Public Interest Litigation – Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Service Charges on FIR/DDR Downloads – Petitioner challenged imposition of Rs. 80/- as service charge for downloading FIRs, Rs. 100/- for DDR and Rs. 30/- for Lost Information Receipt from the Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Representation dated 24.03.2026 submitted by Petitioner No. 1 to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice and the Director General of Police, Punjab, pending consideration – Court disposed of the PIL without expressing opinion on merits – Held: Competent Authority directed to consider and decide the representation dated 24.03.2026 by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order and to communicate the same to the petitioner [Paras 2–4].

Decision: PIL disposed of – Competent Authority directed to decide representation dated 24.03.2026 by speaking order within 30 days – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case – Liberty granted to petitioner.

Agreement to Sell – Recovery of Earnest Money – NOC Obligation – Breach by Seller – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff paid Rs. 80,75,000/- as advance consideration for purchase of 15 Bighas 4 Biswas of agricultural land – Agreement to Sell dated 18.07.2007 required the seller to obtain NOC from Revenue Authorities and Land Acquisition Collector – Defendants failed to apply for or obtain the NOC despite repeated reminders and duly filled NOC forms being supplied by the Plaintiff on the date of Agreement – Held: Breach of Agreement to Sell was on the part of the Defendants; Plaintiff was justified in seeking refund of earnest money – Trial Court decree upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 44, 52, 55, 56, 61, 62, 67].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Accrual from Date of Repudiation, Not Date of Contract – Appellants contended the suit filed on 19.07.2010 was barred by limitation as the Agreement to Sell was dated 18.07.2007 – Held: Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is reckoned from when the facts entitling the Plaintiff to have the contract rescinded first became known to him – In a contract of sale, right to sue for refund accrues when the contract is repudiated or the promisor refuses to perform, not from the date of the contract – Legal Notice dated 06.06.2008 constituted the earliest point of repudiation; suit filed on 19.07.2010 was within limitation [Paras 37, 39, 40, 41].

Section 33, Delhi Land Reforms Act – NOC Obligation on Seller – Bar Operates at Stage of Actual Transfer – No Bhumidar can sell land where the result of transfer would leave him with less than 08 standard acres in Delhi – Section 33(2) permits transfer of entire holding if less than 08 acres – Held: It was the Defendants/Appellants as owners and sellers who bore the obligation to obtain NOC and overcome restrictions of Section 33 DLR Act – The bar under Section 33 operates at the stage of actual transfer of Bhumidhari rights and does not render an Agreement to Sell per se void or incapable of enforcement between the parties [Paras 49, 50, 51].

Partnership Act – Section 69 – Bar Inapplicable – No Formal Partnership – Appellants argued that an unregistered partnership between the Plaintiff and M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd. attracted the bar of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act – Held: There was no formal partnership as understood under the Partnership Act; parties had merely pooled funds for a single purchase transaction – The Plaintiff, having returned Rs. 45,00,000/- to M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd., became solely entitled to recover the entire amount – Bar of Section 69 not attracted [Paras 63, 64, 65].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2022 of the learned Additional District Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Public Charitable Trust – Charity Commissioner – Interim Management – Asiatic Society of Mumbai – Writ Petitions dismissed – Petitioners challenged impugned orders dated 13.03.2026 by which the Charity Commissioner constituted an interim committee comprising a fit person and 5 Managing Committee members, and a sub-committee to prepare a fresh voters' list, directing elections to be conducted within one month of finalisation of the list – Held: Charity Commissioner had full authority under Sections 36A, 47, 69 and 3 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act to intervene and pass the impugned orders – No case of patent illegality or manifest arbitrariness made out – Both writ petitions dismissed [Paras 3, 14, 17, 18].

Natural Justice – Adequate Hearing – Challenge Rejected – Petitioners alleged impugned orders were passed without notice or hearing – Held: Charity Commissioner gave adequate advance notice to the office bearers of the Asiatic Society – Hearings were held on 5th, 9th, 11th and 12th March 2026 – The hearing on 9th March 2026 was adjourned at their request – Office bearers were personally present and represented by counsel – Statements/affidavits were filed and considered – No breach of natural justice established [Para 13].

Managing Committee – Continuance Beyond Tenure – Impermissible – Change Report in respect of September 2023 elections was rejected on 6th August 2025 – Tenure of elected office bearers ended September 2025 – Held: Managing Committee had no legal right or authority to continue in management thereafter – Notwithstanding this, it continued to function and took decisions beyond day-to-day administration, including admission of members – Entirely impermissible [Para 14].

Scrutinising Committee – Excess of Jurisdiction – Inflated Voters' List – Scrutinising Committee's tenure ended 27th September 2025 – Despite this, it suo motu continued working and recommended approximately 1467 membership applications (as against only 349 during its entire one-year tenure) – Names included in voters' list for Elections – 2025 without proper approval by Managing Committee – Held: Such continuation and recommendations were irregular and vitiated the voters' list [Paras 10, 14].

Charity Commissioner – Powers Under MPT Act – Sections 36A, 47, 69 – Inspector Report – The Charity Commissioner correctly instituted Inquiry No. 3 of 2026 pursuant to Legislative Assembly Questions regarding discrepancies in voters' list, missing books, and postponement of elections – Inspector Report confirmed approximately 2050 books were missing from the Asiatic Society – Held: Charity Commissioner had sufficient power under the said provisions to issue directions for effective interim management and to stay the resolution dated 20th February 2026 for holding Elections – 2025 on 14th March 2026 [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Decision: Both Writ Petitions dismissed – Impugned orders dated 13th March 2026 upheld – All pending Interim Applications disposed of – All interim orders vacated – Application for stay of order rejected – No order as to costs.

Education Law – NEET (UG) 2026 – Delayed Fee Payment – Portal Buffering Claim – Petitioner uploaded registration form and documents on 09.02.2026 but did not submit the fee for over a month – On the last extended date of 11.03.2026, successful logins were made but no payment completed – Server logs furnished by NTA showed repeated successful logins; claimed inability to make payment not demonstrated – Oral submissions by Senior Counsel that form was uploaded only on 11.03.2026 found contrary to portal records and not even averred in the petition – Petitioner approached Court nearly one month after the alleged failure – Held: No interference warranted; petition dismissed [Paras 5-6, 8-10, 15-16].

"Portal Cannot Be Opened for One Candidate" – Consistent Judicial Position – Coordinate Bench judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India affirm that the NEET portal cannot be reopened for a single candidate – Supreme Court orders granting indulgence in isolated cases were based on peculiar facts, including demonstrated earnest and repeated attempts to log in, as in Atul Kumar v. Chairman (2024 SCC Online SC 2684) – Facts of present case do not meet that threshold [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference called for [Para 16].

Co-operative Law – Inquiry under Section 51 – Scope – District Bank employees – Fake loans – Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies affiliated to the Guntur District Co-operative Central Bank found to have admitted fake members, disbursed loans without verification, and ignored circulars – Inquiry conducted under Section 51 of the AP Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 – Inquiry Officer recommended civil, criminal and disciplinary action against employees of both the Primary Societies and the District Bank – Appellants, being District Bank employees deputed to oversee loan disbursement, challenged the inquiry reports and consequential proceedings – Held: Inquiry under Section 51 is a general inquiry into the affairs of the society and there is no restriction on examining the role of outsiders whose actions may have affected the society – Contention that inquiry cannot extend to non-employees rejected [Paras 13, 19].

Surcharge Proceedings – Section 60 – Applicability – Employees of District Bank not amenable – Section 60 permits surcharge proceedings only against past or present officers or servants of the society or persons entrusted with its organisation, affairs or management – Appellants being employees of the District Bank and not employees or members of the Primary Societies subjected to inquiry – No material placed that appellants were entrusted with the organisation or management of the Primary Societies – Held: Surcharge proceedings under Section 60 cannot be initiated against the appellants – Affirmed: K. Satyanarayana and Ors. v. A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings – Permissible – While surcharge proceedings under Section 60 are impermissible against District Bank employees, disciplinary and criminal proceedings based on information in the inquiry report remain open – Inquiry report is not a settled finding of fact – Authorities may proceed on the basis of information available in the report – Appellants entitled to rebut allegations in such proceedings [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Decision: Writ Appeals partly allowed – Respondents restrained from taking further steps under Section 60 of the Act against the appellants – Liberty reserved to respondents to initiate disciplinary or criminal proceedings as thought fit – All questions of fact left open – Neither this order nor the Single Judge's judgment to be treated as a finding of fact.

NDPS Act – Bail – Parity – Section 20(b)(ii)(B) – Cannabis – Accused No.2 alleged to have supplied cannabis to Accused No.1 and to have been found in possession of 1.590 kg of cannabis recovered pursuant to disclosure by Accused No.1 – Accused No.2 in custody since 15.06.2025 – Accused No.1, found with higher quantity of 4.725 kg, already enlarged on bail by Special Court – Chargesheet filed and investigation complete – 21 witnesses yet to be examined and trial likely to take time – Held: Accused No.2 entitled to bail on parity with Accused No.1 subject to conditions [Paras 2, 5].

Bail Conditions – Personal Bond – Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties – Regular appearance before trial court – No tampering with prosecution witnesses – No commission of future offences – No departure from jurisdiction without court permission [Para 2, Order].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 directed to be enlarged on bail in Special Case No.193/2025 pending before Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, subject to conditions.

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - National Security - Restricted Zones - Construction Permissions - PIL highlighting illegal constructions near vital military installations in Jodhpur - Held, since the matter involves national security and sensitive zones of the Indian Air Force and Indian Army, all permissions granted by local authorities must strictly adhere to the Notifications and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence/Central Government from time to time. [Paras 5, 13].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Survey and Demolition - Unauthorized Encroachments - Local authorities directed to conduct a detailed survey of Khasra No. 632 and its sub-divisions - Held, if constructions are found to have been raised de hors the mandatory guidelines or without required permissions/NOCs, the local authorities shall take urgent steps to remove or demolish such constructions in accordance with law. [Paras 11, 14-15].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - No Objection Certificate (NOC) - Mandatory Compliance - Construction permissions in restricted areas - Held, local authorities must obtain an NOC from the concerned defence authorities before granting construction permissions in appropriate cases as per Central Government notifications - Even if a layout plan was previously sanctioned, construction permissions issued in violation of mandatory Ministry of Defence instructions must be cancelled. [Paras 16, 20].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Timeline for Compliance - Judicial Oversight - Court directed the entire exercise of survey and removal of unauthorized persons/structures to be completed within three months - Compliance report ordered to be furnished before the Court on or before 03.08.2026. [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of with specific directions for survey and demolition – Contempt petitions and pending applications also stand disposed of.

Specific Performance – Maintainability of Suit – Unilateral Termination of Agreement to Sale – Declaratory Relief – Where Agreement Contains No Termination Clause – Where a vendor unilaterally cancels an Agreement to Sale (ATS) without any contractual right to do so, such termination amounts to a repudiatory breach, and the vendee is entitled to directly seek specific performance without first obtaining a declaratory relief that the termination was bad in law – The ATS in question contained no clause permitting the vendor to cancel it or forfeit earnest money; Clause 8 expressly conferred upon the vendee the right to sue for specific performance even if the vendor refused to execute the sale deed – Held: In the absence of a termination clause, unilateral cancellation by the vendor is a breach of contract, not a valid termination, and no declaratory relief is a precondition to the suit for specific performance [Paras 7.7 to 7.13].

Time – Essence of Contract – Sale of Immovable Property – Mere Stipulation of Time Period Insufficient – In contracts for sale of immovable property, there is a well-settled presumption that time is not the essence of the contract – A mere six-month time limit in Clause 6 of the ATS does not, by itself, render time the essence of the contract – The intention to make time the essence must be expressed in unequivocal language and must be gathered from the express terms, nature of property, and surrounding circumstances – In the present case, no clause provided for termination or rescission upon non-adherence to the time limit, and Clause 7 required government permissions which themselves could cause delay – Held: Time was not the essence of the contract [Paras 7.22 to 7.24].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Conduct of Plaintiff – Continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract is a condition precedent to the grant of specific performance and must be proved throughout the period from the date of the contract till the date of the decree – In the present case, the plaintiff paid Rs. 2,000/- as earnest money at execution and thereafter paid a further Rs. 6,000/- as evidenced by an entry in defendant no. 1's own handwriting in the plaintiff's diary (Exh. 108) – The plaintiff consistently asserted readiness to execute the sale-deed and promptly replied to the vendor's cancellation notice – The vendor, on the other hand, made inconsistent statements and changed his version repeatedly – Held: Plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness; the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform [Paras 7.14 to 7.21].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 41 and 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Constructive Notice – Good Faith – A subsequent purchaser who fails to make reasonable inquiries into the title of the property before purchase cannot claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice – Defendant No. 2 admitted that no public notice was published and no title clearance certificate was obtained prior to purchase – The vendor (Defendant No. 1) had sold the property in violation of a subsisting injunction order – The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act binds subsequent purchasers irrespective of actual notice of the injunction – Held: Defendant No. 2 failed to prove good faith and absence of notice; he is bound by the decree for specific performance [Paras 7.25 to 7.29].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree of the City Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 4584 of 1986 confirmed and approved – Decree for specific performance upheld, sale-deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 declared illegal, null and void – Costs awarded in favour of the plaintiff – Operation of the judgment stayed for two weeks on the request of appellants' counsel.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Third Attempt – Implication Solely on Co-Accused Disclosure Statement – Petitioner arrested on 10.08.2025 in FIR No.176 dated 03.07.2025 for offences under Sections 21, 29, 27-A NDPS Act and Section 25 Arms Act – Recovery of 1.40 kg heroin, two pistols and live cartridges effected from co-accused's premises; further 573 grams heroin and drug money of ₹28,000 recovered from Ludhiana flat – Petitioner nominated as accused on 14.07.2025 solely on basis of disclosure statements of co-accused Ayush Mishra alias Brahmin and Mehak alias Seerat – No recovery from petitioner's possession; petitioner not present at spot – Challan presented on 24.12.2025; 34 prosecution witnesses cited; none examined – Petitioner in custody for over 8 months and 4 days; not involved in any other FIR – First and second bail pleas dismissed as withdrawn – Held: Disclosure statement of co-accused is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be sole basis for implicating accused; trial procrastinating without fault of petitioner; prolonged incarceration militates against Article 21; rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act diluted in light of fundamental right to speedy trial; bail granted [Paras 2–6.4].

NDPS Act – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Evidentiary Value – A confession or disclosure statement made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a weak piece of evidence – Such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction or implication of an accused and must be scrutinised with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence – Final evidentiary value and admissibility thereof falls within the domain of the trial Court – Courts adjudicating bail must nevertheless examine the nature and quality of linking evidence to prevent misuse of the process of law – Relied upon: Anshul Sardana v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-65094-2024 (2025:PHHC:004198) [Para 6, 6.1].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Dilution of Section 37 NDSS Act – Right to speedy trial is an essential component of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 – This right operates from the stage of arrest through investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision – Pre-trial detention of an accused, presumed innocent, must not be permitted to transform into punitive imprisonment due to delays not attributable to the accused – Where trial fails to conclude within reasonable time, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted and conditional liberty may be granted – Courts cannot be complicit in violation of fundamental rights notwithstanding statutory embargo – Relied upon: Kulwinder v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695) [Paras 6.2, 6.3].

Bail – Second/Successive Bail Petitions – Maintainability and Principles – A second or successive regular bail petition is maintainable in law and cannot be rejected solely on grounds of maintainability – Such petition is maintainable whether earlier was dismissed on merits or as withdrawn – For a successive bail petition to succeed, petitioner must show substantial change in circumstances; superficial or ostensible change does not suffice – No exhaustive guidelines can be laid down as to what constitutes substantial change; it is best left to judicial wisdom and discretion – Cogent reasons must be recorded where Court grants successive bail plea – Relied upon: Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana and Another, CRA-S-2332-2023 [Para 6.4].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds and standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-absence during trial, deposit of passport, monthly affidavit of non-involvement in offences, and provision of cellphone number to Investigating Officer.