PMLA—Attachment vs. Enjoyment—Interim Operation of Attached Units Permitted—Sections 5(4), 8(4) PMLA—Stay of proceedings not pressed—Court balances prevention of alienation with avoidance of economic waste; allows Petitioner to operate Topadihi & Uliburu units subject to conditions; attachments to continue [Paras 23-25, 28-34].

Maintainability—Second petition under Section 482 CrPC—Change in circumstances/fresh cause—Earlier CRLMC (2019) had challenged cognizance only; present petitions seek broader relief qua proceedings and operational use—Held, maintainable; Court confines itself to IAs pending main CRLMCs [Paras 21-22, 15].

PMLA—Nature and object of attachment—Preventive, not punitive—Section 5(4) preserves “enjoyment” of immovable property; Section 2(1)(d) defines “attachment” as prohibition on transfer, etc.—SC in Vijay Madanlal emphasized preventive character and sparing use of Section 8(4) possession—Held, authorities/courts must avoid premature deprivation of bona fide enjoyment before confiscation; operation may be allowed with safeguards [Paras 23-25].

Operational continuity—Economic/livelihood considerations—Long pendency (since 2013), charges not framed, voluminous evidence—Closure risks deterioration/depreciation and harms workers/local economy—Held, equities warrant conditional operation to preserve value and livelihoods while ensuring no alienation [Paras 28-31].

Alternate remedy—Confirmation of attachment appealable (Sections 26, 42 PMLA)—However, Petitioner not challenging attachment, seeking only operational use—Held, Court entertains limited relief in peculiar facts; ED’s reliance on cases concerning lifting/vacation of attachment inapplicable [Paras 15-16, 27].

Final directions—IAs partly allowed—(a) All attachments continue undisturbed; (b) Operation permitted only for two units at Topadihi and Uliburu, Keonjhar; (c) No alienation/transfer; (d) Obtain and maintain all statutory permissions; (e) Prosecution inspections allowed; (f) Liberty to prosecution to move for breach—Prayer for stay disposed of as not pressed [Paras 32-34].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay – Appeal filed by Gram Panchayat after six years and fourteen days of trial court decree – Petitioner failed to establish any sufficient cause for such delay – Appellate court rightly rejected delay application – Held: Petitioner was aware of the decree and participated in trial – Delay not caused by any unavoidable circumstance but due to administrative inaction and negligence – False assertions made in the affidavit about the decree being ex parte and unknown to the Panchayat – Such falsehoods strongly deprecated by the Court [Paras 3.3, 5.1–5.5, 9.1].

Public Body – Due Diligence – Change in Panchayat body cited as reason for delay – No documentary proof offered as to when new body took over or what steps were taken during six-year period – Court held that being a public authority does not entitle petitioner to automatic leniency under Limitation Act – Law equally applies to State and its instrumentalities unless justified by public interest or exceptional facts [Paras 5.6, 5.8, 6.0–6.5].

Limitation Law – Judicial Discretion – Exercise of discretion to condone delay must be based on bona fide explanation – Condonation denied where delay is unexplained, accompanied by false pleadings, or indicative of lack of diligence – Imposing conditions cannot validate a meritless condonation plea – Court emphasized that settled legal rights cannot be unsettled merely due to inaction or internal disorganization of a litigant body [Paras 6.1–6.5, 9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Delay of more than six years in filing appeal not condoned – No sufficient cause shown – False statements made in delay affidavit deprecated – Writ petition rejected with no order as to costs.

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Compensation Enhancement – National Highways Act – Notification under Section 3A issued for acquisition of land for widening of NH-44 – Competent Authority awarded compensation @ ₹1220.88 per sq.m. – Petitioner sought higher compensation citing sale deeds of adjacent lands – Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) rejected claim relying on outdated land value and held ₹1220.88 sufficient – Writ Petition filed challenging arbitrator’s award – Held: Arbitrator failed to consider relevant, proximate sale exemplars and committed perversity in rejecting valid comparative sale deeds – Interference under Article 226 justified [Paras 5–9]

Land Valuation – Comparable Sale Deeds – Petitioner produced registered sale deed of land (3.5 km away) sold for ₹3,716.88 per sq.m. – Arbitrator held land not proximate and refused reliance – Court held land situated along same highway stretch and relevant to determine market value – Nearby sales with similar characteristics should not have been ignored – Arbitrator failed to appreciate essential principles for market value determination [Paras 7–8]

Arbitration under NH Act – Section 3G(5) – Scope of Judicial Review – Award of Arbitrator challenged under Article 226 – Held: Though arbitrator’s decision generally not interfered with under Article 226, writ jurisdiction can be exercised when award is perverse, unreasonable or against settled legal principles – In this case, Arbitrator ignored cogent sale evidence and relied on stale collector rate – Interference warranted [Paras 6–9]

Principles – Market Value Determination – Reliance on Collector Rates deprecated – Reiterated that collector rates do not reflect actual market value – Comparable sale method is preferred – Time proximity, location, similarity of land, and size of transaction are key factors – Failure to consider these vitiates award [Para 8]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Land acquisition deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Possession and compensation requirements not satisfied – Respondents restrained from interfering with petitioner’s possession – Liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law if required.

Service Law - Probationary Service – Article 311(2) – Non-stigmatic termination during probation upheld – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 25-34].

Issues for Determination – Validity of initiation of disciplinary proceedings by competent authority – Compliance with principles of natural justice – Whether termination order is stigmatic/punitive attracting Article 311(2) – Court framed three core questions and proceeded on settled law governing probationers [Para 21].

Probationer’s Status & Article 311 – Distinction between confirmed employee and probationer – Judicial review narrower for probationers – Article 311 protections invoked only if termination is punitive/stigmatic – Employer may assess suitability during probation and terminate without full-scale inquiry if order is innocuous – Followed Rajasthan High Court v Ved Priya; T.C.M. Pillai; Jaswant Singh – Applied “foundation vs motive” test [Paras 25-29].

Nature of Termination Order – Language of termination letter recorded lack of “absolute integrity and devotion to duty” as employer’s dissatisfaction during probation – No specific imputation/findings of misconduct forming the foundation – Held: not stigmatic; merely articulates what is implicit in probationary termination – Pavanendra Narayan Verma principle reiterated [Paras 31-32].

Natural Justice & Enquiry Fairness – Petitioner was served charge-sheet, replied, and initially participated – No material to substantiate inability to attend for want of TA/DA – Two committees (Internal Complaint & Internal Finance) conducted fact-finding; Enquiry Officer’s report placed before authority – For probationary assessment, “less formal” process with adequate opportunity suffices – No mala fides or serious procedural breach found [Paras 15-16, 22, 32].

Competency of Authorities – Petitioner’s challenge to AGM(HR)/CGM(Tech) competence under Schedule of Delegation rejected in effect—respondents showed delegation permitting AGM-level signatures for specified grades; in any event, outcome turned on non-stigmatic probationary termination rather than imposition of a major penalty [Paras 17-18, 23, 32].

Relief & Alternate Remedy – Plea for quashing charge-sheet/termination and reinstatement declined – Court found proceedings aimed at suitability assessment; writ not entertained on asserted technicalities in absence of prejudice or punitive foundation [Paras 30, 32-33].

Decision – Both writ petitions WPA 7478 of 2018 and WPA 25707 of 2017 dismissed – No illegality or impropriety in termination dated 08/12/2017; urgent certified copy direction issued [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Procedure – Section 528 BNSS – FIR No. 281/2007 (IPC 323/341/506/34) – Police cancellation prepared in 2007/2009 but not filed – Final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025 post-petition – Court deprecates 15-year delay; imposes ₹1,00,000 costs (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab SLSA-DRF); directions for departmental action, compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days – Petition disposed as grievance redressed [Paras 3-8].

Administrative Lapse – Investigative Delay – Scope of Discretion – While no rigid statutory time-limit for filing final report, discretion must be reasonable and diligent – 15-year delay held antithetical to rule of law; non-application of mind and lack of diligence amount to abdication of statutory/constitutional duty – Court quotes classic exposition of “discretion” (Lord Halsbury) – Institutional accountability emphasized [Paras 5-7].

BNSS, 2023 – Section 528 – Maintainability and Relief – Direction sought to compel presentation of cancellation/status report regarding compromised FIR – State’s affidavit acknowledges missing file; corrective circular No. 30/2025 issued; show cause to then Dy.SP – Since final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025, substantive grievance stood redressed – Petition disposed with costs and systemic directions [Paras 4, 7-8].

Costs and Deterrence – State Liability and Recovery – ₹1,00,000 costs imposed on State (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Disaster Relief Fund) – Liberty to recover from salaries of delinquent officials per law – Departmental proceedings to be pursued in right earnest and concluded expeditiously; non-compliance may invite punitive consequences [Para 8].

Police Administration – Circular Compliance – DGP’s Circular No. 30 of 15.09.2025 regarding timely preparation, submission, and follow-up of cancellation/untraced reports to be implemented in letter and spirit – Not a paper directive; must be effectuated to achieve intended purpose; DGP to file compliance affidavit with Registrar General within 90 days [Paras 4, 8].

Decision – Final report in FIR accepted on 22.08.2025; petition disposed as redressed; costs of ₹1,00,000 imposed with directions on recovery, departmental action, and compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days [Para 8].

Service Law - Human Rights Commission – Chairperson’s pension entitlement – Rule 4 of 2002 Rules (as amended 2012) – “Parity clause” ensures equivalence with Chief Justice but does not create right to dual pensions – Legislative policy of “one career, one pension” affirmed – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 15–18, 23–27].

Pension – Legal Nature – Not a bounty but statutory right – Flows from Article 300A – Must be authorised by law – No pension dehors statutory framework – Once statutory entitlement exhausted, no further right to cumulative pensions unless expressly legislated [Paras 15–15.2].

Pension – Purpose – Secures dignified livelihood in retirement – Cannot be construed as enabling augmentation through multiple streams – Benevolent object subject to fiscal discipline – Interpretation must remain within statutory limits [Para 15.2].

Multiple Pensions – Policy against “pension stacking” – Principle of “one career, one pension” runs through Judges’ Acts, CCS Rules, and RCS Rules – Multiplicity of pensions impermissible unless statute clearly allows – Dual entitlements rejected [Paras 16, 16.1–16.3].

High Court Judges Act, 1954 – Section 14 proviso – Pension in lieu of and not in addition to prior pension – Express statutory signal against dual pensions – Applied analogously to SHRC framework [Para 16.2].

CCS & RCS Pension Rules – Both Central and State frameworks (1972, 1996, 2021) prohibit earning of two pensions for same service/post – Harmonious interpretation requires SHRC Rules to be read in consonance – Only one pension permissible [Para 16.3].

Rule 4, Rajasthan SHRC Rules (as amended 2012) – Language “salary, allowances, facilities and pension shall be the same as Chief Justice/Judge” is referential and parity-based – Not constitutive of new pension – Designed to avoid disadvantage, not to confer duplication [Paras 17.1–17.3].

Rule 4, First Proviso – Protective clause – Prevents variation of allowances/pension to disadvantage after appointment – Shields incumbents but does not create second pensionary stream [Para 17.3].

Rule 4, Second Proviso – Salary of Chairperson to be reduced by amount of pre-existing pension/commutation/gratuity – Express mechanism of adjustment – Demonstrates legislative intent against double pension – Ensures parity without duplication [Para 17.4].

Comparative Tribunals – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; AFT Rules, 2009; Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 – All adopt “pay reduced by pension” model – Explicitly prohibit additional pension – Petitioner himself served as AFT Chairperson under same rule – Dual claim untenable [Paras 17.6–17.7].

Judicial Analogy – District Judges elevated to High Courts and SC Judges serving in Tribunals draw only one pension based on last substantive office – No multiplicity permitted – Applied to reject claim [Para 17.7].

Lokayukta Precedent – Justice Mahendra Bhushan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2001) distinguished – Lokayukta Act & 1974 Rules contained express pension provision – SHRC Rules silent – Single Judge did not consider dual pension question – Ratio not binding – Precedent inapplicable [Para 18].

Reliance on SC Cases – Gurnam Singh (1982) and Shardul Singh (1970) – Pension integral to “conditions of service” – Ratio accepted in principle but held inapplicable – Do not confer dual pension entitlement [Para 19].

Constitutional Challenge – Articles 14, 16, 21 – Denial of dual pension neither arbitrary nor discriminatory – Rational classification based on statutory design – Right to dignified life already secured by existing pension under Judges’ Act – No violation made out [Para 21.3].

Legitimate Expectation – Internal Finance Department notings cannot create enforceable expectation – No past practice of granting dual pensions to SHRC Chairpersons – Doctrine inapplicable [Para 21.2].

Comparative Jurisprudence – UK, US, Canada, Germany, Cyprus, Pakistan, EU – All disfavor multiple pensions unless explicitly legislated – Approaches range from strict prohibition (Pakistan, EU) to capped accumulation (Germany) – Supports single-pension model [Paras 21.4, 22].

Decision – Chairperson of SHRC not entitled to separate pension in addition to judicial pension already drawn – Rule 4 is a parity clause, not source of new entitlement – Petition dismissed – No costs [Paras 23–23.2].

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 Conviction – Compounding of Offence Permitted – Revision petitioner convicted for dishonour of cheque – Conviction upheld in appeal – During pendency of revision, parties entered into joint compromise – Entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid and acknowledged by complainant – Held: In view of settlement, offence compounded under Section 147 of NI Act – Conviction and sentence annulled – Petitioner acquitted [Paras 1–5, 7–10, 45–46]

Criminal Law – Compounding of Offences – Scope under NI Act vis-à-vis BNSS – Court held that Section 147 of NI Act, being a special law with non obstante clause, prevails over Section 359 of BNSS – Compounding permissible even post-conviction and at revisional stage – Inherent power of High Court under Section 442 BNSS invoked to secure ends of justice [Paras 20–24, 31–36, 41–43]

Judicial Discretion – Late Compounding of Offence – Despite conviction being affirmed in appeal, High Court permitted compounding owing to full settlement – Held: Purpose of NI Act is compensatory, not punitive – Delay in compromise not a bar when no prejudice caused and justice demands it – Cited Damodar S. Prabhu and Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. cases [Paras 12–14, 29–38, 44–46]

Special Law vs General Law – Interpretational Priority – Court reiterated principle that special law (NI Act) overrides general procedural provisions (BNSS) in event of conflict – Section 147 of NI Act allows compounding at any stage, including revision – Harmonious construction supports access to justice and early dispute resolution [Paras 32–36]

Compounding in Criminal Revision – Power of High Court – Even after dismissal of appeal, High Court retains power to permit compounding of offences under NI Act if parties have settled dispute – Inherent jurisdiction exercised under Section 442 BNSS to prevent miscarriage of justice and bring quietus to litigation [Paras 23–30, 40–42]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Offence under Section 138 of the NI Act compounded based on Joint Memorandum of Compromise – Conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed in appeal annulled – Petitioner acquitted – Revision disposed of accordingly [Paras 45–46]

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Ss.148 & 282 – reassessment notice sent by speed post (not registered post) without affixation – presumption of service u/s 27 GCA inapplicable – strict compliance mandatory – ITAT order set aside, reassessment quashed.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Service of Notice – Speed Post Not Equivalent to Registered Post – Appeal Allowed – Tribunal presumed valid service u/s 148 merely because envelope not traceable – Held: Strict compliance mandatory; presumption u/s 27 GCA applies only to registered post, not speed post – Notice through speed post without acknowledgment is insufficient for deemed service [Paras 13-21, 32, 35].

Procedure – Affixation of Notice – Requirement under Section 282 IT Act & Order V Rule 17 CPC – Inspector’s report showed assessee untraceable but no affixation was done – Held: Mandatory requirement not followed; service invalid [Para 36].

Statutory Interpretation – Taxing Statutes – Strict Construction – Service of notice u/s 148 is jurisdictional precondition – cannot be presumed or liberally construed – Jharkhand HC view in Milan Poddar (speed post = registered post) not accepted – Allahabad HC requires strict registered post service [Paras 19-21, 32].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – ITAT order dated 16.11.2011 set aside – Service of notice u/s 148 held invalid – Reassessment for AY 2002-03 unsustainable [Paras 35-37].

Partition – family settlement (13.12.2003) upheld as binding despite missing “original” – adverse inference for non-examined defendant – preliminary decree for partition and injunction granted; appeals allowed

Partition – Family Settlement – Exhibit A1 Treated as Original – Preliminary Decree Passed – Plaintiffs relied on Exh.A1 family settlement dated 13.12.2003 – Though “original” missing, mediator (PW3) testified to handing it over to defendant – all signatures present on last page – Defendants failed to enter witness box; adverse inference drawn – Exh.A1 accepted as genuine; partition preliminary decree granted in tune with A1–A5 sketches/drafts [Paras 12-23, 26-28].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata & Partial Partition – Suit Maintainable – Earlier partition suit dismissed on basis of alleged will – Present suit based on subsequent family settlement; hence not barred by res judicata – Exclusion of certain properties justified as widow/daughters had no share therein; not bad for partial partition [Paras 11, 19-21].

Evidence – Non-examination of Party – Adverse Inference – 3rd defendant (widow of predeceased son) failed to depose – Held: adverse inference against her plea of fabrication of Exh.A1 – Plea of tampering rejected [Paras 14-15, 23-25].

Injunction – Rights of Co-owners – Permanent Injunction Granted – Plaintiff in O.S.193/2008 sought to restrain interference with quarry operations – In light of binding family settlement and possession of demarcated shares, injunction decree granted; prayer for damages rejected [Paras 27, 29-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Common judgment set aside – O.S.232/2006 decreed; preliminary decree for partition passed in terms of Exh.A1–A5; O.S.193/2008 decreed for permanent injunction (damages denied); parties to bear own costs [Paras 28-30].