Civil Appeal - Challenge to the order granting temporary injunction in a partition suit - Dispute over joint family properties - Appellant contends that the suit properties are not joint family properties - Existence of several disputes amongst the parties - Whether one coparcener can seek injunctive relief against other coparceners - Maintenance of a suit for permanent injunction by a coparcener against the Karta/Manager - The power of the Manager to alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate - Whether grant of temporary injunction is avoidable in the present circumstances. [Para 8-13]

Injunction - Limited scope of injunctive relief in joint Hindu family disputes - Coparcener's right to claim share in joint family estate - The inability of a coparcener to interfere with the act of management of the joint family affairs - Maintenance of a suit for permanent injunction against the Karta/Manager - Bar on the grant of injunction in certain cases as per Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act - Prima facie case for grant of injunction not made out - Irreparable loss to non-applicant if injunction is granted. [Para 9, 10, 11]

Partition Suit - Dispute over joint family properties - Existence of various disputes among the parties - Challenge to sale transactions effected before the filing of the suit - Question of maintainability of challenge to such transactions after a substantial period - Allegation of using the suit to settle matrimonial disputes - Suit filed with a malafide intention - Whether the suit for partition can be used to restrain coparceners from dealing with their shares - Prima facie case for grant of injunction not established - Error in granting a blanket injunction against all the Defendants - Modification of the injunction order to secure the interest of the Plaintiff. [Para 13-18]

Appeal - Modification of the injunction order - Direction to Appellants not to create third-party interests or change possession only in respect of a specific land - Disposal of the appeals and related interim applications. [Para 18-20]

Injunction Order - Request for continuation of the injunction order after judgment - Rejection of the request based on the nature of the findings recorded in the judgment. [Para 21]

Educational Institutions - Minority Institution - Ban on recruitment imposed by the State Government due to financial constraints caused by the COVID-19 pandemic - Minority institution seeking approval for the appointment of a teacher - Refusal of approval by the Education Officer - Challenge to the rejection - Coordinated bench judgments holding that the ban on recruitment does not apply to minority institutions - Applicability of the judgments to the present case - Impugned orders quashed and set aside - Direction to Education Officer to consider the proposal in light of the coordinated bench judgments within four weeks - Communication of decision to the petitioners within one week - Writ petitions allowed. [Para 1-16]

Local Government Disqualification – Removal of President of Jafrabad Nagar Panchayat – Challenge to order disqualifying the petitioner – Technical and merits-based challenges – Alleged failure to conduct meetings and improper conduct of meetings – Violation of principles of natural justice – Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding removal of elected representatives – Validity of removal – Consideration of democratic principles. [Para 1-11]

Statutory Principles – Disqualification of the President of Jafrabad Nagar Panchayat – Examination of issues related to disqualification and statutory provisions – Notice defects, denial of natural justice, and merit of disqualification considered. [Para 9-22]

Notice Defects – Notice dated 13.06.2023 defective as it called upon the petitioner to explain disqualification from the post of "President of Jalna Nagar Parishad" instead of "President of Jafrabad Nagar Panchayat" – Disqualification beyond the scope of the notice is invalid. [Para 13-14]

Denial of Natural Justice – Petitioner denied sufficient opportunity to respond to the notice – Collector failed to provide relevant material before the hearing – Order under section 55B passed without notice, violating principles of natural justice – Order bad in law due to non-compliance. [Para 15-20]

Merit of Disqualification – Disqualification based on non-conduct of meetings and financial decisions taken in meetings without an agenda – Section 81 of the Act provides for a procedure when meetings are not called – Misconduct must involve willful wrongdoing, not mere negligence – Lack of analysis and response to petitioner's submissions in the judgment – Order lacks justification for disqualification – Disqualification not supported by the law. [Para 21-22]

Interpretation of Misconduct - The judgment discusses the concept of "misconduct" in the context of government officials and public servants. It cites cases such as Government of A.P. v. P. Posetty (2000) 2 SCC 220 and M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 80 to emphasize that misconduct is a term that derives its meaning from the specific context and nature of the delinquency in question. [Para 10-13]

Public Interest and Misconduct - The judgment underscores that misconduct should be evaluated based on its impact on public interest. It must be measured by the nature and consequences of the misconduct to determine whether it is detrimental to the public interest. [Para 13]

Distinction Between Misconduct and Disgraceful Conduct - The judgment distinguishes between "misconduct" and "disgraceful conduct," stating that the inquiry under Section 341B-5 of the Act deals with misconduct alone, while Section 55A of the Act covers both misconduct and disgraceful conduct. The power of the government under Section 55A is broader than the inquiry under Section 341B-5. [Para 23]

Lack of Discussion on Merit - The judgment points out that the impugned order lacks a discussion on the merit of the report and does not include the petitioner's response on record. The petitioner has been disqualified apparently for not calling meetings of the Council regularly, but the order does not establish the petitioner's responsibility for this or show that it amounts to misconduct. [Para 24-26]

Removal of Elected Officials - The judgment emphasizes that the removal of elected members from office is a serious matter and must adhere to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. It highlights that elected officials are accountable to their electorate, and their removal affects both the official and the constituency. [Para 27-28]

Fresh Proceedings - Due to the petitioner's lack of opportunity to provide an explanation before the statutory authority, the judgment quashes the proceedings and remits the matter back to the statutory authority for a fresh adjudication. [Para 29-32]

Expedited Proceedings - The judgment directs that if the statutory authority decides to issue a notice, both parties should avoid unnecessary adjournments to expedite the proceedings. [Para 33-35]

Writ Petition – Retirement Age – Petitioner challenges the university’s decision to retire him at age 62, asserting his role as teaching staff should extend his retirement age to 65 like other teachers. [Para 2-3]

Employment Status – Assistant Engineer – The respondent, Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidhyalaya, clarified that the petitioner’s substantive post is Assistant Engineer, with all benefits attached to that post, determining his retirement age as 62. [Para 4]

Legal Definition – “Teachers of the University” – Court emphasizes the specific definition under Section 2(l) of the Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1991, indicating the petitioner was not ‘appointed’ for teaching. [Para 7-8]

Temporary Arrangement – Not a teacher – Court rules that the petitioner’s involvement in teaching activities was a temporary measure due to a shortage of teachers, not sufficient to classify him as a “Teacher of the University.” [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court dismisses the petition, holding the petitioner’s retirement age to be 62 years as per university’s notification dated 16/08/2018. [Para 9]

Protection of Lives and Liberty - Petitioners seek protection in a live-in relationship - Petitioner no. 1 is an adult, and petitioner no. 2 is a minor - No blood relationship between them - Continuous threats received - Representation filed before official respondents - Reference to a similar case involving protection for a minor in a live-in relationship - Petition disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 28.03.2022, rendered in the case of P…… Minor Through Vikram (supra). [Para 1-5]

Minor's Protection - Application of Juvenile Justice Act - Child Welfare Police Officer to produce the minor before the Committee - Enquiry under Section 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act - Orders under Section 37 of the Act - Decisions on boarding, lodging, and custody of the minor - Interim decisions for protection - Appropriate legal action against threat perception - Petitioners directed to appear before SSP/SP - Compliance report to be sent to the Court. [Para 4]

Disposition - Present petition disposed of following the judgment in the case of P…… Minor Through Vikram - Similar facts and circumstances - Protection measures ordered in line with the earlier judgment. [Para 5]

Constitutional Law – Right to Assemble and Demonstrate – Right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech – Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India – Importance of safeguarding the right to protest and express grievances within a democratic system – Restrictions on the exercise of these rights permissible under Article 19(2) and (3) – Concerns of public order and security of the State – Lawful authority to regulate public gatherings – Necessity for prior written permission for public meetings, processions, and demonstrations – Scope of judicial review in such cases – Emphasis on maintaining a balance between individual rights and public safety. [Para 9-18]

Freedom of Speech – Right to express grievances and dissent – Integral part of a democratic system – Protection of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) – The duty of courts to protect these rights – Need for the State to aid the exercise of the right to freedom of speech – Exercise of the power to restrict this right should serve the ends of constitutional rights rather than subvert them – Limitations on this right in the interest of public order and decency – Use of reasonable restrictions to prevent situations leading to the disturbance of public tranquility – Preventive and not provocative actions by law enforcement agencies – Judicial review of orders imposing restrictions – Limited scope of judicial review. [Para 9-13]

Law and Order – Concerns of maintaining public order and security of the State – Police’s role in ensuring public security and social order – Statutory provisions giving power to the police to maintain public order – Regulations for regulating traffic, preservation of order in public places, and preventing disorder – Exercise of discretion by the police in permitting public events – Balancing fundamental rights with the concerns of law and order – The importance of preventing situations that could lead to the disturbance of public tranquility – Law enforcement agencies must act within the limits of the law and cannot indulge in excesses – Necessity for police action to be preventive rather than provocative. [Para 14-16]

Balance of Rights – Balancing individual rights with public safety – The festive season and the significance of the period for the Hindu community – Possibility of events with communal overtones causing communal tensions in sensitive areas – The importance of taking into account law and order considerations – Limited scope of judicial review in such cases – Executive authorities given some leverage in decision-making – Scope for applying for fresh permission after the festive season with proper assurance to authorities – Dismissal of the writ petition based on law enforcement agency’s apprehension of law and order situation. [Para 14-18]

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Admissibility of second appeal – Requirement to formulate a substantial question of law – Mandatory procedure – Second appeal can only be admitted and maintained if it poses a substantial question of law – The substantial question of law should have substance, essentiality, and real significance, as opposed to being technical, inconsequential, or academic – Legislature has not qualified the scope of "substantial question of law" with the words "of general importance" – Compliance with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order XLII Rule 2 is mandatory for admitting and maintaining a second appeal. [Para 18-19]

Property Dispute – Claim over government properties – Greater scrutiny required in cases involving government properties – Unauthorized occupants, land grabbers, and encroachers should not be allowed to destroy the rights and titles of the government to immovable property – Need for careful examination of claims over government properties. [Para 13]

Registration Act – Documents requiring registration – Section 17(1)(b) – Documents purporting to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property of a value of one hundred rupees and upwards must be registered – Unregistered agreements regarding government property have no legal effect or implication on government rights – Enquiry ordered to determine the authenticity of documents related to government property. [Para 10-12]

Formulation of Substantial Question of Law – Mandatory procedure for second appeal – Second appeal can only be decided based on the substantial question of law formulated during the admission stage – Equitable grounds not sufficient for deciding a second appeal – Compliance with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order XLII Rule 2 is mandatory for admitting and maintaining a second appeal. [Para 16-17]

Dismissal of second appeal – Failure to raise a substantial question of law warranting admission – Second appeal dismissed without being admitted – Directions to forward a copy of the judgment for future guidance and appropriate action. [Para 19]

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession – Plaintiff claimed ownership of a specific land parcel – Allegation of encroachment by the defendant – Compromise decree passed earlier in favor of the plaintiff – Plaintiff’s suit for declaration and possession dismissed by trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court – Second appeal filed by the plaintiff challenging the lower courts’ decisions. [Para 1-8]

Execution of Decree – Limitation Act – Compromise decree passed in plaintiff’s favor – Plaintiff claims possession was not delivered – Plaintiff files a fresh suit for possession after the limitation period for executing the earlier decree – Question of whether the fresh suit is maintainable. [Para 9-19]

Power of Attorney Holder – Witness – Evidence regarding the delivery of possession – Plaintiff’s power of attorney holder testifies but does not confirm the delivery of possession – Plaintiff fails to depose personally in support of the case – Decision on the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence provided by the power of attorney holder. [Para 20]

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Lower courts’ decisions upheld – Plaintiff’s suit for declaration and possession not maintainable after the limitation period for executing the earlier compromise decree has expired. [Para 22-23]

Contempt of Court – Allegations of contemptuous conduct against the respondent, an advocate – Multiple complaints filed by the respondent making false, baseless, and mischievous allegations against Hon’ble Judges – Contemptuous conduct clearly amounts to obstructing the course of administration of justice and maligning the reputation and prestige of the court – Held, respondent guilty of "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with regard to certain complaints [Para 19].

Apology and unconditioned remorse not tendered by the respondent – No prayer made to drop the proceedings – Court left with no option but to decide the cases on merits – Advocate, as an officer of the court, owes a duty towards the court – Deliberate attempt to scandalize the court is a serious matter – Such actions can undermine the independence and impartiality of the judiciary – Found guilty of contempt with regard to specific complaints [Para 17-18].

Contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent with regard to certain complaints dropped – Punishment to be determined for the remaining complaints [Para 19].

Contempt of Court – Guilt of the respondent-contemnor established for criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, pertaining to specific complaints – Imposition of fine as just and appropriate punishment – Order for deposit of a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- within one month – Alternative of imprisonment for one month for non-compliance – Exoneration of the respondent-contemnor from guilt in relation to other complaints – Disposal of the contempt petitions. [Para 23-24]