Civil Law – Partnership Firms – Abatement – Appeal by firm – Whether second appeal abates upon death of partner – Suit was instituted against partnership firm under Order 30 CPC without impleading partners personally – One partner died during suit, another during pendency of second appeal – Held: Under Order XXX Rule 4(1) CPC, substitution of legal representatives not necessary – Appeal does not abate for non-substitution of deceased partners [Paras 19–24, 28–30, 42]

Partnership Law – Dissolution and Reconstitution – Firm originally had two partners – Death of one partner does not ipso facto dissolve firm where reconstitution occurs and new partners inducted before retirement of existing ones – Respondent’s own conduct in filing contempt petition against new partners evidences knowledge and implied acceptance of firm’s continued existence – Held: Firm validly reconstituted, and appeal maintainable in name of firm [Paras 34–39]

Procedural Law – Application for Abatement – Maintainability – Respondent sought dismissal of appeal on ground of abatement due to death of partner – Court found respondent failed to apply for particulars of firm’s partners under Order XXX Rule 1 – Also admitted reconstitution in prior proceedings – Held: Abatement application rejected – Appeal can proceed through present partners [Paras 33, 38–42, 49]

Judicial Discipline – Refusal of Stay – Despite request by respondent to stay order rejecting abatement application, Court declined stay citing earlier Supreme Court direction for time-bound disposal of appeal – However, in interest of justice, hearing deferred for limited time to allow respondent to seek relief from Supreme Court [Later Order, Para 50]

Decision: CAN 11 of 2025 (Application for abatement) rejected – CAN 12 of 2025 (Application to proceed through existing partners) allowed – Second appeal to proceed in the name of the firm – Appeal not abated under Order XXX CPC – No stay of order granted – Matter listed for further hearing on 28/01/2026 [Paras 49–50]

Parole – Indigent Prisoner – Surety Bond – Repeated Mechanical Imposition – Waiver Directed – Life convict granted fourth periodical parole of 40 days – District Parole Advisory Committee imposed condition of furnishing two sureties of ₹25,000 each despite petitioner’s proven indigence and despite three prior orders of High Court waiving such condition – Held: Insistence on sureties from an indigent prisoner renders sanctioned parole illusory and amounts to constructive denial of parole – Condition arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional [Paras 1–3, 15, 19–21].

Prison Jurisprudence – Parole as Reformative and Humanitarian Measure – Not Executive Largesse – Parole intended to preserve family ties and aid reintegration – Conditions must conform to Articles 14 and 21 – Poverty cannot be a disqualifying factor for availing parole [Paras 8–9, 19].

Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 – Rule 4 & Rule 8 – Nature of Power to Impose Conditions – Directory and Discretionary – Rule does not mandate furnishing of sureties in every case – Prisoner can be released on personal bond alone where circumstances so warrant [Paras 10–12].

Surety Requirement – Purpose – Means Not End – Furnishing surety is only to secure surrender after parole – Where indigence is established and undisputed, insistence on surety becomes oppressive and exclusionary – Such approach violates equality and dignity of prisoner [Paras 11–12, 15].

Fundamental Rights of Prisoners – Articles 14 & 21 – Prisoners Remain Rights-Bearing Individuals – Economic incapacity cannot justify hostile discrimination – Mechanical insistence on sureties from poor prisoners impermissible – Reliance on Sunil Batra, Moti Ram and Mohinder Singh [Paras 15, 17–19].

Precedent – Natia Jiria v. State of Gujarat (FB) – Poverty Is No Crime – Authority obliged to release prisoner on personal bond when plea of poverty is not rebutted – Discretion must be exercised to advance constitutional protection, not undermine it [Paras 13–14].

Administrative Apathy – Repeated Defiance of Judicial Orders – Despite three earlier High Court orders waiving surety, authorities again imposed identical condition – Held: Reflects disturbing institutional apathy to rule of law – Judicial correction warranted [Paras 2, 15].

Guidelines Issued – Parole Authorities – Uniform and Humane Exercise of Discretion – High Court framed binding guidelines regarding imposition/waiver of surety bonds, recording of indigence, effect of prior waivers, proportionality of bond amount, and coordination with Legal Services Authority – Directions to be followed in all future cases [Paras 22–23].

Relief – Modification of Parole Order – Condition of furnishing sureties waived – Petitioner directed to be released on parole on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 only – Writ petition allowed [Paras 21, 24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Condition of furnishing two sureties set aside – Parole to be availed on personal bond alone – Guidelines issued for future compliance by authorities.

Civil Law  – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Bar of Suit by Special Statute – Land acquired under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Notification under Section 10 issued prior to institution of suit – Land vested absolutely in Central Government – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 26 – Trial Court erred in refusing to reject plaint – Held: Suit patently barred by law and plaint liable to be rejected [Paras 11–19].

Limitation – Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act – Challenge to sale deed – Pleading of date of knowledge instead of date of execution – Plaintiff pleaded knowledge of sale deed on 27.02.2022 – Issue of limitation becomes mixed question of law and fact – Trial Court justified in not rejecting plaint on limitation alone [Paras 9–10].

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Effect of acquisition and vesting – After issuance of notification under Section 10, title vests in Central Government free from encumbrances – Civil dispute regarding title becomes irrelevant except for determination of entitlement to compensation – Only surviving right is claim to compensation [Paras 13–15].

Jurisdiction – Tribunal under Sections 14 and 17 of Act of 1957 – Tribunal empowered to decide disputes relating to compensation and entitlement thereto – Tribunal headed by a person who is or has been qualified to be a Judge of a High Court – Tribunal competent to decide incidental questions of title to determine entitlement to compensation – Civil Court jurisdiction excluded under Section 26 [Paras 14–18].

Precedents – Divergent views – Bombay High Court view in Sandeep v. Suchita not accepted – Views of Patna High Court and Jharkhand High Court preferred – Held: Once acquisition is complete, civil suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs is not maintainable [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint rejected as barred by Section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Parties to bear own costs.

Civil Law – Withdrawal of Suit – Plaintiff’s Right to Abandon – Dominus Litis – Plaintiffs, having settled with Defendant No. 5, sought to abandon the suit against him and delete Plot No. 73 from the suit – Trial Court rejected the application citing pendency of counter-claim by other defendants – Held: Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, plaintiffs have absolute right to unconditionally withdraw suit or part thereof – Court cannot compel plaintiff to continue suit – Rejection of amendment to delete co-defendant and suit plot unsustainable [Paras 14–21, 41].

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Maintainability Against Co-Defendant – Abuse of Process – Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 sought to raise a counter-claim against Defendant No. 5 to recover Rs.1.61 crores under a 2008 agreement – Added declaratory relief against plaintiffs to sustain counter-claim – Held: Under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, counter-claim must be against plaintiff – Mere inclusion of a relief against plaintiff is insufficient if it is a subterfuge to target a co-defendant – Counter-claim primarily against D5 not maintainable [Paras 25–40].

Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment to Written Statement with Counter-Claim – Liberal Standards Do Not Apply Where Claim Is Legally Impermissible – Trial Court erred in allowing amendment when main intent was to set up a legally barred counter-claim against co-defendant – Liberal standard for amendment of written statement cannot justify permitting unlawful claims [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Common order of Trial Court set aside – Amendment of plaint to delete Defendant No. 5 and suit plot allowed – Amendment of written statement and counter-claim by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 rejected – Rule made absolute [Para 42].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Religion – Article 25(1), 19(1)(a), 29(1), Constitution of India – Writ Petitions Maintainable – The High Court held that writ petitions seeking enforcement of a religious practice in protection of fundamental rights, including freedom to profess and practice religion (Article 25(1)), freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)), and the right to conserve culture (Article 29(1)), deserve to be entertained – The Court emphasized that restrictions on worship citing public order must be reasonable and not a cover to curtail rights, especially when authorities consistently ignore pleas for years – The Court found that the State's apprehension of public disturbance was an "imaginary ghost" and an exposure of their incapacity to maintain law and order or hesitation to foster harmony – The Court concluded that the alternate remedy under the HR & CE Act was not efficacious given the State's pre-determined stance and the history of litigation – The writ petitions were held not to be barred by res judicata as the specific relief sought (lighting Deepam at Deepathoon) was not finally determined in earlier litigations – The Court affirmed the right of worshippers to seek enforcement of religious practices through writ jurisdiction – [Paras 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 140(a), 140(b), 158(d), 159(i), 160(j)].

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Customary Practices – Section 28, 63(e) – Judicial Review of Custom – The Court held that the HR & CE Department, as custodian of customary rights under Section 28, and the Joint Commissioner, empowered to inquire into usage under Section 63(e), had failed to act neutrally – The Court found that the Devasthanam and Government had "pre-closed their mind" and were not inclined to choose a suitable place for lighting the lamp, making recourse to Section 63(e) a "farce exercise" – The Court rejected the argument that courts cannot dictate customs, asserting that judicial review can ascertain prevailing customs when executive orders are challenged – The Court found no material to substantiate that "Agamasastra" prohibits lighting the Mahadeepam at any place other than the Uchipillaiyar Temple – The Court noted that the present place of lighting (Uchipillaiyar Temple) is not the "Uchi" (top of the hill) nor does it have a Pillaiyar idol, contrary to the Devasthanam's claims – The Court concluded that the Devasthanam and Government's contention that the present place aligns with Agamasastra is based on "hearsay statements" and lacks textual support – [Paras 68, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 88, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 110(v)(b), 110(vi)(a), 111(vi)(b), 116, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140(c)].

Property Law – Temple Property – O.S.No.04 of 1920 (Privy Council Confirmation) – Deepathoon Ownership – The Court reiterated that the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.04 of 1920, confirmed by the Privy Council, declared the Thiruparankundram hill (excluding specific areas like the Dharga and flagstaff) as the property of the Devasthanam – The stone pillar, identified as "Deepathoon," is located on a different rock at a lower summit, within the Devasthanam's property, and not within the Dharga area – The Court found that the pillar's distinct carved features and design differentiate it from a mere survey stone, rejecting claims by some appellants that it was a British survey mark or a Jain lamp post – The Court noted that the Devasthanam authorities had screened the pillar with cloth to prevent devotees from lighting lamps, which was seen as proof of the Temple's ownership and control over it – The Court rejected the Waqf Board's "mischievous submission" claiming ownership of the Deepathoon, especially since the Dharga representatives themselves had not claimed it – [Paras 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140(e), 158(e), 159(g)].

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 – Protected Monuments – Rule 8(g) – Animal Sacrifice Prohibition – The Court noted that the Thiruparankundram Hill, covering 172.2 acres, is a protected monument under notifications from 1908 and 2023 – Rule 8(g) of the 1959 Rules prohibits bringing any animal for purposes other than monument maintenance, and Rule 8(c) prohibits cooking or consuming food except where specifically permitted – Therefore, there is a statutory bar against traditional animal sacrifice on the hill – The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is mandated to impose conditions to preserve monuments – [Paras 92, 95, 96, 98, 109(v)(a), 119, 120, 140, 141(1)].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Res Judicata – The Court found that earlier judgments, including W.P.No.18884 of 1994, provided temporary solutions and left open the issue of lighting Deepam at an alternate place, thus not constituting res judicata for the present petitions – The Court emphasized that the principle of res judicata in public interest litigation is not a technical bar when matters of grave public importance are considered – The Court criticized the Single Judge for exceeding jurisdiction by inventing a new custom and for passing judgment in haste without affording fair opportunity to all stakeholders – [Paras 68, 76, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 94(b), 96(f), 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 131, 138, 140(a)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Devasthanam must light the lamp at the Deepathoon, in addition to existing prohibitions and restrictions under the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Acts and Rules – ASI shall impose appropriate and necessary conditions to preserve the monuments – The Devasthanam team, in consultation with ASI and Police, shall light the lamp on Karthigaideepam festival day, with no public allowed to accompany the team – The District Collector shall co-ordinate and supervise the event – [Paras 141(1), 141(2)].

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 17B – Payment of Wages During Pendency of Writ – Respondent workman terminated in 2002 – Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages – Writ petition filed by employer, stay granted in 2007 – Workman filed application under Section 17B in 2018, claiming unemployment – Employer failed to rebut affidavit denying gainful employment – Held: Workman entitled to last drawn or minimum wages from date of application (07.05.2018) till date of superannuation in 2023 [Paras 1-3, 10-11, 15-19]

Delay – Effect on 17B Relief – Delay of 12 years in filing 17B application explained as due to financial hardship – Court declined retrospective relief but allowed limited relief from date of application till superannuation – No bar on relief under 17B merely on account of delay where unemployment established and not rebutted [Paras 5, 10, 18-19]

Employer's Burden – Rebutting Affidavit of Unemployment – Once workman filed affidavit of unemployment, burden shifted to employer to prove gainful employment – Mere assertions insufficient – No proof adduced by employer – Held: Workman entitled to protection under Section 17B [Paras 12-14, 16]

Scope of Court’s Power under Section 17B – Court must grant interim relief where statutory conditions are satisfied – Merits of main case not relevant at interim stage – Minimum wages can be awarded in place of last drawn wages in appropriate cases [Paras 17-18]

Decision: Application under Section 17B allowed in part – Respondent entitled to last drawn or minimum wages (whichever is higher) from 07.05.2018 till deemed superannuation in 2023 – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Monthly payment to continue till 2023 as per direction – Writ petition to remain pending [Paras 19-21]

Labour Law – Gratuity – Limitation – Application filed after 2–3 years of retirement – Held: No limitation prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Rules cannot override statutory right – Rule 7(5) of the Central Rules clarifies that delayed claims are not invalid – Delay does not defeat the right to gratuity under a beneficial social welfare legislation [Paras 8–10].

Principal Employer – Liability for Gratuity – Contractual Employment – Petitioners argued workers were contractor’s employees – Court held contracts were a camouflage as workers served continuously for over 20 years despite changing contractors – Principal employer liable to pay gratuity under Section 21(4) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Right to recover from contractors preserved [Paras 13–16].

Wages – Definition – Gratuity Included – As per Section 2(vi)(d) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, gratuity payable on termination of employment is part of "wages" – Hence, principal employer’s statutory obligation includes gratuity as wage component under applicable labour laws [Paras 17–18].

Interest on Delayed Gratuity – Held: Under Section 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employer is liable to pay interest from date gratuity becomes payable (i.e., from date of retirement), not from date of application – Interest rightly awarded from date of superannuation till payment [Paras 21–22].

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Gratuity as Property – Gratuity is a vested right and recognized as property under Article 300A of the Constitution – Cannot be denied except by authority of law – Delay or contractual arrangement cannot justify withholding payment [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Orders of Controlling and Appellate Authorities upheld – Respondents entitled to withdraw deposited gratuity amounts and recover any deficit – Principal employer liable to pay and may recover from contractors where applicable.

Civil Writ - Fair Price Shop – Misappropriation of Food Grains – Scope of Revision under Clause 24 – Respondent No.5 was found guilty by District Supply Officer (DSO) of misappropriating wheat (22.6 quintals), rice (11.36 quintals), and pulses, and violating other regulatory requirements – DSO passed order cancelling authorization and forfeiting security deposit – Revision before Deputy Commissioner dismissed, confirming findings of irregularity – Second revision allowed by Hon’ble Minister without recording finding on legality or propriety – Held: Minister exceeded revisional jurisdiction under Clause 24(1) by setting aside findings without examining their correctness – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 3–5, 13–16]

Consumer Rights – Locus of Complainants – Preliminary objection raised that original complainants (ration cardholders) have no locus to challenge Minister’s order – Rejected – Held: Under Distribution Order, 1975, complainants have standing to challenge revisional orders unlike under Licensing Order, 1979 – Judgment in Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre followed – Supreme Court ruling in Vishvas not applicable as it related to Licensing Order [Paras 6–10]

Revisional Powers – Jurisdictional Error – Hon’ble Minister ordered fresh enquiry and reinstatement of authorization based on general statements from cardholders and respondent’s long-standing service – Held: Revisional authority must record findings on legality, propriety, or irregularity of prior orders – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable and beyond jurisdiction [Paras 14–16]

Subsequent Events – Fresh Enquiry – Respondent No.5 relied on post-order enquiry showing no current complaints – Held: Subsequent developments irrelevant where earlier findings of misappropriation were unaddressed by revisional authority – Fresh material not part of record and cannot justify flawed revisional order [Para 12]

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Order dated 19/07/2021 passed by Hon’ble Minister quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to Hon’ble Minister to decide revision afresh after recording findings on allegations of misappropriation – Respondent No.5 to continue operating fair price shop unless otherwise barred – Revision to be decided preferably before 31/05/2026 [Para 17]

Criminal Law – Abortion – Section 312 IPC – Summoning Order Quashed – Petitioner summoned for offence under Section 312 IPC for terminating 14-week pregnancy – Termination conducted in a registered medical facility under supervision within the permissible 20-week limit under the MTP Act – Medical records stated reason as marital discord – Court held that abortion under medical advice in such circumstances does not attract criminal liability – Petitioner had no intention to cause miscarriage unlawfully – Offence under Section 312 IPC not made out [Paras 21–25, 38–41, 61–64]

Constitutional Law – Reproductive Autonomy – Right to Privacy and Bodily Integrity – Article 21 – Reiterated that a woman’s right to reproductive choice is a dimension of her personal liberty under Article 21 – Cited decisions in Suchita Srivastava, K.S. Puttaswamy, and X v. Principal Secretary affirming that the decision to continue or terminate pregnancy lies solely with the woman – Mental well-being, especially in cases of marital discord, is a valid legal ground for abortion [Paras 30–36, 49–50]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act – Interpretation of “Mental Health” and “Marital Discord” – Rule 3-B and Section 3(3) – Court held that “mental health” includes stress arising from marital discord – Emphasised that the MTP Act and Rules must be interpreted purposively to support access to safe and legal abortion – Rule 3-B applies to changes in material circumstances including emotional distress due to deteriorating marital relationships, even in the absence of formal separation [Paras 42–48, 53–58]

Abuse of Process – Summoning Without Prima Facie Case – Revisional Court failed to appreciate that medical termination of pregnancy under lawful circumstances cannot be treated as an offence – No prima facie evidence of criminal intent or unlawful action by the Petitioner – Summoning order under Section 312 IPC liable to be set aside as abuse of process and contrary to established constitutional and statutory protections [Paras 15–20, 65–67]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order summoning the Petitioner under Section 312 IPC is set aside – Petitioner discharged from all criminal proceedings