Civil Law - Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Natural Justice – Mutation Case Rejected Without Notice – Petitioners’ application for mutation rejected by Additional Tahasildar, Jatani on the ground of non-submission of original certified copy and non-appearance – Held: Record does not reveal issuance of notice to petitioners nor opportunity of hearing – Violation of principles of natural justice – Order quashed [Paras 3–5]

Administrative Law – Opportunity of Hearing – Mutation Case – Authorities must ensure proper notice and opportunity to parties before passing orders – Absence of notice renders the order unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners [Paras 5–8]

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – High Court exercised jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside impugned mutation order for failure to comply with procedural fairness – Authorities directed to conclude proceedings within two months [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 23.10.2024 in Mutation Case No.3928 of 2024 quashed – Matter remitted to Additional Tahasildar, Jatani for fresh disposal after hearing petitioners and other parties – Petitioners directed to appear on 16.12.2025 for further proceedings – Mutation case to be concluded preferably within two months from filing of certified copy of the judgment.

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegations of cruelty by wife not established – Appellant-husband alleged wife refused to cook, misbehaved, and pressured him to live separately from parents – Trial Court found no credible evidence of cruelty – Held: No perversity in Family Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1–9, 22, 54–56]

Family Law – Cruelty – Legal Standard – Reiterated: Cruelty includes physical and mental suffering causing reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful to live with the spouse – Mere marital discord or incompatibility does not amount to cruelty – Allegations must be grave and substantiated. [Paras 26–34]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Desertion implies intentional abandonment without reasonable cause and without consent – Requires factum of separation and animus deserendi – Respondent-wife was ousted from matrimonial home – No voluntary desertion – No ground made out. [Paras 35–46, 50–52]

Family Law – Appreciation of Evidence – No perversity – Evidence of both parties considered by Family Court – Allegations of cruelty and desertion found unproved – Court also considered wife’s willingness to resume matrimonial life – Held: No interference warranted in appeal – Appellate Court not to re-appreciate evidence without perversity or legal error. [Paras 18–23, 47–53]

Family Law – Pending Proceedings – Fact that respondent-wife had filed criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC – Does not per se constitute cruelty – Needs to be established that such proceedings were false and malicious. [Paras 16, 49]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Impugned judgment of Family Court upheld. No element of perversity found. Pending applications also disposed of. [Paras 55–57]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Hate Speech and Communal Provocation – Petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging hate-motivated and inflammatory statements against the Purvanchal community through viral online interview – Petitioner alleged to have made caste-targeted, communal and defamatory remarks against migrants from UP/Bihar and their women – FIR supported by digital evidence (pen drive), complainant's affidavit, memorandum of community members and witness statements – Held: Allegations raise serious concerns of inciting communal disharmony; custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation – Bail rejected [Paras 1–6, 10]

Speech Act Theory – Judicial Application – Court invoked Speech Act Theory (Austin & Searle) to interpret hate speech not only by literal meaning but by intention (illocutionary force) and effect (perlocutionary impact) – Remarks attributed to petitioner prima facie constituted communicative acts capable of provoking public disorder and societal insecurity – Plea that petitioner was named only in supplementary statement not sufficient to discard material on record [Para 6]

Bail Jurisprudence – Individual Rights vs. Societal Interest – High Court held that anticipatory bail in such cases undermines public confidence and can embolden others – Right to pre-arrest bail cannot be invoked when there is prima facie material supporting grave charges and ongoing investigation requires custodial interrogation – Reference made to State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 [Para 9]

**Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Electronic evidence, viral circulation, potential accomplices and community outrage justify rejection of bail plea – Investigating agency must be given full opportunity to trace origin, intent and effect of speech and associated criminal acts without hindrance from bail order [Paras 8–10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No merit in anticipatory bail plea – Custodial interrogation held necessary – Observations not to affect merits of investigation.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Review – Maintainability of Review – Earlier SLPs filed by appellants dismissed for non-prosecution – Held: Dismissal of SLPs for default does not bar maintainability of review petition – Doctrine of merger does not apply to non-speaking dismissal orders – Review petitions held to be maintainable under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 18-19].

Limitation – Delay of Over 12 Years – Condonation – Review petitions filed with delay ranging from 4557 to 4586 days – Delay attributed to personal hardships and death of appellant Harke Ram – Held: Delay condoned in view of principles laid down in Katiji, Dhiraj Singh, Huchanagouda and Suresh Kumar cases – Denial of enhanced compensation would violate equity and parity – Interest on enhanced compensation denied for period of delay as equitable balance [Paras 20-24].

Compensation – Principle of Parity – Enhanced compensation already granted by Supreme Court in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana to similarly situated landowners for same acquisition – Appellants’ lands part of same notification and award – Held: Appellants entitled to same enhancement of ₹20,00,000/- per acre as per Rajender Singh judgment – No justification to deny benefit merely due to procedural delay when entitlement otherwise established [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Review petitions allowed – Delay in filing condoned subject to denial of interest for delayed period – Applicants entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹20,00,000/- per acre in line with Supreme Court judgment in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana – Statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act granted, excluding interest for delayed period – Appeals disposed of accordingly.

Service Law – Police Personnel – Corruption – Dismissal – ASI trapped for accepting bribe – Inquiry held valid – SP competent authority – Court affirms dismissal as justified under Rule 16.2 and Rule 16.40 PPR; length of service irrelevant when guilt of corruption established [Paras 6–8, 12–13].

Competent Authority – SP as Appointing & Disciplinary Authority – Challenge rejected – Court relies on Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2865 – SP competent to dismiss ASI – Contention misconceived [Para 6].

Departmental Proceedings – Approval of District Magistrate – Not Required in Corruption Cases – Rule 16.38 PPR inapplicable; Rule 16.40 governs corruption matters – Following Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 3242 – Contention rejected [Paras 7–8].

Natural Justice – No Requirement to Call for Comments on Inquiry Report – Rule 16.24 PPR contains complete procedure – Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority may be different – Supply of inquiry report + opportunity to reply + personal hearing = full compliance – No violation of natural justice [Paras 9–11].

Show-Cause Notice – Mention of Proposed Punishment – Not Illegal – Post 42nd Amendment to Article 311(2), no right to representation on proposed penalty – State instructions of 1975 merely advisory – Court relies on Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 [Paras 10–11].

Rule 16.2 PPR – Length of Service & Pension – Consideration Not Mandatory in Corruption Cases – Court cites State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1992) 4 SCC 54 – Single act of corruption is “gravest misconduct” warranting dismissal; long service cannot shield corrupt conduct [Paras 12–13].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence – Interference justified only for perversity or procedural violations – No such infirmity found – Court relies on Subrata Nath (2022), P. Gunasekaran, Syed Yakoob (1964), CCRAS v. Bikartan Das (2023) [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No perversity or procedural violation – Dismissal from service justified and upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16–17].

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Live and Proximate Link – Delay Vitiates Detention – Alleged occurrence on 11.06.2025; arrest on 22.06.2025; detention order on 21.07.2025 – State failed to satisfactorily explain delay – Mere calendrical narration in affidavit insufficient – Applying Anand Prakash (AIR 1990 SC 516) and Sushanta Kumar Bainik (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333), Court holds live and proximate link snapped; detention vitiated [Paras 6–9].

Detaining Authority Must Consider Custody Status – Non-Application of Mind – Detaining authority failed to record that detenu was already in judicial custody at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa on date of detention order; subjective satisfaction regarding imminent likelihood of release on bail absent – Violative of principles in Khudiram Das (1975) 2 SCC 81 and reaffirmed in Ameena Begum (2023) 9 SCC 587 – Detention unsustainable [Paras 10–11].

Subjective Satisfaction – Limited Judicial Review – Court reiterates Khudiram Das doctrine that subjective satisfaction is reviewable on grounds such as non-application of mind, irrelevant considerations, improper purpose, incorrect factual assumptions – Detention order failed these tests as detaining authority ignored crucial factual data [Paras 10–11].

Distinction from Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019) 20 SCC 609 – DH Dhakad applies where detaining authority considers custody and likelihood of bail but records no explicit finding – Present case more severe: detaining authority completely omitted fact of custody, hence order vitiated on a more fundamental ground [Para 11].

Default Bail – Impact on Preventive Detention Justification – Lone FIR forming basis of detention saw detenu granted default bail on 08.10.2025 due to State’s failure to file final report – Though not the sole ground for quashing, it underscores inconsistency in State sustaining preventive detention while allowing lapse in regular criminal process – Court notes Ram Manohar Lohia’s concentric circle principle distinguishing law and order, public order, security of State [Paras 12–13].

Detention Order Quashed – Procedural & Substantive Violations – Delay unexplained; custody status ignored; subjective satisfaction not in conformity with settled constitutional standards – Detention order, approval and confirmation all set aside – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 14].

Decision:

Writ of Habeas Corpus allowed – Preventive detention order dated 21.07.2025, its approval dated 31.07.2025 and confirmation dated 22.08.2025 quashed – Detenu Longjam Boy Singh @ Khaba directed to be released immediately, if not required in other case(s) – No order as to costs.

[Paras 14]

Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Weak Evidentiary Value – Petitioner implicated only based on co-accused’s disclosure; no recovery from petitioner; Court holds disclosure statement without corroboration cannot be sole basis for implication; evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Raises serious doubts regarding fairness of investigation [Paras 3, 6].

Custody & Delay – Long Incarceration Dilutes Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody since 12.06.2023; challan filed 07.12.2023; 28 witnesses cited but none examined – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Prolonged incarceration of 2 years 3 months 15 days violates Article 21; thus rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted [Paras 6, 6.3–6.4].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Principles Summarised – Court reiterates jurisprudence:

• Twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative;

• Bail Court may look at defence material;

• “Not likely to commit offence while on bail” requires demonstrable probability, not theoretical presumption;

• Antecedents alone cannot justify rejection when case on merits is made out [Paras 6.2–6.6].**

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Reiterated – Cites line of Supreme Court precedents (Hussainara Khatoon; Antulay; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain; Chitta Biswas; Nitish Adhikary) – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delay cannot justify prolonged incarceration; pre-trial detention cannot turn into punitive imprisonment [Paras 6.5–6.6].

Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Petitioner involved in two other cases per custody certificate – Court holds antecedents relevant but not determinative when prosecution case in present FIR itself is weak and delay substantial [Para 6.6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to strict conditions including: no misuse of liberty, no tampering with evidence, appearance at trial dates, deposit of passport, maintaining same mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offence – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 7–9].

Consumer Law – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to National Commission Orders – High Court holds that although writ under Article 226 is maintainable against National Commission orders, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily declined when Article 227 remedy exists – Petitioner’s challenge rejected as findings of Consumer Fora were concurrent, factual, and non-perverse – Held: Writ petition not maintainable on facts; no exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 18–21, 24–27]

Alternate Remedy – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – When supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, invocation of Article 226 ordinarily impermissible unless there is violation of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court precedents in Whirlpool, Harbanslal Sahnia, Radha Krishan Industries, Ibrat Faizan and Rikhab Chand Jain applied – Petitioner failed to bring case within exceptions [Paras 12–16, 18–21]

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Findings – Real Estate Project – Consolidation Proceedings – Petitioner alleged force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act – Consumer Fora found that project land was under consolidation and possession never with petitioner – Petitioner's pleas rejected repeatedly – High Court refuses re-appreciation of facts in writ jurisdiction – Findings held reasonable and not perverse [Paras 22–24, 26]

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Role of High Court – National Commission treated as ‘Tribunal’ under Articles 136 & 227 – High Court reiterates its limited power of interference and declines to act as appellate authority over factual determinations of Consumer Fora [Paras 15–16, 18–21]

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with orders of District, State or National Consumer Commissions – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 27].