Electricity Law – Provisional Assessment under Section 126 – Procedural Non-compliance – Quashed – HPSEBL issued provisional assessment of ₹4.55 crores alleging tampered meter and unauthorized use of electricity from August 2014 to May 2015 – Order based solely on MRI data available with the Board – No inspection of consumer premises or records maintained by petitioner – Held: Section 126 mandates inspection of premises or consumer-maintained records – Provisional assessment based only on Board’s internal data violates statutory procedure – Order held void ab initio and set aside [Paras 1–3, 20–24].

Electricity Act – Interpretation of ‘Records Maintained by Any Person’ – Includes Only Consumer's Records – Provisional assessment must be based on inspection of records maintained by consumer, not internal documents of Board – Held: Interpretation urged by HPSEBL that Board's own data suffices for initiating action under Section 126 is untenable – Legal threshold for invoking Section 126 not met [Paras 18, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Premature Petition – Maintainability – Provisional Order Arbitrary – Petition filed before final assessment under Section 126 – HPSEBL objected on ground of prematurity – Rejected – Held: Writ lies where statutory power is exercised arbitrarily and in breach of law – When procedural violation is writ large on the face of record, intervention justified at provisional stage itself [Paras 6, 21].

Statutory Compliance – Supply Code 2009 – Mandatory Inspection – Breached – Clause 6.1.1 to 6.1.7 of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code requires inspection, preparation of report, and notice to consumer – No inspection or report produced by Assessing Officer despite Court’s direction – Held: Statutory obligations under Supply Code are sacrosanct – Failure renders provisional assessment illegal [Paras 17–19].

Precedent – Supreme Court Interpretation – Inspection a Mandatory Step – Referred to Executive Engineer, Southco v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 1 SCC 108 – SC held inspection by Assessing Officer a necessary precondition for invoking Section 126 – Applied – Held: Absence of inspection renders initiation of proceedings under Section 126 impermissible [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Petition allowed – Provisional Assessment Order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure P-10) quashed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed [Para 24].

Preventive Detention – Delay in Passing Detention Order – Live-Link Doctrine – Detenu involved in three FIRs under NDPS Act and enlarged on bail in all – Last prejudicial activity allegedly on 18.09.2024, but detention order passed only on 01.03.2025 – Held: Delay of nearly six months snapped the live link between alleged activities and purpose of detention – No exceptional explanation offered for delay – Detention order unsustainable [Paras 10-13, 22-23].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Bail Not Violated – Detaining authority failed to show how normal criminal law was insufficient – No allegation of bail misuse or any attempt to seek cancellation – Non-application of mind and lack of subjective satisfaction evident – Held: Detention order passed without necessity or inevitability [Paras 10, 23-25].

Preventive Detention – Non-supply of Documents – Violation of Article 22(5) – Contradictory execution receipts (dated 05.03.2025) indicate uncertainty regarding service of full detention record to detenu – Documents not explained in vernacular language – Detenu not informed of right to represent – Held: Failure to communicate grounds and supporting documents in language understood by detenu violates Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of PITNDPS Act [Paras 14-16].

Preventive Detention – Representation Not Considered – Detenu's representation dated 27.03.2025 not placed before Advisory Board which gave its opinion on 17.03.2025 – Representation also not considered by Government before confirmation of detention – Held: Denial of constitutional right to make timely and effective representation renders detention order invalid [Paras 17-21].

Preventive Detention – Detention Based on Dossier – Grounds of detention found to be verbatim reproduction of police dossier – Held: Reflects mechanical exercise without independent application of mind by detaining authority – Detention order vitiated [Paras 2, 25].

Preventive Detention – Constitutional Safeguards – Preventive detention must be exercised with caution – Non-application of mind, procedural lapse, and lack of proximity between alleged conduct and detention found to violate Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of PITNDPS Act – Held: Detention order liable to be quashed [Paras 24-26].

Decision: Petition allowed – Detention order dated 01.03.2025 quashed – Petitioner directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith [Para 26].

Criminal Law – Bail – Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Distinction Between Offences – Misappropriation of Government Funds – BNS, 2023 – Petitioner, a 63-year-old retired Superintendent from the Forest Department, was arrested for misappropriating ₹19.25 lakhs through unknown accounts – Final charge sheet filed but not yet numbered – Petitioner has been in judicial custody for 110 days – No custodial interrogation sought – Held: As offences under criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot co-exist on the same facts, and in view of Apex Court rulings, bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 3–7].

Interpretation of Statutes – BNS and BNSS – Scope of Bail under New Criminal Codes – Court applied Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023 to consider bail – Referred to case law under corresponding IPC provisions to interpret analogous offences – Emphasized the legal incompatibility between entrustment (breach of trust) and inducement (cheating), citing Delhi Race Club and Arshad Neyaz Khan [Paras 4–6].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Granted Based on Length of Custody and Absence of Risk – Bail with Conditions – Petitioner voluntarily surrendered and has fixed residence – No evidence of risk of flight – No request made for custodial interrogation – Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted bail on condition of regular appearance before police and personal bond [Paras 3, 7–8].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Atmakur – Directed to report before Station House Officer every Saturday from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm until filing of charge sheet [Para 8].

Civil Law – Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Co-sharers – Status Quo – Reversed – Plaintiff-petitioner sought injunction to restrain co-sharer defendants from raising construction on joint land – Trial Court granted interim relief of status quo – Appellate Court reversed order, holding no formal partition proved and mere separate possession did not establish exclusive rights – Held: Law does not permit injunction against co-sharer unless construction amounts to ouster, prejudice, or violation of legal rights – No case of prejudice or easement pleaded – Construction alone not a ground for injunction [Paras 5–10].

Co-ownership – Construction by Co-sharer – No Injunction Permissible Absent Prejudice – Appellate Court relied on settled legal position that co-owner cannot be restrained from raising construction over joint property unless act amounts to ouster or demonstrable injury – Held: Plaintiff had also raised construction over joint land and did not plead specific injury, damage, or easement – Mere apprehension of damage or loss of privacy not actionable – Findings of Appellate Court upheld [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Easement – No Right on Joint Land – Plaintiff claimed construction by co-sharer threatened retaining wall and house – No easement pleaded or proved – Held: No right of easement arises on joint property between co-sharers – Claim of damage or privacy violation not maintainable in absence of proven easement – Appellate Court correctly rejected plaintiff’s plea [Paras 26–33].

Civil Procedure – Interim Relief – Equity and Conduct – Plaintiff who constructed on joint land himself cannot seek to restrain co-owner from similar acts – Held: Equitable relief not available to party acting in similar manner and suppressing material facts – Conduct of petitioner disentitles him to injunction – Appellate Court order does not suffer from infirmity [Paras 21–24].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Order of Appellate Court upheld – Trial Court’s status quo order set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with the suit uninfluenced by any observations in this judgment – Interim relief vacated [Para 11].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Delay in Invoking Arbitration Clause – Rejected – Petitioner company supplied furniture under multiple contracts to various Block Development Offices in 2020 – After pursuing civil suits before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction, petitioners invoked arbitration clause in March 2024 and filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Respondents objected on grounds of limitation and maintainability – Held: Delay not ex-facie unreasonable – Invocation of arbitration not demonstrably time-barred – Issue of limitation to be decided by Arbitral Tribunal – Appointment of Arbitrator warranted [Paras 19-23].

Arbitration Law – Limitation – Distinction between limitation for claims and for Section 11 petition – Cause of action for claim arises on breach; limitation for Section 11 petition runs from failure to appoint arbitrator – Though arbitration was invoked after more than three years of supply, the petitioner was pursuing civil suits in a court that lacked jurisdiction – Held: Period spent in bona fide litigation can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Not a case of dead or non-arbitrable claim [Paras 17-21].

Scope of Section 11(6) – Limited Judicial Review – Referral Court should not conduct elaborate enquiry at appointment stage – Where issue of limitation is not manifestly clear, matter to be left to Arbitral Tribunal – Held: Referral court’s role is confined to prima facie scrutiny – Doubt as to time-barred nature of claim must be resolved by Arbitral Tribunal and not by the court [Paras 8-13, 21].

Decision:

Petitions allowed – Ms. Asifa Padroo, Advocate, appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Arbitrator to examine limitation as preliminary issue – Arbitration to proceed on merits – Costs to be shared equally by parties, subject to final award [Paras 23-24].

Service Law – UPSC Recruitment – Shortlisting Criteria – Petitioners challenged shortlisting for ADA recruitment where UPSC increased experience criteria from 2 years (as advertised) to 6 years (UR/OBC) and 5 years (EWS), citing large number of applicants – Held: UPSC has authority to adopt rational shortlisting methods as per advertisement clauses; enhancement does not alter eligibility but filters applicants for interview – Such shortlisting upheld as valid [Paras 3–9, 12].

Recruitment – Eligibility vs. Selection Criteria – Distinction clarified between basic eligibility (which remains 2 years’ practice as per advertisement) and selection-stage filtering (6 years' practice for interview) – Held: Shortlisting does not violate rights of eligible candidates; experience-based cut-off serves administrative efficiency and is not arbitrary [Paras 6, 10–12].

Precedents – Shortlisting Permissible – Supreme Court in MPPSC v. Navnit Kumar Potdar, (1995) 1 SCT 50 and Union of India v. T. Sundararaman, (1997) 4 SCC 664 held that shortlisting via enhanced criteria is part of the selection process and valid if rational and transparent – Applied to present facts – Petitioners not entitled to interim relief or direction to appear in interview [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Review – No Interference Warranted – Tribunal’s order refusing interim relief found to be reasoned and justified – High Court declined interference under Articles 226/227 – No prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of petitioners [Paras 12–13].

Decision: All three writ petitions dismissed – Tribunal’s refusal to stay UPSC interview process upheld – UPSC’s enhanced experience criteria for interview stage found reasonable and lawful [Paras 12–13].

Succession Law – Registered Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Reversal of Appellate Court Judgment – Plaintiff claimed ½ share in suit land based on Will executed by father Sardara Singh – Defendants challenged Will citing testator’s terminal illness, proximity of death, delay in disclosure, and dubious attestation – High Court held that mere registration of Will is not enough where Will is shrouded in suspicious circumstances – Will discarded as not proved in accordance with law [Paras 30–43].

Attesting Witness – Credibility – Non-acquaintance with Testator – Procedural Irregularity – One attesting witness unfamiliar with testator’s personal life – Name handwritten while other’s was typed – Admitted signing at behest of other witness and lacked basic knowledge of testator – Not credible to prove Will [Paras 34–36].

Proof of Will – Inconsistencies in Testimony – Onus on Propounder Not Discharged – Time of execution, presence of witnesses, and names mentioned in Will contradicted in depositions – No explanation for exclusion of legal heirs – No reason for non-production of Will at time of mutation – Held: Will not proved beyond doubt [Paras 38–42].

Coparcenary Property – Limited Right to Bequeath – Plaintiff’s Claim Unsupported – Even if testator had right to bequeath ¼ share under Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, Will still had to be proved valid – Suspicion around Will remained unresolved – Plaintiff entitled only to his legal ¼ share [Paras 28–29].

Permanent Injunction – Not Maintainable Against Co-sharer – Legal Error by First Appellate Court – Injunction granted against co-sharers found unsustainable in law – No injunction can be granted against co-owner without partition – First Appellate Court's judgment set aside [Para 46–47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016 passed by First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s judgment dated 24.04.2014 restored – Will dated 07.06.2005 held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Plaintiff entitled only to monetary relief as decreed by trial court – No relief granted on basis of Will.

Administrative Law – Reservation – OBC-NCL Certificate – Cut-off Date for Eligibility – Delay in Furnishing Document – Petitioner was denied admission to DNB Surgery seat under OBC quota due to failure to produce valid OBC-NCL certificate by the cut-off date (25.02.2025) – Certificate was applied for only after counselling date and issued on 28.03.2025 – Court held that in absence of valid document or prima facie evidence of eligibility as on cut-off date, benefit of reservation could not be extended – OM dated 08.10.2015 could not apply to petitioner as no provisional proof existed [Paras 3, 22-24].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Record – Discovery of New Evidence – Scope of Review under Article 226 – RTI-based evidence about other candidates allegedly being selected without valid certificates did not constitute error apparent on the face of record – Court emphasized that review is not an appeal in disguise – Petitioner failed to meet statutory requirements under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for invoking review jurisdiction [Paras 14-18, 33-34].

Negative Equality – No Right to Seek Parity in Illegality – Allegation that other candidates (including Dr. Chandra Prakash) were admitted despite similar or worse lapses could not justify granting relief to petitioner – Court held that Article 14 does not permit negative equality – Absence of impleadment of such candidates further limited judicial examination of those cases [Paras 27-29].

Reservation Law – Prima Facie Proof Requirement under OBC Guidelines – Dynamic Nature of Creamy Layer Status – Earlier OBC-NCL certificate dated 10.09.2013 could not serve as valid proof as it had expired – Court emphasized that non-creamy layer status is dynamic and must be based on current income status, making outdated certificates irrelevant [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Review Petition dismissed – No error apparent or sufficient ground for invoking review jurisdiction – Alleged procedural irregularities in other cases could not be a ground for parity – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 33-35].

Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Condition to Deposit Compensation – Petitioners convicted under Section 138 NI Act sought suspension of sentence – Appellate Courts allowed suspension but directed 20% of compensation to be deposited – Petitioners challenged such conditions, citing financial incapacity or delay – Held: As per Division Bench ruling in Coromandel International Ltd., imposition of such condition is permissible but not mandatory – Deposit not a prerequisite to maintain appeal [Paras 2–3, 6–8]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Scope and Application – Court held that Section 148 empowers Appellate Court to direct deposit of 20% compensation during appeal – But non-deposit does not bar right to appeal – Failure to deposit may allow Appellate Court to vacate suspension of sentence, but such power must be exercised judicially and with due regard to liberty and hardship [Paras 7–8]

Right to Bail – Non-compliance with Deposit Condition – Petitioners argued that inability to deposit should not cancel bail – Court reiterated that liberty is paramount – Where sentence is suspended, and appeal is pending, non-payment alone cannot lead to automatic revocation unless due opportunity and judicial satisfaction is recorded [Paras 8–13]

BNSS – Applicability of Section 403 and 430 – Section 403 BNSS (bar on review) does not prevent reconsideration where legal error apparent or rights are affected – Section 430 BNSS (akin to Section 389 CrPC) governs suspension of sentence and empowers Court to impose reasonable conditions, but such power not to be exercised mechanically [Paras 7–10]

Division Bench Reference – Precedent – Larger Bench in Coromandel International Ltd. v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation, 2025 (4) RCR (Cri) 490, clarified that deposit under Section 148 NI Act is not mandatory for hearing appeal or continuing bail – Appellate Courts can waive or modify deposit in exceptional cases – Liberty cannot be sacrificed solely due to non-deposit [Paras 7–8]

Decision: All six petitions allowed in part – Orders directing deposit of 20% of compensation stayed temporarily – Matters remanded to respective Appellate Courts for fresh consideration in light of Coromandel International judgment – Appellate Courts to decide afresh within 15 days – Till then, condition of deposit to remain inoperative and bail not to be cancelled – Courts to prioritize hearing and disposal of appeals within 60 to 90 days, unless delay is attributable to complainant [Paras 9–15]