Criminal Revision Cases – Return of Vehicles – Revision against orders rejecting return of vehicles seized for alleged illegal sand mining under Sections 379 IPC and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 – Petitioners seeking interim custody citing vehicle depreciation and reference to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat for similar relief. [Paras 1-4]

Environmental Protection and Illegal Mining – Emphasis on the duty of the government under the Constitution and MMDR Act for environment conservation – Illegal mining seen as a persistent menace, necessitating stringent measures including confiscation of vehicles to deter offences and protect the environment. [Paras 7-9.2]

Confiscation Proceedings – Criminal prosecutions and confiscation as parallel proceedings with distinct purposes – Supreme Court's directions and High Court's responsibilities in ensuring effective enforcement of environmental laws and speedy adjudication of confiscation proceedings highlighted. [Paras 8.2-10.8]

Judicial Directions for Confiscation – Instructions for Director General of Police to initiate confiscation proceedings within 30 days – Principal District and Sessions Judge directed to expedite and conclude confiscation proceedings within six months. [Para 11]

Suggestion for Government – Proposal for establishment of special courts to handle the volume of cases related to illegal mining and transportation under the Mines and Minerals Act – Urgent need for effective law enforcement and judicial proceedings expressed. [Para 12]

Maintainability of Section 451 Cr.P.C. – Clarification that seeking interim custody under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable when confiscation proceedings are initiated – Conditions for release of vehicles outlined, including bond execution, deposit of sums, and undertaking not to engage in illegal activities. [Paras 13-14]

Compliance and Reporting – Case listed for compliance report on a specified date – Relevant authorities instructed for execution and reporting of the order's directives. [Para 15]

Anticipatory Bail – Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. – Petitioner, owner of a hotel, apprehending arrest in connection with a criminal case – Application for pre-arrest bail in the context of alleged sexual offenses occurring at his hotel. [Para 1-3]

Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Application – State's objection regarding the non-maintainability of the application – Petitioner's fear of arrest deemed groundless – Discussion on the application of Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C. to the case. [Para 4-5]

Legal Interpretation of 'Reason to Believe' – Analysis based on the Apex Court's interpretation in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab – Requirement for belief in arrest to be founded on reasonable grounds, not mere fear or speculation. [Para 6-8]

Assessment of Apprehension for Arrest – No direct allegations against the petitioner in FIR or Investigating Officer's report – Arrest of hotel manager not implying automatic implication of the hotel owner – Petitioner's apprehension not founded on tangible grounds. [Para 9]

Decision – Application for anticipatory bail found to be based on unreasonable premises and hence non-maintainable – Rejection of the ABLAPL application without addressing the applicability of Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C. [Para 10-11]

Writ Petition – Eligibility for Assistant Professor in Dentistry – Challenge against the requirement of three years’ Senior Resident experience under Odisha Medical Education Service Rules, 2013 – Petitioners’ failure to meet the eligibility criteria on the cut-off date. [Paras 4, 17]

Odisha Medical Education Service Rules – Applicability of 2013 and 2021 Rules – 2021 Rules, eliminating the requirement of three years’ Senior Resident experience, not applicable to the recruitment process initiated under the 2013 Rules – Petitioners ineligible as per 2013 Rules criteria. [Paras 14, 17]

Administrative Law – Principle of Res Judicata – Writ petitions challenging the same selection process as previously adjudicated – Petitioners’ participation in selection process precludes challenge – Writ petitions not maintainable on grounds of res judicata and estoppel. [Paras 7, 10, 14]

Judicial Review – Rejection of Representations – OPSC’s decision to reject petitioners’ candidature based on lack of required experience – Court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in OPSC’s decision. [Paras 15, 17, 20]

Decision – Writ petitions for appointment as Assistant Professor in Dentistry dismissed – Petitioners did not meet the necessary experience criteria on the cut-off date as per 2013 Rules. [Para 21]

Civil Revision Application – Specific Relief Act – Dismissal of revision against judgment and decree passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff's suit for restoration of possession decreed – Defendants' possession claim over ancestral property not upheld – Trial Court's findings affirmed. [Para 2, 5, 15]

Possession and Dispossession – Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act – Determination of possession and dispossession within six months – Court not required to investigate title in such proceedings – Summary procedure outlined by the legislature for restoration of possession. [Para 9, 12]

Limitation – Timeframe for filing suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act – Suit filed within six months from the date of dispossession – Comparison with Article 64 of the Limitation Act for recovery of immovable property based on previous possession. [Para 11]

Revision Jurisdiction – High Court’s limited interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act – Exceptional cases where grave injustice or error of law is evident – Appeal and review barred under Section 6(3). [Para 13, 14]

Final Decision – Dismissal of Civil Revision Application – Affirmation of trial court's judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff – Stay on further proceedings of Execution Case vacated. [Para 15, 16]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction and Sentence in POCSO Case – Appeal against conviction and sentence by Special Judge, POCSO, Araria, for offences under Sections 376, 302 of the IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and confessional statement. [Para 1, 12]

Investigation and Trial Process – Case initiated based on missing person report – Recovery of victim’s body and appellant’s confession led to charge sheet and trial – Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of body and material objects. [Paras 3-10]

Evidence Analysis – Circumstantial Evidence – Absence of direct witnesses – Reliance on circumstantial evidence requires forming a complete ring of evidence – Missing links in the chain of events observed, casting doubt on appellant’s guilt. [Paras 16, 31]

Medical Evidence – Post-mortem report unable to determine definite cause of death – No evidence of sexual assault on the deceased’s body – Decomposed state of body complicating evidence assessment. [Paras 25-29]

Prosecution’s Failure to Establish Guilt – Inadequate evidence to prove appellant’s involvement in the alleged murder – Lack of evidence linking appellant to sexual assault or caste-based abuse – Insufficient proof to sustain conviction under SC/ST Act. [Paras 32, 33]

Decision – Conviction and sentence by Special Judge, POCSO, Araria set aside due to insufficient evidence – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Sections 376, 302, 201, IPC and Section 3(2)(V), SC/ST Act. [Para 34]

Writ Petition – Technical Bid Disqualification – Challenging disqualification of technical bid and seeking fairness in the bid process – Petitioner’s technical bid disqualified for not including ‘Notes’ in the Audited Balance Sheet – Fourth respondent’s bid accepted despite non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria – Discretion of State organizations in contractual matters to satisfy reasonableness and fairness – Disqualification of petitioner’s bid and acceptance of fourth respondent’s bid set aside – Direction to Society to revisit and evaluate technical bids afresh, maintaining transparency and fairness. [Para 54-70]

State Organizations – Role and Responsibilities – Ensuring fairness, transparency, and compliance with constitutional principles in contractual matters – State organizations to act in public interest, avoiding arbitrariness and favoritism in tender processes – Upholding the principles of justice and equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution in decision-making processes. [Para 67]

Judicial Review – Contractual Matters – Scope and limitations – Courts to intervene in cases of arbitrariness, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in State organizations’ decisions – Emphasis on the decision-making process rather than the decision itself – Importance of judicial restraint, especially in technical and contractual issues requiring expertise. [Para 49, 57, 67]

Consortium Agreements – Impact on Bid Eligibility – Assessment of bidder’s eligibility based on individual and consortium capacities – Discrepancies in the representation of consortium shares and profit distribution affecting the credibility and eligibility of the bidder. [Para 58, 62-64]

Eligibility Criteria – Adherence in Tender Processes – Critical analysis of bidders’ compliance with specified eligibility criteria – Rejection of bids for non-compliance with essential conditions – Evaluation of financial turnover and experience as per tender requirements – Importance of accurate and consistent financial statements and experience certificates. [Para 54-58, 62-64]

Interim Arrangements – Continuation Pending Re-Evaluation – Direction to maintain interim arrangements until the completion of re-evaluation of bids – Re-evaluation process to be completed within a specified timeframe, ensuring minimal disruption. [Para 68]

Decision – The petitions of BVG India Limited and others (CWJC No. 16899 of 2022) and M/s Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. (CWJC No. 8553 of 2023) were allowed in parts, setting aside the disqualification of BVG India Ltd. And the acceptance of the fourth respondent’s bid. The interim arrangement ordered by the court to continue until the completion of the re-evaluation process. [Para 69-70]

Marriage Annulment – Forced Marriage – Nullity of Marriage: Appeal against Family Court’s dismissal of annulment petition – Petitioner’s claim of forced marriage at gunpoint, without consent or customary rituals – Family Court’s failure to frame issues and prepare a decree – Judgment set aside, marriage annulled. [Paras 2, 13-14, 38]

Evidence and Witnesses: Examination of witnesses and evidence by both parties – Contradictory statements and lack of corroborative evidence from the respondent – Petitioner’s evidence of coercion and lack of consent supported by witnesses and documentation – Appeal allowed on the basis of preponderance of evidence. [Paras 16-17, 21-24, 30-31, 33-37]

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Appeal Process: Interpretation of Section 19(1) – Appeals against judgments or orders of Family Courts treated as Miscellaneous Appeals, even in the absence of a prepared decree – Full Bench decision of High Court on the nature of appeals under Section 19. [Paras 7-8]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 12(1)(c): Consent Obtained by Force – Essentiality of free consent for a valid Hindu marriage – Applicability of Section 12(1)(c) in cases where consent is obtained by force or coercion – Petitioner’s marriage found voidable under this provision. [Paras 28-29, 38]

Decision: Family Court’s judgment in dismissing the annulment petition found flawed and biased – Non-consideration of relevant evidence and misinterpretation of facts – High Court sets aside the Family Court’s decision, allowing the appeal and annulling the marriage. [Paras 36-38]

Civil Procedure – Restoration of Dismissed Application – Challenge to the order dismissing the restoration application for Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No. 167 of 2017 – Emphasis on fair opportunity for hearing and decision on merits. [Para 1, 7, 9, 10, 11]

Legal Representation – Absence of Senior Counsel – Appellant’s application dismissed due to absence on scheduled date – Contention over lack of opportunity for representation and hearing. [Para 3, 7]

Judicial Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Respondent’s opposition to reappointment of Advocate Commissioner based on existing report – Court stresses on deciding the matter based on its merits. [Para 6, 8]

Decision – High Court’s intervention to ensure fair trial – Order dated 08.10.2018 set aside, directing lower court to restore and decide I.A.No. 167 of 2017 on merits within specified timeframe. [Para 10, 11]

Impleadment of Parties – Dismissal of Application for Impleadment in Property Suit – Petitioners sought to be impleaded as defendants, claiming a right over the property in question – Application dismissed by the lower court for lack of direct nexus with the main suit and for being a tactic to prolong proceedings – Revision filed against this dismissal. [Para 1-3, 5]

Application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC – Legal Principles for Impleadment – The Apex Court’s guidelines on when a court may add parties to a suit – Emphasis on the need for proper or necessary parties, contrasting with the plaintiff’s dominus litis right to choose litigants. [Para 6]

Arguments Against Impleadment – Petitioners accused of malafide intentions and delay – Claimed right over the property after a long period, raising doubts on the genuineness of their claim – Respondents argue against the impleadment citing lack of evidence and improper application. [Para 7]

Legal Distinction in Impleadment – Apex Court’s distinction between property suits and declaratory suits regarding the interest required for impleadment – Necessity of a direct or legal interest rather than a mere commercial interest. [Para 8]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction – Court notes lack of proper explanation or evidence from petitioners regarding their claim – Observes delay and lack of initial action from petitioners – Dismisses revision for lack of merit and improper application for impleadment. [Para 10-14]