Bail – Section 20(b)(ii)(A) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Small Quantity of Contraband – Bail Granted – Petitioner found in possession of 4 kg of ganja, not a commercial quantity – Detained for 48 days – Material part of investigation completed, charge sheet pending – Court held that no apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence exists – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 6-8].

Judicial Discretion – Factors for Grant of Bail – Quantity of contraband and duration of custody considered relevant – Court exercised discretion in favour of bail as petitioner was cooperating, and offence did not involve commercial quantity – Conditions imposed to ensure appearance and prevent reoffending [Paras 6-8].

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Directed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties – Weekly appearance before police mandated – Movement restricted to local district limits without trial court permission – Cooperation with investigation made mandatory [Para 8].

Final Order – Criminal Petition Allowed – Petitioner released on bail under specific conditions – Trial court directed to ensure compliance and monitor conduct [Para 8].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Alternative Remedy Available – The applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 406 IPC – Held: In view of recent Supreme Court decisions, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious statutory remedy exists – Application under Section 482 CrPC not maintainable when revision remedy available – Dismissed with liberty to approach revisional court [Paras 1-6].

Principle of Law – Inherent Jurisdiction Should Not Circumvent Statutory Remedy – Referring to judgments in Vipin Sahni v. CBI and Mohit alias Sonu v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that Section 482 jurisdiction must be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional cases – Present case showed no extreme or unavoidable circumstance warranting intervention [Paras 3-6].

Relief to Applicant – Age and Warrant Consideration – Applicant aged 92 years – Non-bailable warrant issued – Court directed that if revision is filed within 10 days, no coercive action be taken and bail application be considered promptly in accordance with law [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Revision Permitted – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty granted to file revision within ten days – Revisional court directed to decide the matter on merits within six weeks of filing [Paras 7-9].

Writ Petition – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Section 230 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Section 2(2) Hindu Succession Act – Maintainability of ST daughter’s suit for declaration of khatedari rights – Board’s revisional order quashed – Petitioner (sole daughter of a Meena ST father) filed revenue suit for declaration after civil court directed her to seek khatedari declaration – Board allowed O7 R11 relying on Section 2(2) HSA to hold daughters of ST have no succession – Held: In view of Supreme Court in Tirth Kumar and Ram Charan, discrimination against ST daughters is impermissible and rejection at threshold was illegal – SDO’s rejection of O7 R11 restored and suit to be tried on merits with expeditious timeline – Writ allowed [Paras 2, 5-8].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 2(2) – Applicability to Scheduled Tribes vis-à-vis equality – Supreme Court’s rulings in Tirth Kumar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810) and Ram Charan (CA No. 9537/2025) – Court reiterates that while HSA is inapplicable to STs per S.2(2), exclusionary customs must be proved and in their absence denial of a daughter’s share violates Articles 14 & 15 – Reliance on S.2(2) to non-suit an ST daughter at the threshold is unsustainable – Board’s order set aside [Paras 6-7, 16-18].

Customary Law – Burden of proof – Where Hindu law is inapplicable by virtue of Section 2(2) HSA, succession among tribals turns on proved custom – Courts cannot presume an exclusionary (patriarchal) custom – In absence of proof of custom excluding female succession, equality principle controls – Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim is maintainable and must be adjudicated on evidence [Para 6].

Procedure – Prior civil suit for cancellation of gift and liberty to seek revenue declaration – Petitioner correctly approached SDO for declaration of khatedari rights – Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be invoked to decide disputed rights or to foreclose claims on a debatable legal position – Direction issued to decide the pending 2018 suit expeditiously, preferably within two years, uninfluenced by observations – O7 R11 application rejected [Paras 2, 5, 8].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 15(1), 15(3), 16, 21 & 51-A – Equality and non-discrimination for tribal women – Court echoes and builds on Supreme Court’s recommendation in Kamla Neti urging Union of India to revisit Section 2(2) HSA to secure parity in intestate succession for female tribals – Observation made as a way forward and not as a binding direction on merits of the suit [Paras 10-18].

Writ Petition – Ex-parte Decree – Order 5 Rule 17 CPC – Section 96(2) CPC – Section 224 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Three impugned judgments quashed – Petitioner assailed ex-parte decree (09.05.2002) and affirming appellate orders (21.07.2004; 22.09.2020) on ground of defective service and denial of hearing – Held: Appeal under Section 96(2) CPC against an ex-parte decree is a substantive statutory remedy; where service via affixation lacked compliance with Order 5 Rule 17 (no witness identification/signature), service was incomplete and ex-parte proceedings unsustainable – Matter remitted to Assistant Collector for de novo trial; decide expeditiously, preferably within two years – Writ disposed of [Paras 6-8, 10-11, 15-16].

Service of Summons – Affixation without witness identification – Non-compliance with Order 5 Rule 17 CPC vitiates service – Process Server failed to obtain signature of any witness identifying the house; treating such unverified affixation as complete service was erroneous – Ex-parte proceedings could not have been drawn [Paras 8-10].

Appeal Against Ex-parte Decree – Dual remedies – Section 96(2) CPC vs. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Defendant may file either an application under Order 9 Rule 13 or a regular appeal under Section 96(2) challenging the decree on merits – Right of appeal is substantive and cannot be denied merely because no Order 9 Rule 13 application was filed – Respondents’ objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 6-7, 12-13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Technical rejection unsustainable – RAA erred in rejecting appeal on the technical count that no written statement was filed and no issues framed; record showed written statement existed – Failure to address improper service and ex-parte nature amounts to material irregularity [Para 11].

Natural Justice – Audi alteram partem – Passing ex-parte decree without proper service violates principles of natural justice; sufficient cause shown for non-appearance where summons service is doubtful – Ex-parte decree not sustainable [Para 14].

Decision – All three impugned judgments dated 09.05.2002, 21.07.2004 and 22.09.2020 set aside – Suit remitted to Assistant Collector for fresh decision after framing issues and granting opportunity to both sides; trial to be concluded expeditiously, preferably within two years from receipt of certified copy – Writ petition disposed of; pending applications also disposed [Paras 15-16].

Employment Law - Reservation of Municipal Wards – Rotation of SC/ST Seats – Rotation Not Mandatory – Appeal Allowed – The High Court reversed the order of the Writ Court which had quashed the reservation notification for municipal wards in Indore on grounds of failure to rotate reserved seats – Held: Rotation principle under Article 243T and Rules applies only to OBC and Women categories, not to SC/ST seats where reservation is based on concentration of population – Writ Court erred in interpreting rotation as mandatory for SC/ST seats [Paras 1-32].

Article 243T Interpretation – Use of “May” Indicates Discretion – Not Compulsion – The Court held that the term “may” in Article 243T relating to rotation of SC/ST reserved seats signifies discretion and not a mandatory obligation – Held: Legislative intent was to ensure reservation in proportion to concentrated SC/ST population; rotation is not a constitutional mandate for SC/ST seats [Paras 20-30].

Reservation Rules of 1994 – Rule 3 and 4 Distinguished – Rotation Limited to OBC and Women Categories – Court found that Rule 3 provides reservation of SC/ST wards based on population concentration in descending order while Rule 4 applies rotation principle only to OBC and Women reservations – Held: No legal requirement to rotate SC/ST wards during successive elections [Paras 24-30].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – K. Krishna Murthy Judgment Not Applicable to SC/ST Ward Rotation – The Court clarified that reliance on K. Krishna Murthy’s judgment by writ petitioners was misplaced as it pertains to broader policy issues and not specific application of rotational reservation under local municipal statutes – Held: Supreme Court rulings do not mandate compulsory rotation of SC/ST wards [Paras 12-13, 28].

Overruling of Writ Court – Prior Division Bench Judgments Affirmed – High Court reaffirmed earlier judgments (Sunil v. State of M.P.; Mohammad Azad v. State of M.P.) holding non-applicability of rotation to SC/ST wards – Held: Writ Court’s contrary interpretation erroneous, appeal allowed [Paras 26-27, 31].

Final Decision – Writ Court Order Quashed – State’s Appeal Allowed – Notification Restored – High Court allowed appeal, set aside Writ Court judgment, upheld validity of Gazette Notification dated 06.11.2020 regarding ward reservations in Indore – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 31-32].

Land Acquisition – Repeated Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings – Section 4(1), Section 6(1), and Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act – Writ Petition Dismissed with Exemplary Costs – The petitioners, legal representatives of original grantees, challenged the acquisition of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land granted in 1979, citing a purported Section 48(1) notification issued in 1993 – The acquisition process had concluded in 1987 with compensation paid, possession taken, and multiple prior petitions dismissed, including by Division Bench and Supreme Court – Held: The current petition, the ninth in succession, amounts to abuse of process of law, is barred by constructive res judicata, and is dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000/- [Paras 1-29].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioners’ Non-disclosure of Eight Prior Litigations – Exemplary Costs Imposed – The petitioners suppressed the history of eight previous unsuccessful litigations, thereby misleading the Court to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction – Held: Approach with unclean hands, suppression of material facts, and vexatious relitigation renders the petition liable for dismissal with exemplary costs to discourage unscrupulous litigants [Paras 23-25].

Constructive Res Judicata – Application of Henderson Principle – Bar on Fresh Plea after Prior Adjudications – Section 11 Explanation IV of CPC – The Court applied the doctrine of constructive res judicata and the Henderson principle to reject the petitioners' belated plea based on a 1993 notification that could and ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings – Held: Re-litigation on same cause of action with new grounds after multiple rounds of adjudication is impermissible [Paras 26-27].

Judicial Policy – Finality of Litigation – Public Policy Against Multiplicity of Proceedings – The Court emphasized that litigation must conclude and cannot be re-opened indefinitely by introducing new grounds – Held: The petitioners’ conduct undermines judicial finality, causes harassment, and wastes judicial resources, warranting dismissal with costs to uphold sanctity of judicial process [Paras 24, 27, 28].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed with Exemplary Costs – ₹10,00,000/- directed to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from receipt of the order to deter abuse of judicial process [Para 29].

Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act – Conscious Possession Not Established – Bail Granted – The High Court allowed bail to the petitioner who was arrested after collecting a courier parcel containing 100 LSD blots, observing absence of evidence proving conscious possession and involvement in narcotics trafficking – Held: In absence of incriminating digital, financial, or forensic links, and considering inconsistencies in the prosecution case, twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act were satisfied; bail granted [Paras 1-18].

Conscious Possession – Mere Custody Not Sufficient – Knowledge of Contraband Not Proved – The Court noted petitioner was neither consignee nor sender, parcel was addressed to third party, and petitioner consistently claimed he was asked by a neighbour to collect the parcel – Held: Without proof of knowledge or dominion over contraband, conscious possession not established [Paras 5-13].

Confessional Statement under Section 67 – No Recovery Pursuant to Disclosure – Inadmissible without Corroboration – The Court held confessional statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is insufficient for conviction without substantive corroboration – Held: No recovery from petitioner pursuant to statement; reliance solely on Section 67 impermissible [Paras 10, 13].

Statutory Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act – Rebuttable Where Conscious Possession Lacking – The Court held presumption of culpability under Section 54 not attracted in absence of conscious possession – Held: Prosecution failed to establish knowledge of contents, presumption rebutted [Paras 5-12].

Differential Role Compared to Co-Accused – No Connection with Drug Syndicate – Bail Justified – The Court differentiated petitioner’s limited role of collecting one parcel from active drug dealers from whom large quantities were recovered – Held: No link with wider drug syndicate established; bail warranted [Paras 6-9].

Satisfaction of Twin Conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act – No Likelihood of Re-Offending – Bail Granted – The Court noted petitioner had no criminal antecedents, cooperated with investigation, remained in custody for two years, and showed good conduct in jail – Held: Twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied; bail granted with conditions [Paras 14-18].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner Released on Bail – Court directed petitioner’s release on furnishing personal bond and surety with conditions including non-tampering with evidence, appearance before court, and residence verification [Paras 15-18].

Family Law - Custody of Minor – Section 6, 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act - Paramountcy of Welfare – Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act – Custody Restored to Mother – In a dispute concerning custody of a 9-year-old minor, despite the personal law favouring custody to the father after seven years, the Court applied the welfare principle under Section 17 of the Act – Considered that the minor had deep emotional attachment with the mother and expressed refusal to reside with father – Held: The best interest of the child, including mental well-being and comfort, outweighed personal law entitlement – Custody granted to the mother with limited visitation rights to father [Paras 25-31].

Personal Law vs Welfare Principle – Muslim Law on Hizanat – Personal Law Not Conclusive – While acknowledging Muslim law provisions wherein the father gets custody after the age of seven, the Court clarified that in cases where the child’s welfare is at stake, personal law cannot supersede the paramount consideration of welfare under Section 17 – Interaction with the child and evidence indicated welfare lies with the mother – Custody continued with mother despite father's legal claim under personal law [Paras 19-21, 28].

Visitation Rights – Balanced Visitation Schedule to Safeguard Father’s Rights – The Court balanced the father’s rights by granting reasonable visitation – Father entitled to spend seven days with child during long vacations and monthly visits under supervision – This ensured continued parental contact without disrupting child’s comfort zone [Paras 29-30].

Adverse Conduct of Mother – Non-Compliance with Court Orders – Contempt Proceedings Maintained Separately – Despite the mother’s defiance of interim court orders, the Court held that custody must be determined on welfare considerations, not punitive grounds – Contempt petition directed to be considered independently [Paras 4, 14, 28].

Father’s Financial and Domestic Circumstances – Lack of Proof of Better Upbringing Environment – The father failed to establish superior financial capacity or supportive domestic arrangements – Absence of female family members noted as a crucial factor in denying custody – Welfare conditions were found to be more conducive with the mother [Paras 25, 31].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Custody with Mother – Limited Visitation to Father – The impugned judgment granting custody to father was set aside – Custody retained by mother with structured visitation rights to the father – Welfare of the minor took precedence over personal law mandates [Paras 31].

Civil Law - Property Ownership – Co-ownership Rights – Mandatory Injunction for Rectification of Records – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellant challenged concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court which decreed mandatory injunction for rectification of municipal records to reinstate plaintiff’s name as co-owner – Supreme Court found the registered sale deed showed joint purchase of property and no proof was provided by appellant justifying exclusive ownership – Held: Both Courts rightly directed rectification of records in favour of co-owner; second appeal dismissed [Paras 3-11].

Registered Sale Deed – Evidentiary Value – Conclusive Proof of Joint Ownership – The registered sale deed dated 01.05.1996 (Ex.P-2) conclusively proved joint ownership of the suit property by plaintiff and appellant – Held: Official municipal records and RTI information corroborated the joint ownership status, and appellant could not rebut documentary evidence of co-ownership [Para 10].

Res Judicata – Prior Litigation on Distinct Property – No Bar to Current Claim – The Court rejected the plea of res judicata based on a 2004 judgment regarding a different property (common Haveli and flour mill), holding that the suit property was separately purchased by the plaintiff and appellant – Held: Mere pendency of other proceedings regarding different properties does not extinguish rights derived from a valid registered sale deed [Para 10].

Municipal Record Mutation – Mutation Entries Do Not Create Ownership – Mutation Change Invalidated – The Court held that mutation entries changed during a 2002 survey without supporting documentation or legal basis could not override title under a registered sale deed – Held: Mutation entry in favour of appellant without plaintiff’s knowledge is illegal; plaintiff’s name directed to be restored [Para 10].

No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – The High Court found no substantial question of law arose in the matter since the findings were based on clear documentary evidence of ownership – Held: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 11].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court affirmed judgments of both lower Courts – Mandatory injunction in favour of co-owner plaintiff upheld, rectification of municipal record ordered, and no merit found in appeal [Paras 10-11].