Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Civil Imprisonment – Order 21 Rule 37 CPC – Judgment-debtor ordered to be detained in civil prison for 3 months for non-payment of decretal amount of ₹7,06,177 – Petitioner argued non-compliance with Section 51 CPC and lack of opportunity to show cause – Held: Sufficient opportunity was provided; petitioner failed to furnish surety or substantiate alleged prior payment – No receipt produced despite Court enquiry – No civil appeal filed – Petitioner’s conduct reflects deliberate evasion of decree compliance – Detention order valid [Paras 1–7]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Challenge to execution order invoking supervisory powers of High Court – Held: No jurisdictional error or procedural infirmity shown – Executing Court’s discretion exercised in accordance with law after affording full opportunity – No ground to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 [Paras 6–9]

Execution – Payment Dispute – False Plea of Payment Without Proof – Petitioner claimed to have paid decretal amount earlier but failed to produce receipt or file appeal – Court found plea to be false and evasive – Such conduct not a ground to interfere with execution proceedings – Petition dismissed with costs [Paras 7–9]

Decision: Civil revision petition dismissed – Order of civil imprisonment upheld – No procedural irregularity or denial of opportunity found – Pending applications also disposed

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Appointment void ab initio – Petitioner, claiming to be son of deceased employee Sumitra Devi, secured appointment on compassionate grounds – Inquiry revealed petitioner was son of Yashoda Devi, not Sumitra Devi – Legal heir and succession certificates found to be obtained by suppression of facts – Held: Fraud vitiates all solemn acts – Appointment obtained by fraud confers no right or protection under Article 311 – Writ dismissed – Impugned order dated 04.07.2025 upheld [Paras 89–97, 108–110].

Compassionate Appointment – Eligibility & Parentage – Proof of Fraudulent Representation – Petitioner’s father, while serving as Revenue Inspector, submitted false affidavit and legal heir certificate showing petitioner as son of deceased teacher Sumitra Devi – Inquiry and statements of Sumitra Devi’s daughters (Snehlata and Anita) proved petitioner is son of Yashoda Devi – Appointment based on misrepresentation held fraudulent and non est in law [Paras 24–26, 89–90].

Departmental Inquiry – Fresh Inquiry in compliance with Division Bench order dated 24.04.2025 – Petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments; did not produce evidence – Inquiry Officer’s report based on official records and witness statements upheld – Due process satisfied – No violation of natural justice [Paras 21, 23–26, 99].

Fraud – Legal Consequence – Fraud unravels everything – Concealment of material facts amounts to suppressio veri and suggestio falsi – Appointment and benefits obtained through fraud are nullities – Salary and pension benefits drawn under such appointment recoverable – No equity or constitutional protection available [Paras 55–57, 95–97, 108–110].

Interim Orders – No Enduring Right – Interim reliefs merge in final adjudication and confer no substantive rights – Petitioner’s reliance on interim orders untenable once disciplinary order attained finality [Paras 91–94].

Succession/Legal Heir Certificates – Fraudulent Procurement – Competent authority not bound to honour certificates obtained by concealment or false information – Fraudulent certificates can be ignored without formal cancellation – Fraud renders them void ab initio [Paras 76–80].

Article 311 – Scope of Protection – Protection under Article 311 available only to validly appointed employees – Appointment obtained by fraud or forged documents is void ab initio; cancellation thereof does not amount to punitive dismissal – No disciplinary inquiry required where appointment itself is illegal [Paras 102–103].

Equitable Relief – Denied to Fraudulent Litigant – Writ jurisdiction is discretionary – A petitioner approaching court with unclean hands forfeits equitable relief – Fraudulent conduct disentitles writ remedy [Paras 81–83].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 04.07.2025 declaring petitioner’s appointment void ab initio affirmed – Court holds petitioner guilty of fraud and suppression of material facts – No relief granted – Directions for recovery of benefits implied [Paras 109–110].

Writ Jurisdiction – Contractual Disputes – Maintainability – Petitioner contractor sought mandamus for release of alleged unpaid amount for construction works executed under work order dated 23.12.2011 – Respondents disputed the claim and asserted full payment made via Cash Voucher and Cheque dated 04.02.2012 – No document produced by petitioner showing admitted liability – Held: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact – Remedy lies in civil suit or arbitration, not under Article 226 [Paras 3–6, 10].

Contract Law – Enforcement of Contractual Obligations – Petition based on alleged non-payment under construction contract – Relationship purely contractual without any statutory flavour – Following Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293 – Held: Interpretation and enforcement of contractual terms not amenable to writ jurisdiction – High Court not proper forum for adjudication of money claims arising out of contract [Paras 6, 10].

Administrative Law – Public Contracts – Absence of Admitted Liability – Where amount claimed by contractor is not admitted and disputed by State authorities, no mandamus can be issued directing payment – Held: Writ court should refrain from entering disputed factual arena; such claims require evidence and trial before civil court [Paras 4–6, 10].

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact – High Court reiterated that when controversy involves factual examination such as measurement of work done, bills raised, or payments made, writ under Article 226 not maintainable – Reliance placed on Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Bharati Industries, (2005) 12 SCC 725 and Union of India v. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690 [Paras 7–8].

Remedy – Availability of Alternate Forum – In presence of disputed contractual claim and existence of remedy through civil suit or arbitration, High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction – Principle reaffirmed that extraordinary writ remedy cannot be used to enforce private rights arising from contract [Paras 9–10].

Writ petition dismissed — Court held that claim for money under a contract with State authorities cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 in absence of admitted liability — Remedy lies before competent civil forum or through arbitration — No order as to costs. [Paras 10–12].

Banking Law – Pledge of Gold Ornaments – Right of Redemption – Petitioner availed gold loan repayable by 12.01.2025 – Bank conducted auction on 17.01.2025 without observing 30-day post-maturity redemption period stipulated in contract – Held: Premature auction violated Section 176 of Contract Act and terms of pledge – Petitioner’s offer to pay dues two days prior to auction showed intent to redeem [Paras 6–9]

Fair Procedure – Auction Transparency – Principles of Natural Justice – Auction process lacked transparency – No reserve price disclosed – No opportunity given to Petitioner to participate – Bank refused post-auction disclosure of bidder details – Court found process vitiated by opacity and procedural unfairness – Auction set aside [Paras 10–11]

Lien and Appropriation – Adjustment of Surplus Proceeds – Bank adjusted surplus auction proceeds from gold loan against Petitioner’s unrelated housing loan dues – Held: Where sale itself is vitiated, consequential appropriation is invalid – Adjustment set aside – Bank may recover dues via separate proceedings in accordance with law [Paras 12]

Public Law Duty of Banks – Writ Jurisdiction – Despite private contractual origin, Bank actions held amenable to writ jurisdiction due to statutory flavour and fiduciary character – Writ maintainable to ensure compliance with fair process and banking norms [Para 13]

Decision:

Writ Petition partly allowed –

(a) Auction dated 17.01.2025 quashed

(b) If jewellery remains in specie, to be returned upon payment of lawful dues

(c) If jewellery sold, Bank to refund higher of ₹1,45,000 or market value as of auction date with 6% interest p.a. from 17.01.2025

(d) All appropriation of proceeds toward other liabilities (including housing loan) reversed – Bank may pursue such recovery separately as per law [Paras 14]

Land Revenue – Mutation Entries – Competing Claims – Dispute over entry of name in revenue records concerning 30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 – Appellant claimed title through Jayaramaiah based on Inams Abolition grant of 5 acres 4 guntas – Respondent No.5 traced title to Appashetty based on separate Inam grant and mutation in 1962 – Held: Appellant failed to establish grant of full 5 acres 4 guntas – Authorities justified in entering Respondent’s name for 30 guntas [Paras 3–6, 10, 18–20]

Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Limitation on Title Adjudication – Contention raised that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter entries amid pending civil suit on title – Held: While revenue officials cannot adjudicate title disputes, they may enter names based on available documents evidencing title – Mutation does not confer title but reflects source – No infirmity found in orders passed [Paras 16–17]

Maintainability of Appeal under Section 136(2) – Objection on maintainability of appeal before Assistant Commissioner due to alleged absence of order under Section 129(4) – Held: Mutation entry reflects an operative decision by Tahsildar – Section 136 appeal lies – Objection not raised before Single Judge or in appeal memo – Rejected [Paras 21–23]

Procedural Grounds – Waiver and Non-pleading – Grounds related to procedural defects and jurisdiction not raised at earlier stages – Court declined to entertain at appellate level – Legal principle affirmed that grounds not urged before learned Single Judge cannot be raised for first time in appeal [Paras 22, 26]

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Orders of revenue authorities and Single Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28]

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Appeal under Section 16 – Right of Appeal – Maintainability – Whether appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only by senior citizens or parents or also by any aggrieved person – Larger Bench of High Court constituted due to conflicting views among coordinate benches – Held: Appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only at the instance of a senior citizen or a parent – Appeal by any other aggrieved person (such as children or relatives) not maintainable [Paras A-1 to A-24, C-1, C-2]

Welfare Legislation – Beneficial Interpretation – Senior Citizens Act, 2007 enacted to provide effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and parents – Entire scheme, definitions, and procedural framework designed solely for benefit of senior citizens and parents – Object is to provide speedy, summary remedy to senior citizens without exposing them to prolonged litigation – Hence, restrictive interpretation of appellate rights justified [Paras A-2 to A-6, A-17, A-18]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 16(1) – Plain and Clear Language – Section 16(1) restricts right of appeal to “any senior citizen or a parent” – No ambiguity or scope for expansion to include “any aggrieved person” – Legislature consciously excluded children and relatives – Rule-making power under Section 32 does not authorize expansion of appellate rights – Any such inclusion would amount to judicial legislation [Paras A-10 to A-13, A-19, A-20, A-22]

Interpretive Doctrines – Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Inapplicability – No inadvertent omission by legislature in Section 16 – Omission of children or relatives from appellate provision is deliberate and intentional – Courts cannot supply words not found in statute – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions reaffirming that casus omissus cannot be judicially supplied unless omission is evident and defeats statute’s object [Paras P-12 to P-15, A-21]

Proviso to Section 16 – Scope – First proviso requiring continued payment of maintenance by children during appeal does not imply that children can file appeal – It only ensures continuity of support to senior citizen during pendency of appeal filed by them – Cannot be interpreted to extend appellate rights to children or relatives [Para A-13]

Availability of Alternate Remedy – No Violation of Natural Justice – Though appeal is not maintainable at the instance of children or relatives, they are not remediless – Remedy under Article 226 of Constitution always available to challenge Tribunal’s orders on jurisdictional or legal grounds – Hence, exclusion from appellate remedy does not violate principles of natural justice [Para A-24]

Constitutional Provisions – No Violation of Articles 14 or 21 – Restriction of appeal to senior citizens or parents does not offend equality clause under Article 14 – Classification is reasonable, based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of statute – Protection of elderly is a constitutionally recognized goal under Articles 21, 41, 46 [Paras P-1 to P-5, A-6, A-17, A-18]

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction – Rejected in Present Case – Argument that proviso to Section 16 implies children can also appeal rejected – Harmonious construction cannot override clear legislative intent and express statutory language [Para A-13]

Reference to Larger Bench – Justification – Conflicting decisions by coordinate benches of same High Court – Larger Bench constituted to resolve interpretive inconsistency – Held: Previous view in Nitin Jaat (which allowed appeal by children) overruled – View taken in Anil Choupda and Dilip Marmat upheld [Paras F-3, F-13, F-14, C-1, C-2]

Comparative Statutory Schemes – Not Applicable – Reference to other social welfare legislations like Domestic Violence Act, Consumer Protection Act, RERA, etc., where appeal is allowed to both sides, held irrelevant – Senior Citizens Act is unique and designed to grant limited appellate remedy only to the beneficiary class [Paras S-7, S-8, A-16]

Legislative Amendment – Pending Amendment Not Applicable – Reliance placed on proposed 2019 Amendment Bill which seeks to include “children or relatives” in Section 16 – Held: Until amendment is passed, Court cannot read into statute what is consciously omitted – Pending amendment reinforces current exclusion [Paras P-16, A-15, A-21]

Decision: Reference answered in negative – Appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 maintainable only at the instance of senior citizen or a parent – Not maintainable at the instance of any other aggrieved person – Writ petition to be listed before Single Bench for adjudication [Paras C-1, C-2]

Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Termination for Union Activity – Reinstatement with Backwages – Workers terminated allegedly for failing to produce original educational certificates after 5 years of service – Industrial Court found the action was selective, targeted only union members, and violated interim orders protecting employment – Held: Termination amounted to unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), 1(b), 4(a), 5 of Schedule II and Items 2, 5, 6, 9 of Schedule IV – Reinstatement with backwages justified [Paras 25–27, 29–33, 42–43].

Industrial Law – Jurisdiction – Industrial Court vs. Labour Court – Objection that complaint ought to be before Labour Court rejected – Held: Industrial Court had jurisdiction since complaint involved victimisation for trade union activity, not mere dismissal simpliciter – Complaint under correct schedule items – Option to approach Industrial Court valid as per settled law [Paras 22–28].

Employment Law – Requirement of Qualification – Discriminatory Enforcement – No mandatory qualification at recruitment stage – ITI certificates demanded only from union-affiliated employees – Held: Management's selective action was discriminatory and not bona fide – Clause 17 of appointment letter cannot override statutory rights under industrial law [Paras 29–36, 42–45].

Natural Justice – No Inquiry – Violation of Interim Orders – Workers terminated without charge-sheet, domestic inquiry, or compliance with due process – Interim orders from Industrial Court were in force – Held: Termination in violation of natural justice and court orders – Loss of confidence plea rejected [Paras 31, 35, 45].

Service Law – Reinstatement – Backwages – Employer failed to prove that workmen were gainfully employed during termination period – Workers remained ready to work, but employer opted to pay partial wages – Held: Backwages justified under Deepali Gundu Surwase principle – Employer cannot benefit from own unlawful conduct [Paras 46–50].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Industrial Court’s order upheld – Reinstatement of terminated workers with 50% backwages confirmed – Termination found to be illegal and motivated by union victimisation.

Money Laundering – Property – Allocation of Coal Block – Property Defined – Coal block allocation obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation held to constitute “property” under Section 2(1)(v) of the PMLA – Such allocation conferred valuable commercial rights enabling economic benefit – Allocation letter deemed a legal asset triggering financial activity and forming part of the offence of money laundering [Paras 31–39].

Proceeds of Crime – Post Allocation Gains – Scheduled Offence – Misrepresentations led to coal block allocation followed by extraction of over 84 lakh MT of coal – Resulting financial benefit of Rs. 951.77 crores deemed proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) – Held: Learned Single Judge erred in holding allocation per se did not give rise to proceeds of crime – Utilisation of allocation forms nexus with criminal activity [Paras 40–52].

Continuing Offence – Scope of Directorate's Powers – Money laundering is a standalone and continuing offence – Directorate not bound by the time period of the chargesheet filed by predicate agency – Held: LSJ erred in restricting ED’s jurisdiction to pre-allocation events – Use of tainted property post allocation forms part of laundering process [Paras 58–65].

Attachment of Property – Equivalent Value – Validity of PAO – Directorate justified in attaching value of coal extracted post illegal allocation – Calculation of Rs. 951.77 Cr upheld – PIL failed to rebut presumption of illegality or provide untainted funding trail – PAO held valid under Section 5 of PMLA [Paras 53–57].

Maintainability – Nature of Jurisdiction – Article 226 vs 227 – Writ Petition before LSJ challenged executive action (Provisional Attachment Order) and invoked Article 226 – Not a supervisory order under Article 227 – Held: Intra-court appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent is maintainable [Paras 19–26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing Provisional Attachment Order and consequential proceedings is set aside – ED’s attachment order upheld – Matter remitted for further proceedings under PMLA.

Municipal Law – Trade Licence – Renewal – Firecrackers Sale – Petitioners operated licensed firecracker business since 1983 and maintained separate storage since 2001 – Respondent City Municipal Council refused renewal of trade licences citing absence of fire department NOC and location in densely populated area – Held: No provision in law requiring NOC from fire department for renewal – Licences previously renewed without such NOC [Paras 1–6, 11]

Administrative Law – Requirement Must Be Backed by Law – Health Inspector and Municipality cannot insist on compliance with conditions not mandated by law – Citing prior coordinate bench ruling in WP No. 25099/2023, Court reiterated that administrative authorities cannot impose extra-statutory requirements – Impugned endorsements refusing renewal quashed [Paras 12–13]

Public Safety – Conditional Relief – While allowing writ petitions, Court imposed terms that petitioner must not cause harm or injury during business – Directed to maintain fire safety measures including fire extinguishers and water hose – Liberty reserved to authorities to act in case of violation [Para 15]

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Endorsements dated 15.01.2025 refusing trade licence renewals quashed – Petitioner to comply with safety obligations – Respondent may act in case of breach [Paras 13–15]