of statutory period – Section 9, General Clauses Act – Counting of days – Grace period begins the day after expiry – 30th day falls on 04.07.2001 – Court affirms correct computation and applicability of grace period [Paras 3–4].

Precedent – Proviso to Section 14 consistently interpreted – Court relies on:

(a) State of Haryana & Anr. v. Karkor & Ors. (P&H, 24.05.2018) – licence valid during statutory grace period; insurer not entitled to recovery rights;

(b) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumari, 2018 (4) ADJ 527 (Allahabad HC) – expired licence continues to be effective for 30 days and insurer cannot allege breach during this period –

Held: Same view applies; Tribunal’s findings correct; no reason for appellate interference [Para 5].

MACT Appeal – Scope of interference – Tribunal correctly fastened liability upon insurer – No infirmity in findings – Appeal devoid of merit – Dismissed [Paras 1–2, 6–7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award dated 04.01.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind affirmed – Driver’s licence deemed valid on date of accident due to statutory 30-day extension under proviso to Section 14 MV Act; consequently, no breach of policy conditions – Insurer not entitled to recovery rights – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Registered sale agreement dated 16.10.1992 relied on by plaintiff – Plaintiff failed to prove continued readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration of ₹2,00,000 within the stipulated three months – No legal notice issued within prescribed time – Notice issued after 2 years and 11 months – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness as mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Specific performance rightly denied [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Sale Agreement – Competing Claims – Prior Agreement Prevails – Earlier agreement of sale dated 10.12.1990 (Ex.B-7) in favour of defendant No.6 found to be true, valid, and partly acted upon through subsequent registered sale deeds dated 29.04.1993 in favour of defendants 2 to 6 – Plaintiff aware of prior transaction – Held: Ex.B-7 prevails over Ex.A-2 – Plaintiff’s agreement is subject to earlier equitable rights [Paras 16, 18, 24].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Protection under Section 19(b) – Defendants 2 to 6 held bona fide purchasers for value under registered sale deeds executed in pursuance of prior agreement (Ex.B-7) – No relief can be granted against them in absence of any challenge to those sale deeds – Plaintiff’s suit for specific performance not maintainable against bona fide purchasers without notice [Paras 17, 23].

Refund of Advance – Equitable Relief – Though specific performance denied, Court held plaintiff entitled to refund of advance consideration of ₹1,00,000 paid under Ex.A-2, with 6% interest from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives of deceased vendor out of her estate [Paras 24–25].

Evidence – Proof of Execution – Ex.A-2 found valid – Attesting witness (daughter of executant) and scribe supported execution and payment of advance – Trial court’s contrary view reversed – Agreement held genuine, but unenforceable due to superseding prior agreement and lack of timely action [Paras 15–16].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Trial Court's Discretion – Trial court’s finding on invalidity of Ex.A-2 reversed due to misappreciation of evidence – However, discretionary denial of specific performance upheld on settled legal grounds, including delay, suppression of facts, and superior equities in favour of prior purchasers [Paras 15, 18, 24].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Relief of specific performance denied – Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹1,00,000 with 6% interest p.a. from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives (respondents 7 to 11) from estate of deceased defendant No.1 – Appeal dismissed as against bona fide purchasers (respondents 2 to 6) – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Civil Law – Injunction Suit – Suppression of Material Facts – Non-specification of Suit Land – Plaintiff described suit land by khasra number, area and location – Evidence of parties and witnesses clearly identified the suit land – Held: Mere absence of boundary description not fatal when parties are aware of identity of land – No suppression of material facts established – Suit maintainable [Paras 11–16].

Property Law – Transfer of Immovable Property – Section 138, J&K Transfer of Property Act – Mandatory Requirement of Written and Registered Instrument – Defendant claimed possession based on alleged transfer from daughters of plaintiff – No registered sale deed or legal instrument produced – Held: Transfer without compliance with Section 138 is void and confers no right of ownership or lawful possession [Paras 18–21].

Property Law – Possession Follows Title – Illegal Possession – Defendant admittedly purchased land only from daughters of plaintiff – Vendor cannot convey better title than he possesses – Plaintiff never executed any transfer deed – Held: Defendant’s possession, if any, without lawful title amounts to trespass and cannot defeat lawful owner’s claim [Paras 15, 18–23].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reversal of Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court set aside Trial Court decree without appreciating statutory mandate of Section 138 – Erroneously vested ownership and possession in defendant without documentary title – Held: Interference with Trial Court’s well-reasoned findings was perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 21–24].

Civil Law – Permanent Prohibitory Injunction – Plaintiff Established Ownership and Lawful Possession through Revenue Records and Oral Evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right to possess suit land – Trial Court decree rightly granted injunction restraining interference – Restoration of Trial Court decree justified [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Civil Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting permanent prohibitory injunction restored – Suit of the plaintiff decreed – Registry directed to prepare decree sheet.

Public Service Commission – Scaling of Marks – Validity of Scaling Formula in Exams with Optional Papers – RPSC adopted scaling method in optional subjects of competitive exam for Forest Services after finding wide subject-wise variation in difficulty index and mean marks – Appellants contended that scaling was not authorized under the 1962 and 2015 Rules and yielded arbitrary and absurd results – Held: Scaling necessary to ensure uniformity and fairness in evaluation when different optional subjects are involved – Expert Committee analyzed statistical data before recommending scaling formula – No arbitrariness or mala fides found in process – Scaling limited only to optional subjects and not applied to compulsory ones [Paras 1–4, 11–13, 31, 36].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation of “Marks Obtained” – Scaled Marks vs. Raw Marks – Petitioners argued that scaling violated Rule 29 of the 2015 Rules, which prohibits re-evaluation – Court held that “marks obtained” includes scaled marks and scaling is distinct from re-evaluation – Scaling is part of the evaluation process and is not barred by the Rules – Application of scaling found to be within the implied powers of the Commission [Paras 32–34].

Precedent – Consistency of Judicial View – Stare Decisis – Court reaffirmed settled position in Jai Singh, Chandu Parihar, and Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal that scaling in exams involving optional subjects is valid – Rejected appellants’ reliance on Sanjay Singh case, holding it inapplicable since it pertained to exams with only compulsory subjects – Held: No change in facts or law to justify deviation from consistent precedent upholding scaling [Paras 26–28, 37–38].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality and Fairness in Competitive Examinations – Without scaling, candidates choosing difficult subjects would be unfairly disadvantaged – Scaling ensures uniformity across subjects of differing difficulty levels – Held: Use of scaling promotes objectivity, fairness, and does not violate Article 14 – No arbitrariness or unequal treatment established [Paras 29–30, 40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld – Scaling formula adopted by RPSC found to be fair, rational, and legally sustainable – No costs imposed – Pending applications disposed [Paras 39–41].

Railway Accident Claim – Compensation – Untoward Incident – Circumstantial Evidence – Deceased, a 17-year-old boy, died after falling from a local train due to crowd rush while on his way to visit Lalbaugcha Raja – Incident not reported to railway officials but immediate statements given to police at hospital and documented in inquest panchnama and postmortem report – Held: Circumstantial evidence consistent and credible – Failure to report to Station Master not fatal to claim – Rejection of claim by Tribunal set aside [Paras 4–10, 13, 15]

Beneficial Legislation – Railways Act – Interpretation – Circumstantial Evidence – Court held that being a welfare legislation, Railways Act allows reliance on circumstantial evidence to determine whether untoward incident occurred – Principle similar to criminal law accepted – First available statements at hospital given probative value – No evidence of fraud or fabrication found [Paras 11–12, 14]

Bonafide Passenger – Proof of Ticket – Witness Testimony – Friend accompanying deceased testified they had all purchased train tickets – No challenge to this in cross-examination – Court relied on testimony and applied ratio from Union of India vs. Rina Devi – Held: Physical ticket not required when journey and purpose proven through credible evidence [Para 16]

Appeal Allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Appellants held entitled to Rs. 4 lakhs compensation with 6% interest from date of incident – Upper cap of Rs. 8 lakhs imposed as per norms – Payment to be made within 8 weeks upon furnishing of bank details [Para 17]

Family Law – Custody of Minor Children – Split Custody – Welfare of Child Paramount – Preference of Minor Considered – Family Court granted custody of elder daughter to mother and younger son to father – Appellant-mother sought custody of both children to restore sibling bond – Held: Both parents are educated and financially stable; minor son (aged 11) has lived with father and paternal grandmother for 7 years and expressed genuine, independent desire to continue in same environment – No indication of coaching or adverse conditions – Court found no compelling reason to alter settled custody arrangement, especially where change could disrupt child’s emotional equilibrium and academic stability [Paras 1–3, 6–7, 15–17].

Child Custody – Preference of Child – Emotional Bonding and Continuity – Court interacted with both siblings – Son displayed strong attachment to father and grandmother and showed comfort in present routine – Although emotional bond with sister existed, frequent interaction was minimal due to years of separation – Court observed absence of hostility but also absence of shared day-to-day life – Held: Disruption of established bond with current caregiver not warranted solely to reunite siblings [Paras 6–9, 15–16].

Custody Jurisprudence – Allegations Between Parents Not Determinative – Welfare Principle Supersedes Fault-Based Arguments – Appellant cited father’s alleged misconduct, alcohol use, and discriminatory parenting – Family Court found such allegations either unproven or not materially affecting welfare of minor son – Court reiterated settled principle that child custody determination must transcend mutual recriminations between parties and focus only on child’s best interest [Paras 10.4, 13–14, 17].

Visitation Rights – Parental Cooperation Essential – Possibility of Future Modification Not Barred – Court upheld existing arrangement but emphasized that child welfare is dynamic – Directed both parties to maintain cordial interaction and ensure continuity in sibling relationship through visitation – Liberty granted to approach competent court for modification upon substantial change in circumstances [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 18.09.2023 upheld – Custody of minor son to remain with father and minor daughter with mother – Existing visitation rights of mother to continue – No costs [Paras 19–21].