Service Law – Regularization – Seniority – Discriminatory denial of parity with juniors – Committee’s earlier favourable recommendation ignored without reason – Second meeting convened without justification – State’s contradictory stand regarding appointment of private respondents – Condition denying seniority struck down earlier – Held: Action arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 & 16; petitioner entitled to regularization benefits at par with juniors [Paras 6–11].

Administrative Law – Committee Proceedings – Once a committee resolves an issue by majority, recall of meeting without reason impermissible – Subsequent minutes authored individually but shown as collective decision – Such colourable exercise of power vitiated – Impugned order quashed [Paras 8–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality before law – State action must be reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory – Reliance placed on Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721 – State’s inconsistent justification and selective denial of benefits held unconstitutional [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 30.09.2015 quashed – Authorities directed to grant regularization and consequential benefits to the petitioner at par with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 [Para 11–12].

Execution of Decree – Rejection Of Objections Under Section 47 CPC - Joint Decree Holders – Order XXI Rule 15 CPC – Maintainability of Execution Application – Judgment-debtors objected to execution of joint decree filed by only one decree-holder without express statement of acting for others – Held: Rule 15 is enabling – Express recital is not mandatory if it appears execution is for benefit of all decree-holders – Absence of such recital does not invalidate execution – Judgment-debtors cannot raise objections if other decree-holders have not objected – Distinction drawn between money decrees and decrees for possession [Paras 6–18]

Execution of Decree – Identifiability of Suit Property – Judgment-debtors contended that execution was not possible as Ameen Map (part of decree) did not show disputed points स and द – Held: Decree and judgment clearly describe the disputed portions – Executing court can ascertain location based on pleadings and judgment – Relief not defeated by accidental omission in map [Paras 19–23]

Scope of Executing Court – Interpretation of Decree – Court has duty to interpret the decree in light of pleadings and proceedings – Executing court can go beyond face of decree to ascertain intent and property description – Reference to Pratibha Singh and Bhavan Vaja – Decree not inexecutable for lack of map markings [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of executing court and revisional court upheld – Objections under Section 47 CPC found to be meritless – Directions issued to executing court to decide execution case within six months from submission of certified order [Paras 24–25]

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Condonation Refused – Petitioner, a government body, filed written statement over two years after service of summons dated 01.07.2019 – Trial court had earlier closed right to file WS on 26.09.2020 – Application under Section 151 CPC and Section 5 Limitation Act rejected – High Court upheld the order – Held: Courts can condone delay beyond 90 days only in rare and exceptional circumstances – Petitioner failed to justify delay or show any diligence [Paras 1–3, 13–15, 23–24]

Government Litigation – Blame on Counsel – Plea that panel counsel did not return files after resigning rejected – Petitioner’s own pleadings admitted return of files – No action taken against defaulting counsel – Held: Government body with access to legal officers cannot shirk responsibility by blaming counsel – Litigant must remain vigilant and is bound by acts of authorised counsel [Paras 3, 15–18, 23]

Limitation – Role of Government Departments – Petitioner pleaded administrative delay in appointing new counsel – Rejected – Held: Mere fact that petitioner is a government entity does not entitle it to automatic condonation of delay – Supreme Court precedents stress that law of limitation binds all equally – Delay attributable to bureaucratic inefficiency or red tape not a valid excuse [Paras 21–22]

Procedural Law – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Scope – Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and subsequent judgments clarified that 90-day timeline for filing written statement is directory but not to be routinely relaxed – Extension beyond 90 days to be allowed only in exceptional cases and with reasons recorded – Discretion not to be exercised in cases of negligence or tactical delay [Paras 7–12]

Costs – Frivolous Petition – Petition found frivolous and lacking in merit – Dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 – Directed to be paid to the respondent within two weeks – Recovery ordered from salary of erring officials responsible for negligence [Para 25]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial court’s refusal to condone delay in filing written statement upheld – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on petitioner to be recovered from salary of responsible officers – Trial court directed to expedite suit proceedings.

Constitutional Law – Disqualification under Tenth Schedule – Speaker’s decision – Judicial Review – Defection Established – Respondent No. 2, elected on BJP ticket, publicly associated with AITC through press conference on June 11, 2021 – Disqualification petition filed by petitioner on June 17, 2021 – Speaker rejected petition citing absence of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" – Held: Standard of proof under Tenth Schedule is preponderance of probabilities, not criminal standard – Speaker’s approach held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 46–48, 57]

Evidence Act – Electronic Records – Section 65B – Admissibility – Petitioner submitted social media screenshots, transcripts and CD of press conference with certificate – Speaker discarded evidence on hypertechnical grounds – Held: Certificate was submitted; even excluding electronic records, uncontroverted transcript and pleadings proved defection – Speaker’s rejection unjustified [Paras 52–55]

Pleadings – Doctrine of Non-Traverse – Unrebutted Allegations – Respondent No. 2 filed written comments and sur rejoinder but failed to deny core allegations of defection – Held: Material facts deemed admitted – Speaker failed to appreciate non-denial and misapplied evidentiary burden [Paras 35–38, 48]

Quasi-Judicial Role of Speaker – Judicial Review Permissible – Held: Speaker misapplied legal standard, failed to consider admitted facts and evidence – His decision vitiated by perversity and amenable to writ jurisdiction – High Court not required to remand due to urgency and lapse of time – Declared respondent disqualified with retrospective effect from date of defection [Paras 44–47, 60–66]

Appointment Set Aside – Consequence of Disqualification – Held: Since disqualification effective from June 11, 2021, respondent's appointment as Chairman of Public Accounts Committee is invalid and stands set aside [Para 68]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Order dated June 8, 2022 passed by Speaker quashed – Respondent No. 2 declared disqualified under Tenth Schedule w.e.f. June 11, 2021 – Speaker directed to take consequential steps – Appointment as PAC Chairman also set aside [Paras 66–68]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Appeal against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Financial Capacity and Rebuttal of Presumption – Complainant alleged advancing Rs. 10 Lakhs cash loan – Trial Court acquitted accused citing lack of evidence for transaction and probable defence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: Complainant failed to prove financial capacity or purpose of loan – Defence successfully rebutted presumption by establishing the cheque was likely a security for husband’s transaction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11].

Evidence – Financial Capacity – Lack of Documentation – Complainant, a financier, claimed to have lent Rs. 10 Lakhs in cash but failed to produce Income Tax records or mention the purpose of the loan – High Court affirmed that advancing such a high amount without documentation renders the initial case of the complainant "wobbly" even before presumption is raised [Paras 5, 9].

Cheque – Material Alterations and Execution – Signature on the cheque was in different ink compared to other entries – Complainant failed to depose that the cheque was filled by the accused in his presence – Circumstances supported the defence version that a blank cheque was issued as security rather than for the alleged debt [Para 10].

Presumption and Rebuttal – Standard of Proof – Accused examined herself (D.W.2) and produced documents relating to connected insolvency proceedings and other transactions involving her husband – Court held that the accused rebutted the statutory presumption to the level of preponderance of probability – Benefit of doubt rightly granted by Trial Court [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Service Law – Dismissal – Unauthorised Absence – Back Wages – “No Work No Pay” – Earlier LPA Granted Only Pensionary Benefits – No Direction for Back Wages – Employee Did Not Perform Duty for Period 09.06.2001–22.10.2007 – Held, Dependents Not Entitled to Back Wages; Treatment of Absence as Duty Without Pay for Pension Purposes Proper [Paras 10–12].

Pensionary Benefits – Earlier Judgment (22.11.2011) – Scope – Division Bench Only Directed Release of Amount in Pension Calculation Chart – No Mandate to Grant Back Wages – Appellant Having Accepted Pension Benefits Cannot Reopen Issue – Order Dated 22.03.2012 Consistent With Earlier LPA Directions [Paras 10–12].

Compassionate Appointment – Consideration – Dependent Daughter Failed Recruitment Test – Authorities Gave Multiple Opportunities and Guidance – Court Reiterates Direction to Consider Eligible Dependent as Per Rules – No Mandamus to Appoint – Only Consideration Permitted [Paras 8, 13–14].

Service Jurisprudence – “No Work No Pay” – Principle Reaffirmed – Back Wages Not Automatic Upon Quashing of Dismissal When No Work Rendered – Especially When Employee Was Absent and Later Died Before Fresh Enquiry Could Be Held [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Denial of back wages upheld – Direction to consider compassionate appointment reiterated, subject to eligibility [Para 14].

Sales Tax – Definition of Dealer – Club Activity – Profit Motive – Not Established – Exemption Granted – Respondent Hyderabad Race Club engaged primarily in horse racing – Petitioner State contended that activities like sale of oats, tender forms, and food items amounted to business – Held: Club not operating with profit motive – Transactions incidental to charitable purpose – Not a “dealer” under Section 2(e) of APGST Act – Tribunal’s view upheld [Paras 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 39].

Tax Classification – Cattle Feed – Oats Sold to Horse Trainers – Whether Taxable as General Goods or Concessional Cattle Feed – Held: Oats fall within definition of Cattle Feed under Entry 80 – Tax at Concessional Rate Applicable – Horses legally classified as cattle under Cattle Trespass Act – Oats used solely as feed – Entry 80 applicable – Reclassification as “general goods” rejected [Paras 6, 14–17, 27–31, 40–42].

Point of Taxation – First Point of Sale – Whether Taxable on Purchase or Sale Value – Held: Tax to be Levied on Subsidised Sale Value – Respondent sold oats to trainers for ₹10.66 lakhs against purchase price of ₹52.30 lakhs – Entry 80 prescribes tax at first point of sale – Tax to be calculated on sale value [Paras 6, 18, 42].

Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Liberal and Purposeful Interpretation of Entry 80 – Broader Scope Includes Feed for Livestock and Horses – Court held Entry 80 to include all livestock feed – Subsequent legislative amendments (Entries 80A, 80B) show earlier inclusion of various feed types in Entry 80 – No narrow interpretation permitted – Supported by judicial precedents and dictionary definitions [Paras 20–26, 43].

Burden of Proof – State Failed to Disprove Classification – Tribunal Order Justified – Respondent presented sufficient documentary and expert evidence supporting oats as cattle feed – State failed to show contrary – Tribunal rightly upheld concessional rate and rejected full taxation on purchase value [Paras 11, 18, 41, 44].

Decision: Tax Revision Cases dismissed – Orders of STAT upheld – Respondent not a dealer – Oats taxable under Entry 80 as cattle feed – Tax payable on actual sale value, not purchase value [Paras 45–46].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance and Summons – Validity – Cognizance taken by trial court on police report against former Chief Minister and others under IPC and POCSO Act – Earlier cognizance order quashed due to lack of reasons – Trial court re-applied mind and passed fresh detailed order – Held: Procedure followed by trial court is in accordance with law – No grounds to interfere with cognizance or issuance of process [Paras 12, 18–19, 23(i)]

Sexual Offences – Allegations Against Public Figure – Victim aged 17 alleged sexual assault by accused No. 1 during a meeting at his residence – Accused Nos. 2 to 4 allegedly facilitated deletion of social media posts and attempted to silence complainant by inducement – Held: Allegations, if true, disclose cognizable offences – Whether they are true or politically motivated can only be tested in full trial – Quashing not warranted at this stage [Paras 9–10, 14, 17]

Earlier Writ Petitions – Binding Effect – Accused had earlier challenged first cognizance order – High Court remanded matter without deciding merits – Fresh challenge to second order barred on same grounds – Held: High Court had already held that allegations warrant trial – Petitioners cannot reargue settled issues – Remedy lies before trial court [Paras 11, 14, 17]

Relief from Personal Appearance – Aged Accused – Accused No. 1, aged and infirm, raised concern of harassment due to compulsory attendance – Held: Trial court directed not to insist on personal presence unless necessary – Exemption applications to be considered leniently [Para 21, 23(ii)]

Judicial Directions – Influence of Observations – Trial court directed to decide case uninfluenced by High Court’s observations in prior or present writ petitions – Proceedings to continue as per law based on evidence led [Paras 22–23(iii)]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Trial court’s order dated 28/02/2025 in Spl.C.C. No. 420/2025 upheld – Cognizance and summons sustained – Trial court not to insist on presence of accused No. 1 unless necessary – Petitioners free to seek discharge or any other remedy as available in law [Para 23]

Criminal Law – Section 314 IPC – Illegal Abortion Causing Death – Conviction Confirmed – Appellant, an unqualified person, attempted to terminate pregnancy of deceased (8 months pregnant) using root-like object and fishing hook – Deceased died due to hemorrhage and septicemia following crude and unhygienic abortion – Eyewitness PW-1 (sister-in-law) and PW-3 (daughter of deceased) deposed to invasive act and pleas of victim to be taken to hospital – Medical evidence corroborated uterine perforation and presence of foetal parts – Held: Act was performed without medical qualification, consent of deceased does not exonerate appellant – Conviction under Section 314 IPC upheld [Paras 3–5, 11–13, 22–27, 32, 40–42]

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Corroboration – PW-1 and PW-3 provided consistent, credible eyewitness testimony of abortion being performed with fishing hook – Medical Officer (PW-5) confirmed cause of death as septicemia and hemorrhage due to mid-trimester incomplete abortion – Hook-like injuries matched medical findings – Testimony found natural, unimpeached and consistent with scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–13, 26–27, 29–30, 32]

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Plea for Reduction Rejected – Appellant claimed sentence excessive due to her old age (over 70 years) and lack of intention to cause death – Court held appellant’s actions were inherently dangerous and illegal, involving gross negligence and reckless disregard for life – Consent of victim to abortion irrelevant when procedure is manifestly unsafe – Held: Sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 314 IPC is just and proportionate – No mitigating circumstance warranting reduction [Paras 8, 33–39]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 314 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to undergo remaining part of sentence [Paras 40–43]