Public Tender – Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Article 226 – Courts do not sit as appellate authorities over administrative choices in tender matters and cannot substitute judicial opinion for administrative wisdom — role of court confined to examining decision-making process and not merits of the decision — interference justified only where decision is mala fide, so arbitrary that no reasonable authority would adopt it, or where public interest suffers — general allegations of favouritism unsupported by cogent material cannot convert commercial disappointment into constitutional challenge [Paras 17–18, 21, 38].

EOI Process – Presentation Stage – Not Ultra Vires – Introduction of a presentation-based assessment carrying 30 marks after technical evaluation carrying 70 marks held to be within the permissible administrative discretion of the tendering authority — evaluation of operational capacity, infrastructure preparedness and implementation methodology in a large-scale nutrition welfare scheme cannot remain confined to paper credentials alone — all technically qualified participants subjected to the same presentation stage uniformly — no essential eligibility condition altered so as to prejudice any bidder [Paras 24–28, 32–33].

Technical Qualification – No Vested Right to Selection – Qualifying at one stage of a tender process merely entitles participation in the next stage and does not guarantee award of projects — contention that technical qualification alone created a vested right to selection rejected [Para 29].

Transparency – Non-Disclosure of Interim Scores – Not Ipso Facto Fatal – Transparency in State contracting does not necessarily mandate contemporaneous disclosure of individual scoring sheets unless stipulated under tender conditions — non-disclosure of presentation marks cannot invalidate process in absence of showing that evaluation was arbitrary, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations [Paras 34–37].

Tender Timelines – Directory Unless Mandatory Consequence Prescribed – Issuance of selection list beyond 120-day validity period of EOI does not vitiate the process where timeline is not expressly coupled with a mandatory consequence clause — petitioners having participated in subsequent stages without objection are disentitled from raising this ground after non-selection [Paras 42–43].

Quashing of Selection List – Public Welfare Scheme – Courts must be reluctant to quash selection processes affecting implementation of large-scale public nutrition welfare schemes serving a large beneficiary population, unless illegality is clearly established [Para 45].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed — challenge to Impugned Selection List dated 20.02.2023 fails — pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Regularization – Posthumous – Adhoc Employee – 21 Years of Continuous Service – Empowered Committee Recommendation – Arbitrary Exclusion – The deceased employee was engaged as Junior Assistant on stop-gap/adhoc basis in 1993 and rendered uninterrupted service until his death in 2014 – His case was duly recommended by the Empowered Committee under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 – Yet, he was excluded from the regularization order dated 11.01.2013 while his juniors, including one Farooq Ahmed Zargar, were regularized – Held: Such exclusion is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Deceased entitled to regularization from the date his juniors were regularized along with all consequential benefits [Paras 6, 7, 13].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Hostile Discrimination – Equally Situated Employees – State as Model Employer – Once the Empowered Committee recommended the deceased alongside similarly situated juniors who were subsequently regularized, the State cannot justify differential treatment on the ground that the deceased was initially engaged on adhoc or temporary basis – The State being a model employer cannot follow a hire-and-fire policy after extracting more than two decades of work – Such conduct amounts to exploitative engagement and violates the guarantee of equality [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Service Law – Adhoc Engagement – Character of Permanency – Long and Continuous Service – Continuity in service for a period exceeding 21 years, performing permanent and perennial duties, cannot be characterized as adhoc or temporary – With the passage of time, such engagement acquires the character of permanency and the State cannot disavow its obligations on technical grounds [Paras 9, 11].

Repeal of Statute – Accrued Rights – Vested Rights Not Extinguished – The contention that the Act of 2010 stands repealed and that the J&K Casual Workers Rules, 2017 also stand repealed post the Reorganization Act, 2019, was rejected – A right that had already accrued to the deceased employee prior to repeal cannot be taken away by the mere fact of repeal of the enabling legislation [Para 9].

Widow – Compassionate Consideration – Posthumous Regularization – Family Pension and Retiral Benefits – The respondent is a widow seeking posthumous regularization so that she and her children may receive family pension, retiral benefits and other statutory dues – The State is expected to act with compassion in such cases and not prolong litigation on technicalities [Para 12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench dated 30.09.2025 directing regularization of the deceased w.e.f. the date his juniors were regularized and grant of all consequential benefits upheld – No error of fact or law found in the Tribunal's order.

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Sections 3 and 7 — Conviction Set Aside — Acquittal — Appellant (in-charge of wheat procurement centre of U.P. Food Corporation) convicted by Special Judge for storing 12 quintals of excess wheat allegedly for illegal purposes — On appeal, High Court finds that prosecution failed to refer to any control order allegedly violated by the appellant, and no violation of Section 3 of the Act was established — Appellant being merely in-charge of the centre and not a dealer, no question of violation of any control order arises — Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appeal allowed [Paras 4–31].

Section 3 — Enabling Provision — Prerequisite of Control Order — Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act is an enabling provision empowering the Central Government to regulate or prohibit production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities — Prosecution under Section 7 is maintainable only upon violation of a control order issued under Section 3 — Where no such control order is referred to or proved, the foundational basis for prosecution under Section 7 is absent — Prosecution neither referred to any control order nor proved its violation [Paras 4–8, 30].

Section 7(1)(b) — Forfeiture — Non-Compliance — Section 7 is attracted only upon contravention of a control order made under Section 3 — In the absence of proof of such contravention, invocation of Section 7 is impermissible — Prosecution further failed to demonstrate compliance with Section 7(1)(b) requiring forfeiture of the property in respect of which the order was contravened — Mandatory nature of forfeiture clause distinguished from discretionary clause under Section 7(1)(c) [Paras 7–8, 29–30].

Mens Rea — Essential Commodities Act — Section 7 — Offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 requires mens rea as an essential ingredient — Prosecution failed to establish intentional or knowing contravention of any provision — Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh referred to [Paras 26–28].

Appreciation of Evidence — Contradictions and Lacunae — Prosecution witnesses P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 gave materially contradictory accounts regarding inspection and verification — P.W.-2's presence during inspection on 30.05.1984 rendered doubtful — P.W.-1 admittedly did not examine pages 40 and 41 of the stock register — Investigating Officer (P.W.-5) did not personally verify FCI records and had no knowledge of wheat grading — Investigation found to suffer from serious lapses — No evidence as to the nature, grade, or illegality of the alleged excess wheat — Prosecution story found inconsistent and non-corroborative [Paras 17–23, 30].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed — Impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.1988 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Budaun set aside — Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Bail bonds and sureties discharged.

Public Charitable Trust – Charity Commissioner – Interim Management – Asiatic Society of Mumbai – Writ Petitions dismissed – Petitioners challenged impugned orders dated 13.03.2026 by which the Charity Commissioner constituted an interim committee comprising a fit person and 5 Managing Committee members, and a sub-committee to prepare a fresh voters' list, directing elections to be conducted within one month of finalisation of the list – Held: Charity Commissioner had full authority under Sections 36A, 47, 69 and 3 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act to intervene and pass the impugned orders – No case of patent illegality or manifest arbitrariness made out – Both writ petitions dismissed [Paras 3, 14, 17, 18].

Natural Justice – Adequate Hearing – Challenge Rejected – Petitioners alleged impugned orders were passed without notice or hearing – Held: Charity Commissioner gave adequate advance notice to the office bearers of the Asiatic Society – Hearings were held on 5th, 9th, 11th and 12th March 2026 – The hearing on 9th March 2026 was adjourned at their request – Office bearers were personally present and represented by counsel – Statements/affidavits were filed and considered – No breach of natural justice established [Para 13].

Managing Committee – Continuance Beyond Tenure – Impermissible – Change Report in respect of September 2023 elections was rejected on 6th August 2025 – Tenure of elected office bearers ended September 2025 – Held: Managing Committee had no legal right or authority to continue in management thereafter – Notwithstanding this, it continued to function and took decisions beyond day-to-day administration, including admission of members – Entirely impermissible [Para 14].

Scrutinising Committee – Excess of Jurisdiction – Inflated Voters' List – Scrutinising Committee's tenure ended 27th September 2025 – Despite this, it suo motu continued working and recommended approximately 1467 membership applications (as against only 349 during its entire one-year tenure) – Names included in voters' list for Elections – 2025 without proper approval by Managing Committee – Held: Such continuation and recommendations were irregular and vitiated the voters' list [Paras 10, 14].

Charity Commissioner – Powers Under MPT Act – Sections 36A, 47, 69 – Inspector Report – The Charity Commissioner correctly instituted Inquiry No. 3 of 2026 pursuant to Legislative Assembly Questions regarding discrepancies in voters' list, missing books, and postponement of elections – Inspector Report confirmed approximately 2050 books were missing from the Asiatic Society – Held: Charity Commissioner had sufficient power under the said provisions to issue directions for effective interim management and to stay the resolution dated 20th February 2026 for holding Elections – 2025 on 14th March 2026 [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Decision: Both Writ Petitions dismissed – Impugned orders dated 13th March 2026 upheld – All pending Interim Applications disposed of – All interim orders vacated – Application for stay of order rejected – No order as to costs.

Agreement to Sell – Recovery of Earnest Money – NOC Obligation – Breach by Seller – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff paid Rs. 80,75,000/- as advance consideration for purchase of 15 Bighas 4 Biswas of agricultural land – Agreement to Sell dated 18.07.2007 required the seller to obtain NOC from Revenue Authorities and Land Acquisition Collector – Defendants failed to apply for or obtain the NOC despite repeated reminders and duly filled NOC forms being supplied by the Plaintiff on the date of Agreement – Held: Breach of Agreement to Sell was on the part of the Defendants; Plaintiff was justified in seeking refund of earnest money – Trial Court decree upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 44, 52, 55, 56, 61, 62, 67].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Accrual from Date of Repudiation, Not Date of Contract – Appellants contended the suit filed on 19.07.2010 was barred by limitation as the Agreement to Sell was dated 18.07.2007 – Held: Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is reckoned from when the facts entitling the Plaintiff to have the contract rescinded first became known to him – In a contract of sale, right to sue for refund accrues when the contract is repudiated or the promisor refuses to perform, not from the date of the contract – Legal Notice dated 06.06.2008 constituted the earliest point of repudiation; suit filed on 19.07.2010 was within limitation [Paras 37, 39, 40, 41].

Section 33, Delhi Land Reforms Act – NOC Obligation on Seller – Bar Operates at Stage of Actual Transfer – No Bhumidar can sell land where the result of transfer would leave him with less than 08 standard acres in Delhi – Section 33(2) permits transfer of entire holding if less than 08 acres – Held: It was the Defendants/Appellants as owners and sellers who bore the obligation to obtain NOC and overcome restrictions of Section 33 DLR Act – The bar under Section 33 operates at the stage of actual transfer of Bhumidhari rights and does not render an Agreement to Sell per se void or incapable of enforcement between the parties [Paras 49, 50, 51].

Partnership Act – Section 69 – Bar Inapplicable – No Formal Partnership – Appellants argued that an unregistered partnership between the Plaintiff and M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd. attracted the bar of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act – Held: There was no formal partnership as understood under the Partnership Act; parties had merely pooled funds for a single purchase transaction – The Plaintiff, having returned Rs. 45,00,000/- to M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd., became solely entitled to recover the entire amount – Bar of Section 69 not attracted [Paras 63, 64, 65].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2022 of the learned Additional District Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - National Security - Restricted Zones - Construction Permissions - PIL highlighting illegal constructions near vital military installations in Jodhpur - Held, since the matter involves national security and sensitive zones of the Indian Air Force and Indian Army, all permissions granted by local authorities must strictly adhere to the Notifications and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence/Central Government from time to time. [Paras 5, 13].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Survey and Demolition - Unauthorized Encroachments - Local authorities directed to conduct a detailed survey of Khasra No. 632 and its sub-divisions - Held, if constructions are found to have been raised de hors the mandatory guidelines or without required permissions/NOCs, the local authorities shall take urgent steps to remove or demolish such constructions in accordance with law. [Paras 11, 14-15].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - No Objection Certificate (NOC) - Mandatory Compliance - Construction permissions in restricted areas - Held, local authorities must obtain an NOC from the concerned defence authorities before granting construction permissions in appropriate cases as per Central Government notifications - Even if a layout plan was previously sanctioned, construction permissions issued in violation of mandatory Ministry of Defence instructions must be cancelled. [Paras 16, 20].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Timeline for Compliance - Judicial Oversight - Court directed the entire exercise of survey and removal of unauthorized persons/structures to be completed within three months - Compliance report ordered to be furnished before the Court on or before 03.08.2026. [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of with specific directions for survey and demolition – Contempt petitions and pending applications also stand disposed of.

Public Interest Litigation – Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Service Charges on FIR/DDR Downloads – Petitioner challenged imposition of Rs. 80/- as service charge for downloading FIRs, Rs. 100/- for DDR and Rs. 30/- for Lost Information Receipt from the Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Representation dated 24.03.2026 submitted by Petitioner No. 1 to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice and the Director General of Police, Punjab, pending consideration – Court disposed of the PIL without expressing opinion on merits – Held: Competent Authority directed to consider and decide the representation dated 24.03.2026 by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order and to communicate the same to the petitioner [Paras 2–4].

Decision: PIL disposed of – Competent Authority directed to decide representation dated 24.03.2026 by speaking order within 30 days – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case – Liberty granted to petitioner.

Bail – Gang Rape and Murder of Minor – First Petition – Refused – Petitioner attributed principal role in kidnapping, administering sedatives, gang rape, and murder of an 8-year-old Bakarwal girl – In custody since 19.01.2018 (over 8 years) – Out of 309 witnesses, only 41 examined – Held: Despite prolonged incarceration, bail cannot be granted as a matter of course where gravity and nature of the offence shock the collective and judicial conscience – Prima facie case established; long custody by itself cannot entitle petitioner to bail – Prayer for regular bail declined [Paras 7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Prolonged Incarceration – No Automatic Entitlement – Petitioner contended long custody of 8 years and slow pace of trial warrant release – Held: There is no straight-jacket formula that an accused is automatically entitled to bail on ground of prolonged incarceration – Discretion must be exercised considering intrinsic merits of the case and gravity of charge – In cases involving serious and gruesome crimes, courts must balance rights of the victim, society, and the accused [Paras 4, 6].

Bail – Relevant Considerations – Factors to be Weighed – Nature and gravity of charge, severity of punishment, likelihood of witnesses being tampered, danger of justice being thwarted, prima facie evidence, and the role of the accused are all relevant considerations – Mere period of incarceration or unlikelihood of trial concluding soon is insufficient to enlarge accused on bail when charges carry life imprisonment or death penalty [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Trial Court – Expeditious Trial – Directed – Considering the considerable delay in trial and the long period of custody of the petitioner, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within one year from the date of order [Para 7].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude trial preferably within one year.

NDPS Act – Bail – Parity – Section 20(b)(ii)(B) – Cannabis – Accused No.2 alleged to have supplied cannabis to Accused No.1 and to have been found in possession of 1.590 kg of cannabis recovered pursuant to disclosure by Accused No.1 – Accused No.2 in custody since 15.06.2025 – Accused No.1, found with higher quantity of 4.725 kg, already enlarged on bail by Special Court – Chargesheet filed and investigation complete – 21 witnesses yet to be examined and trial likely to take time – Held: Accused No.2 entitled to bail on parity with Accused No.1 subject to conditions [Paras 2, 5].

Bail Conditions – Personal Bond – Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties – Regular appearance before trial court – No tampering with prosecution witnesses – No commission of future offences – No departure from jurisdiction without court permission [Para 2, Order].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 directed to be enlarged on bail in Special Case No.193/2025 pending before Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, subject to conditions.