Writ Law - Administrative Law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Petitioner challenged Clause A(C) of the DSLSA empanelment notice restricting candidates to a single application per district and panel as arbitrary - Petitioner argued that Clause A(D) permitting relinquishment of existing panels rendered the restriction in Clause A(C) irrational - High Court held that the prescription of eligibility and procedural criteria lies within the employer domain and the court will not sit in appeal over selection procedures - Court noted that Clauses A(C) and A(D) operate at different stages and serve distinct purposes - Held - Petitioner failed to establish manifest arbitrariness or patent illegality - selection process already advanced and stage for interference closed - petition dismissed - [Paras 1-13].

Administrative Law - Service Law - Selection Process - Discretion of Authority - The Court emphasized that defining the eligibility conditions and the number of applications allowed per candidate is a matter of administrative policy devised by the employer - Held - judiciary will not interfere with administrative decisions regarding the structuring of selection processes unless they are demonstrably arbitrary - [Paras 4-10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - No relief granted – All pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Addition of Parties - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) - Petitioner sought to bring on record legal heirs of the original deceased plaintiff relying on municipal certificates - Appellate Court rejected application citing doubtful authenticity of documents and suggesting heirs should approach the court suo moto - High Court held that the appellate court acted erroneously by dismissing the application without sufficient justification as documents supported by affidavits should be considered in such applications - Held - Order set aside and application for addition of parties allowed - [Paras 1-18].

Civil Law - Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Proof of documents in interlocutory applications - Appellate Court insisted on formal proof of municipal certificates by authorities before considering them for addition of parties - High Court held there was no occasion to bring the issuing authorities to prove certificates at the stage of Order I Rule 10(2) application - Held - Appellate Court finding unsustainable - [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Impugned order set aside – Application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC allowed – Appellate court directed to proceed with the title appeal expeditiously after addition of parties.

Criminal Law - Illegal Detention - Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 52A - Mandatory compliance with sampling and destruction procedures - Petitioners challenged detention on grounds that NCB destroyed seized contraband without judicial order or notice - NCB failed to produce evidence of compliance with Section 52A or Rules 2022 - Court held that non-compliance with mandatory procedure vitiates the prosecution and makes detention illegal - Held - Detention of petitioners is without sanction of law - [Paras 21-27, 39-40].

Criminal Law - Incomplete Complaint - Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A - Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules 2022 - NCB failed to conduct and file quantitative analysis of seized contraband within mandatory timeframe - Complaint filed without quantitative report deemed incomplete and legally non-est - Cognizance taken on incomplete complaint without application of mind renders detention illegal - Held - Prosecution failed to comply with statutory mandates under Rule 14 - [Paras 18-19, 29-30].

Criminal Law - Investigation Period - Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Extension of time - Special Court granted 60 days' extension for investigation which was subsequently set aside by High Court - NCB failed to file fresh application for extension despite directions - Charge-sheet/Complaint filed after expiry of statutory period rendered detention unauthorized - Held - Custody is illegal due to lack of valid remand order - [Paras 34, 35].

Evidence Law - Procedural Irregularity - Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Rule 13 - Chain of custody - Contraband discrepancy noted between initial field test (Amphetamine) and subsequent FSL result (Mephedrone) - Samples forwarded by NCB officials directly instead of through Magistrate as mandated by Rule 13 - Held - Serious doubts raised regarding integrity of samples and prosecution case - [Paras 30, 32, 33].

Decision: Habeas Corpus Petitions allowed – Petitioners directed to be released forthwith upon furnishing personal bond of Rs 2 lacs and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Labour Law - Employees Compensation - Employees Compensation Act 1923 - Section 30 - Death due to cardiac arrest during employment - Deceased driver died of cardiac arrest while returning from duty after unloading oil tanker - Claimants alleged death resulted from stress and strain of 24x7 driving - Insurer contested the claim stating death by heart attack did not arise out of employment and alleged policy violation - ALC awarded compensation after finding nexus between occupational stress and death - High Court upheld the award noting that evidence of stress and strain was sufficiently led by claimants and not rebutted by the insurer - Held - Death occurred out of and in the course of employment - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-19].

Evidence Law - Burden of proof - Employees Compensation Act 1923 - Section 30 - Alleged policy violation - Insurer failed to lead any evidence to prove breach of insurance policy - Held - The plea of policy violation remains unproved when the burden of proof is not discharged by the party raising the plea - [Para 13].

Labour Law - Accident arising out of and in the course of employment - Employees Compensation Act 1923 - Section 3 - Scope of accident - Deceased driver suffered cardiac arrest due to strain of long-distance driving - Applying the principles in Param Pal Singh and Dariyao Kanwar cases - Held - Long spells of driving constitute material contributory factor to cardiac death which constitutes an accident arising out of and in the course of employment - [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The award dated 27 June 2022 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner is upheld in its entirety.

Contempt Law - Willful Disobedience - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Sections 11 and 12 - Petitioners alleged that the State failed to comply with the order in W.P. No. 5453/2022 to redraw the seniority list of Range Forest Officers strictly as per legal guidelines - Accused filed compliance affidavits demonstrating that a new seniority list was published after correcting previous anomalies and following due process - Held - Where an authority takes a decision in purported compliance with a Court's judgment that is alleged to be legally incorrect or inconsistent - the remedy is to challenge that decision in appropriate proceedings as it creates a fresh cause of action - Contempt proceedings cannot be used to sit in appeal or judicial review over the merits of the subsequent administrative decision - Contempt petition closed and notice discharged - [Paras 20-27].

Contempt Law - Scope of Jurisdiction - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Court examined the limits of contempt jurisdiction regarding the finality of administrative decisions - Held - The Court cannot add new obligations or modify substantive directions not contained in the original judgment - Contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for an appeal or judicial review - Aggrieved parties must approach the Court which passed the original order for clarification or invoke appellate jurisdiction to challenge the legality of the new seniority list - [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Contempt petition closed - Contempt notice discharged - Petitioners granted liberty to challenge the revised seniority list in appropriate proceedings.

Criminal Law - Habeas Corpus - Constitution of India - Article 22 - Illegal re-arrest - Petitioner was initially arrested and subsequently released by the Magistrate due to failure of the police to provide grounds of arrest in accordance with Mihir Rajesh Shah - Petitioner was re-arrested without following the mandatory procedure of seeking prior permission from the Magistrate and obtaining endorsement from a superior police officer as reiterated in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol - Court held that re-arrest without such judicial imprimatur and adherence to established protocol renders the detention unconstitutional - Held - Re-arrest is illegal and petitioner directed to be released forthwith - [Paras 3-17].

Criminal Law - Arrest Procedure - Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - Mandatory requirements - Safeguards regarding communication of grounds of arrest - Any breach of Article 22(1) renders the arrest unconstitutional - Subsequent registration of additional offences does not validate an arrest made in violation of fundamental rights - Investigating agencies must strictly follow the procedural safeguards regarding re-arrest after an accused is released from unconstitutional detention - Held - Mandatory protocols defined in Mihir Rajesh Shah and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol must be followed - [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Petition allowed – The re-arrest of the petitioner is declared illegal – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith from custody on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the Magistrate's order dated 23.07.2026.

Civil Law - Transfer of Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Convenience of the wife - Applicant wife sought transfer of Family Suit No 4 of 2026 from Morbi to Bhachau contending that she resides at Rapar Kutch which is 100 kilometres away and must care for a minor child - Husband opposed stating financial inability and suggested video conferencing - Court observed the wife is burdened with child care and the husband has a history of non-compliance with maintenance orders necessitating imprisonment - Held - Inconvenience to the wife outweighs the husband's constraints - Transfer allowed - [Paras 7-9].

Civil Law - Procedural Fairness - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Consolidation of proceedings - Applicant requested that the transferred suit and existing maintenance proceedings be heard by the same Court - Held - The transferee court may grant common dates for proceedings and permit the respondent to appear via video conferencing unless physical presence is mandatorily required - [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Application allowed - Family Suit No 4 of 2026 transferred from Family Court Morbi to the competent Court at Bhachau - Rule made absolute.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Doctrine of Parity - Petitioner sought quashing of FIR on ground that co-accused persons facing similar allegations of extortion and debt-trapping had their FIRs quashed by High Court and confirmed by Apex Court - Court observed that while allegations of debt-trapping were similar, specific allegations existed against petitioner regarding active facilitation and operation of an illegal online cricket betting racket using a specific digital platform - Held - Petitioner cannot claim parity as his role is distinct and involves potential offences under betting and money circulation laws which require thorough investigation - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-20].

Criminal Law - Investigation - Powers of High Court - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - FIR as encyclopedia of facts - Petitioner argued that FIR should be quashed as dispute was civil in nature - Respondent submitted that investigation is necessary to unravel a larger betting conspiracy involving multiple legislative violations - Held - FIR is not an encyclopedia of complete facts and courts should not stifle investigation when serious allegations of organized betting rackets are disclosed in Section 161 and 164 CrPC statements - Public interest demands investigation into large-scale illegal betting - [Paras 5-18].

Evidence Law - Witness Testimony - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 164 - Admissibility and value - Supplementary statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC specifically identified the petitioner as the operator of an online betting platform - Held - Such material provides sufficient prima facie ground for the police to proceed with investigation and identify other potential victims - [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Petition dismissed - The prayer for quashing the FIR is rejected to allow for completion of the ongoing investigation.

Service Law - Misconduct - Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1971 - Rules 16 and 19 - Judicial Officer dismissed for serious misconduct including possession of benami mobile phones used to contact practicing advocates and failure to report purchase of motor vehicles and personal loans - Inquiry Officer and Full Court upheld charges based on evidence and petitioner's own admissions regarding non-disclosure - High Court observed that judicial officers must maintain absolute distance from practicing advocates to prevent appearance of impropriety - Held - Disciplinary authority's conclusion that charges were proven and warranted dismissal is justified - Petition dismissed - [Paras 19-37, 40-41].

Service Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference - High Court reiterated that in departmental inquiries it will not sit as an appellate court to reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact recorded by Inquiry Officer unless findings are perverse or punishment is disproportionate to the point of shocking the conscience - Held - Petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural illegality or lack of evidence - [Paras 14-15, 18, 42-44].

Service Law - Conduct Rules - Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1971 - Rule 19 - Failure to disclose movable property - Petitioner argued that claiming petrol allowance for vehicles constituted constructive notice to High Court - Held - Statutory requirement to report acquisition of movable property exceeding prescribed limit is mandatory and cannot be substituted by mere inference from allowance claims - Consistent disregard for reporting requirements establishes misconduct - [Paras 30-33].

Service Law - Disciplinary Action - Standard of proof - Quasi-criminal proceedings - Held - Charges of non-reporting of financial transactions were admitted by petitioner rendering arguments regarding standard of proof irrelevant - Misconduct of such nature reflects lack of integrity essential for a Judicial Officer - [Paras 40-43].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Dismissal order of the disciplinary authority stands confirmed.