Taxation Law - Customs – Refund of Duty – Short Landing or Pilferage – Goods not received by importer – Bill of Entry filed but no Out of Charge order issued – Authorities in dispute over whether goods were short-landed or pilfered – Held: Importer entitled to refund of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act as goods were lost before clearance for home consumption – Duty paid cannot be retained when goods not delivered – Customs directed to refund duty with 9% interest [Paras 3, 4, 42–45, 50–54, 61–64] –

Administrative Law – Inter-Departmental Dispute – Customs and Port Authorities blamed each other for loss of goods – Court held importer cannot suffer due to unresolved bureaucratic dispute – Liability between public authorities kept open for separate proceedings – Importer’s substantive right to refund not to be defeated by procedural technicalities [Paras 5–6, 49, 55, 65] –

Procedural Fairness – Duty Paid without Clearance – Bill of Entry not closed – Customs insisted on closure letter which could not be obtained due to inter-agency delays – Held: Such procedural conditions cannot defeat substantive statutory entitlement to refund – Rejection of refund without adjudication is not appealable – Writ petition maintainable [Paras 14–16, 53, 56] –

Interest on Delayed Refund – Duty paid in anticipation of clearance – No goods received – Refund delayed due to inaction of authorities – Held: Interest at 9% to be paid under Section 27A of Customs Act for delay in refunding amount from date of payment till date of refund [Paras 63–64] –

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 13 & 23 of Customs Act – Pilferage vs. Loss – Whether case of pilferage under Section 13 or loss under Section 23 immaterial – Refund due in both cases where goods not cleared for home consumption – Importer not liable to bear duty [Paras 43–44, 50–52, 61] –

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Rule made absolute – Respondent No.1 directed to refund ₹35,37,358/- along with 9% interest from date of payment within 4 weeks – Compliance report to be filed by 08/01/2026 – Inter se liability between Customs and Port left open [Paras 64–66].

Service Law – Recruitment – LT Grade Assistant Teachers – Waiting List – Rule 12(8) of 1998 Rules – Discretion of Board – “Not larger than 25%” is a ceiling and not a mandate – No right to insist that waiting list must be 25% of vacancies – Recruitment cannot be prolonged indefinitely – No arbitrariness shown in criteria adopted by Board – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 14-21].

Recruitment Process – LT Grade Assistant Teachers – Advertisement No. 01/2016 – Completion of Selection – Petitioners, who were unsuccessful candidates not included in merit list or initial waiting list, sought preparation of a fresh enlarged waiting list claiming vacancies still existed and process for Supplementary Panels should continue – Prior directions in Writ A No. 14121/2022 and Special Appeal No. 679/2022 were relied upon – Held: Process for counselling and preparation of waiting list concluded; recruitment cannot be kept alive indefinitely [Paras 1-8, 12, 18].

Waiting List – Interpretation of Rule 12(8), 1998 Rules – Rule provides list “not larger than twenty-five percent” of vacancies – Held: Phrase imposes only a maximum ceiling; no mandate that waiting list must necessarily be 25% of vacancies – Discretion lies with Board/Commission to decide appropriate percentage depending upon circumstances – Petitioners’ argument that full 25% is mandatory rejected [Paras 14-17].

Administrative Discretion – Criteria for Waiting List – Challenge raised against non-uniform application of percentage criteria for different subjects; petitioners contended arbitrariness – Held: While uniform criteria may be ideal, mere lack of uniformity does not ipso facto render decision arbitrary absent violation of statutory rules – No mala fides or illegality established [Paras 17, 19-20].

Right of Candidates in Waiting List – No Indefeasible Right – Court reiterated settled law that candidates in waiting list (or even select list) have no absolute right to appointment; waiting lists cannot survive indefinitely – Recruitment begun in 2016 cannot be prolonged further – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana (2023) 10 SCC 54; applied by this Court in earlier cases – Held: No right is created in favour of petitioners merely because some vacancies may have subsequently arisen [Paras 15-18].

Precedents – Gaurav Kumar (2025) and Ambrish Kumar (2021) – Both judgments categorically hold that Rule 12(8) only prescribes a maximum limit, not a mandatory minimum; Board is not required to draw waiting list equal to 25% of vacancies – These precedents directly apply and operate against petitioners’ claim – Writ petition must fail [Paras 15-17, 20].

Decision – Impugned order dated 16.05.2025 upholding earlier waiting list found lawful – No statutory violation demonstrated – Recruitment process concluded – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 20-21].

Property Law – Partition Suit – Effect of Previous Litigation – Interpretation of Decree – Appellants (Plaintiffs) sought partition of joint property claiming half share – Respondent (Defendant) contended that Appellants lost rights due to failure to pay Rs. 5,300/- as ordered in a previous Second Appeal (S.A. No. 641 of 1988) – First Appellate Court dismissed the partition suit on grounds of non-compliance with the previous decree – High Court held that the previous decree only created a charge on the property for the amount due and did not extinguish the Appellants' title – The previous judgment clarified that title would not pass without a registered relinquishment deed, which was never executed – Held: First Appellate Court misconstrued the clauses of the earlier decree; the remedy for Respondent was execution/auction, not denial of partition – Plaintiffs entitled to partition [Paras 15-18, 20].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Oral Agreement – Respondent claimed an oral agreement existed wherein Appellants agreed to sell their share for Rs. 1,00,000/- – No evidence produced to substantiate the oral agreement – High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing the Trial Court’s decree without proper appreciation of evidence – High Court noted that Appellants had eventually deposited the requisite amount with the Trial Court – Findings of the First Appellate Court were vitiated by misinterpretation of documentary evidence (Ex. A-1) – Interference under Section 100 CPC justified when findings are perverse or based on misconstruction of documents [Paras 14, 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court (decreeing the suit for partition) restored – Each party to bear their own costs.

Labour Law – Termination – Loss of Confidence – Termination Held Illegal – Reinstatement with Continuity Upheld – Industrial Tribunal found that the plea of “loss of confidence” was unsubstantiated – Termination declared illegal – Workman reinstated with continuity of service – Tribunal awarded 25% back wages – Held: Findings on illegality of termination justified and not interfered with [Paras 1, 10]

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – No Rigid Formula – Award Enhanced from 25% to 50% – Principles of Equity and Justice Applied – Workman served for three years – Management failed to prove gainful employment of workman during period of enforced idleness – In absence of any proven misconduct or valid justification for termination, denial of higher back wages unjustified – Court enhanced back wages to 50% from date of termination till reinstatement – Payment directed within four weeks with 9% interest on default [Paras 11-13]

Judicial Review – Scope in Reinstatement and Back Wages – Courts Must Consider All Circumstances – Referring to Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, and Hindustan Tin Works, Court reiterated that reinstatement ordinarily follows full or substantial back wages unless gainful employment shown – Tribunal must consider length of service, nature of termination, and conduct of parties – Denial of back wages penalizes workman despite employer’s wrongdoing [Paras 5, 8-9]

Precedents – Principles Governing Back Wages – Affirmed – Court discussed Supreme Court precedents including U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh, General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, and Deepali Gundu Surwase – Held: No thumb rule exists – Determination must be case-specific, guided by equity, justice, and good conscience [Paras 6-9]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Impugned award modified – Back wages enhanced from 25% to 50% from date of termination till reinstatement – Amount to be paid within four weeks, failing which interest @9% per annum shall apply.

Service Law – Displacement Quota – Employment – G.O.Ms.No.98 – Delay in Application – Writ petitioner, son of displaced person from Dachuru village, filed application for employment 10 years after displacement – Rejection of claim by authorities citing limitation of one year under G.O.Ms.No.98 – Held: One-year limitation cannot be strictly enforced in light of settled precedents and State policy – Authorities directed to include petitioner in the first seniority list based on eligibility – Petitioner entitled to appointment as per turn under displacement quota [Paras 4, 8(I), 10, 11].

Administrative Law – Seniority List – Violation of Natural Justice – Second seniority list of 106 displaced persons was set aside by the learned single Judge without impleading affected parties – Held: Order is unsustainable being passed in violation of principles of natural justice – Affected candidates were not heard – Order set aside – Government Memo restoring second seniority list reinstated – Beneficiaries of the second list directed to be provided employment as per their turn [Paras 6, 8(III), 10(i)].

Displacement & Rehabilitation – Seniority Classification – Two-tier seniority system maintained for displaced persons based on actual submergence and displacement – Dachuru village formed part of the first list where water impoundment and displacement occurred in 2005 – Petitioner wrongly sought inclusion in second list instead of first – Court clarified distinction between lists and corrected placement accordingly [Paras 5, 8(II), 11].

Precedent – Relaxation of Time Limit – High Court reaffirmed position laid down in earlier judgment State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy, W.A. No. 356 of 2023 – One-year application time under G.O.Ms.No.98 is not mandatory – Policy aims at livelihood protection and must be interpreted liberally for displaced families [Paras 8(I)(c)-(d)].

Decision:

Writ Appeal No. 315 of 2024 allowed – Order of single Judge dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Government Memo dated 26.12.2014 approving second seniority list restored – Authorities directed to provide employment to appellants as per their turn under G.O.Ms.No.98 [Para 10(i)-(ii)].

Writ Appeal No. 1289 of 2023 disposed of – Authorities directed to include writ petitioner’s name in the first seniority list, not the second – Employment to be provided as per eligibility and turn under displacement quota [Para 11].

Slum Areas – De-notification of Acquired Land – Legality – Petitioner’s land declared as slum in 1976 and later acquired under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas Act – Respondents issued possession certificates and began rehabilitation projects – State later de-notified the land citing financial burden and lack of finance department approval – Held: Once land is acquired and vests under Section 18, it cannot be de-notified under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act – De-notification is impermissible and ultra vires [Paras 21-29, 38-40]

Land Acquisition – Possession and Compensation – Petitioner, though having executed Power of Attorney and sale agreement, retained ownership as there was no registered transfer – Possession taken under Government Notification dated 18.10.2004 and confirmed by Slum Board through possession certificates – Held: Possession lawfully taken, petitioner's title not extinguished by mere PoA or agreement to sell – Compensation payable under Section 20 [Paras 24-30, 36]

Constitutional Law – Right to Property and Life – Article 300-A and Article 21 – State’s action in occupying private land without compensation and attempting withdrawal of acquisition contrary to law – Held: Property rights cannot be extinguished without compensation – Financial constraints cannot justify breach of constitutional obligations – Right to shelter of slum dwellers must be balanced with property rights of landowners [Paras 19-23, 31-35]

Statutory Interpretation – General Clauses Act vis-à-vis Special Act – Respondents’ reliance on Section 21 of General Clauses Act to cancel acquisition under Slum Act rejected – Slum Act has no provision for withdrawal once land vests with State – General Clauses Act cannot override specific acquisition provisions [Paras 25-27, 39-40]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – De-notification quashed – State directed to determine and pay compensation to petitioner within 12 weeks with applicable interest – Directions affirmed by earlier coordinate bench and upheld by Division Bench in W.A. No.100107/2025 [Paras 8, 31, 43-44]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction – Revisional Jurisdiction – Petitioners convicted for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- issued as partial refund for unfulfilled property sale agreement – Defence pleaded coercion in obtaining the cheque and refund agreement, and denied receipt of original consideration – Held: Mere lodging of a police complaint by the accused alleging coercion, without further corroborative evidence or legal steps to challenge the agreement, is insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Existence of signed Refund Agreement acknowledging liability of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- weakens defence – Failure to produce financial records to disprove receipt of consideration renders the defence of "no liability" improbable – Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld [Paras 16-19, 24].

Evidence – Statutory Presumption – Rebuttal – Minor Discrepancies – Petitioners argued that the Complainant failed to specify the exact place of signing/handing over the cheque during cross-examination – Held: Once the issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, technical omissions regarding the place of execution do not constitute material contradictions – Such minor discrepancies cannot defeat the prosecution case when the accused fails to prove their defence affirmatively [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence affirmed – Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 directed to surrender within 15 days to serve the sentence – Stay prayer rejected.

Civil Law – Ownership Dispute – Relief of Mandatory Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, sole owner of the property by virtue of registered gift deeds dated 6.7.2009 and 9.5.2014 executed by his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari, filed suit seeking possession from his brother (defendant) who was residing in a portion of the house as a licencee – Defendant contested, claiming co-ownership and challenged validity of gift deeds alleging fraud, coercion and undue influence – Trial court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction – Appeal by defendant dismissed – Held: Defendant failed to prove co-ownership or any title – Gift deeds validly executed – Suit for mandatory injunction maintainable post revocation of licence [Paras 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 45, 49, 66, 73].

Transfer of Property – Valid Gift Deeds – Challenge to Gift by Sibling – Defendant claimed mother was not in sound mind and gift deeds were fraudulently executed – Plaintiff proved execution through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Both gift deeds executed in compliance with Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act – Gift valid even if possession not delivered at the time – Defendant’s allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence not proved – No specific pleadings or evidence to substantiate claim – Held: Gift deeds legally valid and enforceable [Paras 50–54, 58–66].

License – Nature of Possession – Permissive Possession of Defendant – Plaintiff’s brother allowed to stay as licencee – Relationship of licensor and licencee existed post-execution of gift deeds – Licence revoked via legal notice dated 4.8.2014 – Defendant failed to vacate – Held: Defendant's occupation was permissive and post-termination, plaintiff entitled to seek possession through mandatory injunction – Plaintiff rightly proceeded under Specific Relief Act and not for recovery of possession – Apex Court precedents relied upon [Paras 67–79].

Construction by Licencee – Irrevocability of Licence – Defendant alleged raising permanent structure in suit premises – No sanctioned plan or evidence produced – Plaintiff filed sanctioned plans in name of mother – Held: Defendant failed to prove that any construction raised by him – Licence not rendered irrevocable [Paras 80–81].

Registered Documents – Allegation of Interpolation – Defendant alleged manipulation in sale and gift deeds – Plaintiff produced originals – Every cutting signed – Held: No adverse inference – Registered documents carry presumption of genuineness – Defendant failed to rebut it [Paras 82–84].

Non-Exhibition of Documents – Procedural Lapse – Documents submitted in sealed cover for safe custody – Trial court failed to mark exhibits – Defendant did not object before trial court – Held: Procedural lapse by court – No prejudice caused – Plaintiff proved documents and execution through oral and documentary evidence – Decree not liable to be reversed merely for non-exhibition [Paras 85–95].

Mesne Profits – Appellate Court's Power Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Trial court denied mesne profits @ ₹30,000/month for lack of proof – During appeal, stay granted on condition of ₹10,000/month deposit – Held: Appellate court can award mesne profits at ₹10,000/month as condition of stay – Defendant bound by the order – Plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation till actual handover of possession [Paras 96–100, 106].

Caretaker/Trespasser – No Title by Long Possession – Defendant residing gratuitously – No tenancy or lease established – Apex Court in Maria Margarida and Behram Tejani reiterated caretaker acquires no right – Held: Long possession does not confer any right – Defendant must vacate [Paras 101–103].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 upheld – Plaintiff entitled to possession via mandatory injunction and damages @ ₹10,000/month from 01.07.2019 till delivery of possession – Interim orders vacated [Paras 104–109].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed – Defendant to hand over vacant possession to plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to ₹10,000 per month as damages from date of decree till possession is handed over.

Administrative Law – Termination of License – Writ Against APTDC – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged termination of license granted under agreement dated 03.10.2020 for operation of shop at Rushikonda Beach – Held: Though APTDC is ‘State’ under Article 12, disputes arising from license agreements are contractual and remedy lies in civil suit for damages – Writ not maintainable to challenge termination of license [Paras 9, 16]

Contract Law – License Agreement – Nature of Rights – Licensee Cannot Seek Interim Relief Against Termination – Petitioner admitted arrears of rent and operational default – Clause 7 of license agreement permits termination for non-compliance – Law well settled that licensee has no vested right to prevent termination – Once terminated, continued occupation is unlawful – Licensee may claim compensation but cannot seek injunction or continuation [Paras 4, 9-14, 16]

Distinction Between Lease and License – License Does Not Confer Interest or Possession – Agreement was clearly a license and not a lease – Reference to “lease” in correspondence was casual – Legal possession remains with licensor – Licensee has only a personal right which ceases upon termination – Petitioner cannot assert tenancy-like rights after expiration or cancellation [Paras 7, 12-14]

Writ Jurisdiction – Commercial Contract Disputes – No Public Law Element – Alternative Remedy Available – Court held that licensee’s grievance is private in nature – Remedy lies in filing a civil suit for compensation – No violation of constitutional or public duty shown – Writ jurisdiction not to be invoked for enforcing purely contractual rights [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Termination of license upheld – Interim order dated 06.10.2025 vacated – Petitioner may seek compensation by filing civil suit – No costs [Paras 17-18]