Writ Jurisdiction – Locus Standi – Shareholders of Allottee Company – Petitioners claiming inchoate rights based on alleged 50% shareholding sought to challenge actions of KIADB permitting sub-lease – Held: Shareholders have no proprietary right over assets of the company – No enforceable legal right shown – Petitioners not “persons aggrieved” for invoking Article 226 [Paras 9, 15–16].

Public Law Remedy – Private Commercial Dispute – Petitioners’ grievance stemmed from investment and shareholding dispute of 2004 pending before Commercial Court – Attempt to cloak private dispute as public law issue impermissible – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle personal scores or gain leverage in commercial negotiations [Paras 5, 11, 21, 32].

KIAD Act – Sub-Lease Permission – Sections 34 and 34-B – KIADB granted permission to sub-lease 25 acres pursuant to enquiry ordered by Division Bench – Sub-lease permitted under Clause 11(a) of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement – Petitioners having no statutory role in KIADB’s decision-making cannot assail such permission [Paras 3.3, 6, 13].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench Decisions – Earlier Single Bench view on locus diluted by Division Bench – Subsequent Coordinate Bench categorically held petitioners lack locus – Held: Subsequent Bench bound by coordinate Bench judgment unless stayed or set aside – Entertaining petitions would violate settled principles of judicial discipline [Paras 13–14].

Precedent – Ratio Decidendi – Coordinate Bench Authority – Reliance placed on Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India – Coordinate Bench decisions binding on Benches of equal strength – Remedy, if any, lies before Division Bench and not by re-agitating identical issues before Single Judge [Paras 14–15].

Writ of Certiorari / Mandamus – Threshold Bar – Absence of Locus – Once petitioners fail on locus, Court cannot examine merits of impugned permission or sub-lease deed – Held: Petitions liable to be rejected at threshold [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Writ Petition Nos. 25744 of 2025 and 25894 of 2025 dismissed – Petitioners held to have no locus standi to challenge permission granted by KIADB or sub-lease executed between respondents – All interim orders vacated.

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.

Public Employment – Recruitment by Public Service Commission – Mandatory Timelines – Submission of Documents – Cut-off Date – Advertisement No. 17/2022 for Assistant Professor (Botany) – Petitioner provisionally selected in written examination but failed to submit verification documents within stipulated time and even within extended periods granted with late fees – Subsequent representation citing illness rejected – Held: Conditions of advertisement and Appendix-1 regarding timelines are mandatory and binding – Non-compliance results in automatic cancellation of candidature – Commission becomes functus officio after expiry of final cut-off date – No relaxation permissible in absence of enabling provision [Paras 11–16, 22–24].

Service Law – Vigilance Expected from Candidates – Obligation to Monitor Official Website – Advertisement clauses casting duty on candidates to regularly check Commission’s website for updates – Disclaimer of responsibility for individual communication – Held: Responsibility to remain vigilant lies solely on candidate – Plea of ignorance or non-checking of website cannot be accepted [Paras 11–13, 22].

Service Law – Relaxation of Conditions – Medical Grounds – Equitable Considerations – Petitioner pleaded illness (Mixed Connective Tissue Disease) as reason for delay – No contemporaneous medical proof produced for relevant period – Advertisement did not provide for relaxation on medical or personal grounds – Held: In absence of statutory or advertised power of relaxation, no equity or sympathy can override mandatory recruitment conditions – Grant of individual relaxation would violate Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 17–18, 23–24].

Service Law – Interim Orders – Participation in Selection Process – No Vested Right – Petitioner permitted to appear in interview pursuant to interim order with result kept in sealed cover – Held: Participation under interim protection does not confer any vested or enforceable right – Candidate participates at own risk – On dismissal of petition, interim order stands merged with final decision [Paras 19, 25].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Recruitment Matters – Concluded Selection Process – Interference at Belated Stage – Selection process finalized and recommendations already forwarded to State – Held: Court should not unsettle a concluded selection process in absence of illegality or arbitrariness – Interference would prejudice rights of duly selected candidates and undermine certainty in public recruitment [Paras 21, 24].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No direction to accept documents beyond cut-off date – Interim order dated 16/12/2024 stands vacated – No relief granted to petitioner.

Real Estate Law – RERA – Delay in Possession – Statutory Interest – Mandatory Obligation – Allottee did not withdraw from project despite delay – Proviso to Section 18(1) of RERA Act mandates that promoter shall pay interest for every month of delay till handing over possession – Obligation is automatic and not contingent upon demand by allottee – Promoter liable to pay interest from committed date of possession till actual physical possession [Paras 22–25].

Private Settlement – Waiver of Statutory Rights – Invalidity – Builder relied upon private settlement stating no delay and waiver of claims – Held that private contract or settlement cannot override statutory rights and obligations created under RERA Act – Any agreement seeking to defeat or circumvent proviso to Section 18(1) is void ab initio – Settlement contrary to statute unenforceable [Paras 31–34, 46–47].

One-Sided / Dotted-Line Agreements – Duress – Public Policy – Cyclostyled settlement drafted by promoter with allottee required to sign on dotted line – “Take it or leave it” situation for allottee who had invested life savings – Such agreements ordinarily executed under compulsion and economic duress – Held to be unfair, one-sided and opposed to public policy – Cannot bind allottee [Paras 26, 29–30, 43–45].

Indian Contract Act – Section 23 – Agreements Defeating Law – Agreement whose object defeats provisions of law is unlawful – Settlement aimed at waiving statutory compensation under RERA defeats legislative mandate – Such agreement void under Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872 [Paras 37–39].

RERA – Object and Purpose – Consumer Protection – RERA Act enacted to ensure accountability, transparency and consumer protection – Rights under Sections 18 and 19 are absolute and unqualified – Promoter cannot contract out of statutory liability by private settlement – Statute prevails over contract [Paras 20, 33–36].

Proceedings under Chapter VIII – Penal Consequences – Failure of promoter to discharge mandatory obligation to pay interest exposes promoter to proceedings under Chapter VIII of RERA Act – Direction of Tribunal to initiate proceedings upheld [Paras 25, 40].

Appellate Interference – Scope under Section 58 RERA – Tribunal correctly appreciated facts and law – No illegality or perversity found – No substantial question warranting interference – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 48–50].

Decision: RERA Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order dated 01.04.2025 passed by U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal affirmed – Allottee entitled to interest at MCLR + 1% for delay – Costs upheld.

Family Law - Child Custody – Habeas Corpus Proceedings – Intra-court Appeals by Both Parents – Paramount Consideration of Welfare of Minor – Multiple proceedings between estranged spouses including habeas corpus, contempt and guardianship – Held: Custody issues finally settled earlier by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – No emergent circumstances warranting change of custody at appellate stage [Paras 60–61, 72–78].

Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – High Court empowered to mould relief in best interest of child – However, such power to be exercised with circumspection and not to unsettle stable custody arrangements in absence of compelling change in circumstances – Welfare, stability and continuity of child’s environment to be given primacy [Paras 59, 62–64, 76–77].

Custody of Minor – Mother vs Father – Child living with mother since infancy except for period of forcible removal by father – Custody restored to mother pursuant to habeas corpus order affirmed by Supreme Court – Child settled in school and environment at Lucknow – Held: No material indicating neglect, abuse or toxic atmosphere with mother – Custody with mother not to be disturbed [Paras 72–77].

Visitation Rights – Father’s Right to Access Child – Detailed visitation order dated 06.01.2022 – Subsequent modification dated 07.04.2023 introducing seasonal and time-segmented visitation – Court finds original visitation order adequate – Modification unnecessary when primary order itself not complied with – Held: Original visitation order dated 06.01.2022 restored and to be strictly adhered to [Paras 83–85].

Shared Parenting – Desirability vs Practical Feasibility – While shared parenting beneficial in theory – Persistent acrimony between parents rendered arrangements unworkable – Court cannot enforce ideal parenting model in hostile matrimonial conflict at cost of child’s mental peace [Paras 64–65].

Boarding School – Prayer to Remove Child from Mother’s Custody Indirectly – Father’s plea to send child to residential school at his expense – No expert psychological evaluation or material to show necessity – Child aged about 7 years, settled with mother – Held: Sending child to boarding school not justified merely to resolve visitation difficulties – Liberty reserved for Family Court to consider on evidence [Paras 79–81].

Guardianship Proceedings – Proper Forum – Substantive proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act pending before Family Court – Habeas corpus not a substitute for guardianship adjudication – Direction issued for expeditious disposal of guardianship case with priority [Paras 82, 78].

Final Directions – Appeals Disposed – No change in custody – Original visitation order dated 06.01.2022 to operate – Family Court directed to decide guardianship proceedings expeditiously – Observations not to prejudice merits before Family Court [Paras 85–86].

Decision: Special Appeal No.221 of 2023 and Special Appeal No.225 of 2023 disposed of – Custody of minor to continue with mother – Modification order dated 07.04.2023 set aside – Visitation to be governed by order dated 06.01.2022 – Parties to bear their own costs.

Civil Writ - Recruitment Examination – Alleged Paper Leak and Mass Copying – Systemic Malaise – Petitioners sought quashing of entire recruitment process alleging circulation of OMR sheets on social media, identical wrong answers, geographical concentration of toppers and collusion – Held: Mere suspicion, conjecture or post-result dissatisfaction is insufficient to vitiate a recruitment process – Heavy onus lies on petitioners to establish systemic fraud going to the root of the selection [Paras 1, 12, 15].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits of Interference – Court reiterated that interference is warranted only when sanctity of examination is compromised at a systemic level rendering segregation of tainted and untainted candidates impossible – Where allegations rest on disputed questions of fact and are examined by a fact-finding inquiry, courts should exercise restraint [Paras 10, 12–13].

Inquiry by Retired High Court Judge – Evidentiary Value – Respondents placed sealed inquiry report prepared by a retired Judge of the High Court – Inquiry exhaustively examined allegations relating to regional concentration, prior poor performance, age of candidates, familial relationships and identical wrong answers – Forensic examination of OMR sheets ruled out common authorship and impersonation – Inquiry report upheld fairness and transparency of examination – Held: Such report deserves due deference in absence of perversity or mala fides [Paras 2, 11, 16].

Objective-Type Examination – Similar Wrong Answers – Evidentiary Appreciation – Allegation that top candidates chose identical incorrect answers – Held: Similarity in wrong answers can arise from common preparation material, elimination techniques and exam stress – In absence of evidence of tampering, communication devices or access to answer keys, such similarity does not establish malpractice [Paras 11(e), 16].

Geographical Concentration of Successful Candidates – Effect – High number of toppers from particular districts alleged to indicate cheating nexus – Inquiry found candidates appeared at different centres with no roll-number or seating proximity – Held: Regional concentration by itself cannot give rise to presumption of collusion or unfair means [Paras 11(a), 16].

Cancellation of Examination – Doctrine of Proportionality – Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that cancellation of an examination is an extreme measure – Where no systemic breach is demonstrated and it is possible to segregate tainted candidates, cancellation would be disproportionate – Facts of Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar distinguished as involving proven large-scale and organized malpractice [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Recruitment process under Advertisement No. 6 of 2023 upheld – Interim order vacated – Inquiry report accepted and returned – No direction for fresh examination or criminal investigation warranted [Paras 18–21].

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. / Section 348 BNSS – Petitioners sought recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination – Trial court dismissed application holding no sufficient cause for earlier non-cross-examination – PW-1’s testimony earlier closed with remark “Nil. Opportunity given” when accused were unrepresented – Held: Order resulted in gross injustice warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 1, 5–6].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Bar of Revision – Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. / Section 438(2) BNSS – Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ordinarily interlocutory and revision barred – Held: Bar on revision does not oust inherent powers where interlocutory order results in gross injustice – High Court duty-bound to invoke inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 4].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Accused compelled to cross-examine prosecution witness in absence of counsel – Accused being lay persons unable to conduct effective cross-examination – Held: Denial of legal assistance strikes at the core of fair trial and vitiates trial proceedings – In the name of expeditious trial, fairness cannot be sacrificed [Paras 5, 7–8].

Criminal Courts – Duty of Trial Court – Absence of Defence Counsel – Proper Course – Held: Where accused are unrepresented, trial court should appoint amicus curiae or seek legal aid counsel instead of compelling accused to cross-examine – Trial court may also exercise power to put questions to witness to reach truth – Emphasis on purity and fairness of trial [Paras 6, 8].

Inherent Powers – Ends of Justice – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside impugned order refusing recall of witness – Trial court directed to grant fresh opportunity to accused through counsel to cross-examine PW-1 – Directions issued for systemic compliance and circulation among criminal courts to avoid recurrence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to permit further cross-examination of PW-1 through counsel – Matter remitted for continuation of trial in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Public Servant – Quasi-Judicial Functions – Criminal Prosecution – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation passed an order staying mutation proceedings pending decision of civil title suit – Allegation of collusion and conspiracy in passing stay order – Held: Passing of stay order was in discharge of quasi-judicial functions and squarely protected under Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Criminal prosecution on such basis amounts to abuse of process [Paras 20–27, 30–31].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR and charge-sheet arose solely from judicial/quasi-judicial order passed by petitioner – No specific allegation of extraneous consideration, corruption or acts beyond jurisdiction – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would be malafide and oppressive – FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 27, 31, 33–34].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Non-Application of Mind – Impugned sanction order granting approval to prosecute petitioner found cryptic and non-speaking – Sanctioning authority failed to consider statutory protection available to petitioner under Judges (Protection) Act – Held: Sanction order invalid and unsustainable in law – Consequential proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 28–29, 32].

Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Scope – Meaning of “Judge” – Revenue / Municipal Officers – Executive Officer empowered to pass definitive orders in mutation proceedings falls within wide definition of “Judge” under Section 2 of the Act – Protection extends to acts done or purported to be done in discharge of official or judicial duty – Remedy against erroneous order lies in appeal and not criminal prosecution [Paras 21–25, 30].

Mutation Proceedings – Civil Dispute – Criminal Colour – Dispute essentially related to title and mutation of property already subject matter of civil suit – Mutation effected years prior to petitioner’s posting – Held: Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle property disputes or challenge administrative orders passed in good faith [Paras 12, 20–21, 31].

Sanction – Safeguard to Public Servants – Object of Law – Sanction is not an idle formality – Must reflect independent application of mind and consideration of material – Mechanical sanction vitiates entire prosecution – Reliance placed on Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar and Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta [Paras 29–32].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Application allowed – FIR in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014, charge-sheet and sanction order dated 28.12.2020 quashed qua the petitioner – All consequential proceedings set aside [Paras 33–34].

Writ of Mandamus – Requirement of Legal Right – Petitioners sought direction not to close alleged 30-feet road connecting colonies – Held, issuance of mandamus requires establishment of a judicially enforceable legal right and corresponding public duty – Petitioners failed to demonstrate existence of road through cogent material – Mere assertion insufficient – No mandamus can be issued in absence of proof of right [Paras 11-14, 20, 29].

Pleadings in Writ Proceedings – Burden of Proof – In writ jurisdiction, not only facts but supporting evidence must be pleaded and annexed – Petitioners relied only on photographs which did not establish existence of road – No village map or revenue record produced – No rejoinder filed to counter affidavit – Petitioners failed to discharge burden [Paras 15-19].

Suppression of Material Facts – Clean Hands Doctrine – Court found inconsistencies in pleadings and lack of supporting material – Petitioners approached Court without full and candid disclosure – Applying doctrine of suppressio veri, expressio falsi, discretionary relief declined [Paras 20-23].

Public Trust Doctrine – Protection of Water Bodies – Subject land classified as Vagu Poramboke reserved for natural water flow and flood protection – Banks/bunds of water bodies integral part of natural resource – State holds such resources in trust for public and future generations – Encroachments or diversion impermissible – Flood protection works cannot be stalled without proof of lawful right [Paras 24-28].

Vakalatnama – Importance of Attestation – Three petitioners initially denied signing vakalat – Court examined procedural safeguards under Appellate Side Rules and Order III Rule 4 CPC – Attestation not mere formality but mandatory safeguard to prevent impersonation and unauthorised litigation – Registry directed to verify attestation scrupulously – Advocates cautioned to mention name and Bar Council enrolment number while attesting [Paras 31-39, 42].

Incidental Enquiry – Denial of Signature – Registrar (Judicial) conducted enquiry – Report indicated petitioners signed document though alleged ignorance of contents – Court declined to delve deeper but issued caution to Bar and Registry [Paras 36-38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioners failed to prove existence of alleged road or establish enforceable legal right – No costs – Registry directed to ensure proper scrutiny of vakalatnamas – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.