Civil Law - Temple Property – Fraudulent Decree – Pujari’s Lack of Ownership – Decree dated 10.01.1997 obtained by suppression, forged will, and concealment of necessary parties – Fraud vitiates all judicial acts – Pujari only a manager, not owner – Deity is juristic person; property vests in deity with State as guardian – Res judicata not attracted – Trial Court justified in declaring earlier decree void ab initio – Appeal dismissed [Paras 35–45, 56–57].

Fraud on Court – Nullity of Decree – Principles – Held: Judgment and decree dated 10.01.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 42-A/1996 obtained by deliberate suppression of necessary facts, non-disclosure of earlier litigation, concealment of rejection of forged will, and non-joinder of deity and Aukaf Committee – Applying S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, A.V. Papayya Sastry, Smriti Madan Kansagra, Vishnu Vardhan, decree is void ab initio – Fraud unravels everything [Paras 35–41].

Temple/Deity Property – Juristic Ownership – Guardianship – Held: Murti Shri Ram Mandir is a juristic person and perpetual minor; property vests in deity; State acts as guardian for protection of endowed property – Suit correctly instituted through SDO as guardian – Valid in law [Paras 49–51].

Pujari – Status and Rights – Managerial but not Proprietary Rights – Held: Pujari is only a manager/custodian, not an owner; cannot acquire Bhumiswami rights; cannot claim through guru-chela lineage; revenue entries of possession do not confer title – Reliance placed on State of M.P. v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (2021) 10 SCC 222, Mst. Kanchaniya, Kal Bhairav Trust [Paras 52–54].

Will of Guru Narayandas – Found Forged – Handwriting expert report (Ex. P/14), complaint (Ex. P/12), and admission of DW-1 establish fabrication – Gokuldas’ claim of succession rejected; his appointment as Pujari earlier set aside by Commissioner – His assertion of ownership illegal [Paras 40–41].

Res Judicata – Not Applicable – Held: Principle inapplicable where earlier decree obtained by fraud – Order dated 30.11.2006 already held suit maintainable; attained finality – Fraud is an exception to res judicata; decree can be challenged at any stage [Paras 42–44].

Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC – No Bar – Earlier decree not a compromise decree; deity was not a party to earlier suit; therefore, bar under Rule 3-A does not apply [Para 43].

Revenue Records – Presumptive Value Only – Held: Revenue entries (Ex. D/1–D/68) show possession for management; cannot prove title – Property recorded as “Murti Shri Ram Mandir Mafi Okaf” (Ex. P/10) confirms ownership of deity – Follows Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269 [Paras 45–47].

Pujari’s Eligibility – Customary Tradition – Gokuldas’ two marriages violated celibate Nihang tradition of math; disqualified from claiming spiritual succession – No personal or hereditary right to property [Para 55].

Maintainability – Suit by Deity – Valid – Learned Trial Court correctly held suit maintainable and not hit by technical bars – State rightly represented deity as guardian [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007 affirming that decree dated 10.01.1997 was void ab initio upheld – Earlier decree obtained by fraud, concealment of essential facts, forged will, and non-joinder of necessary parties – Deity is owner of property; Pujari only a manager – Suit validly instituted through State as guardian – No error in Trial Court findings – No order as to costs – Pending IAs closed [Paras 56–57].

Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Spurious Drug – Dealer Acquitted – Conviction set aside – Appellant, a licensed medical store owner, convicted for stocking and selling substandard chloroquine tablets – High Court held that appellant had discharged his burden under Section 19(3) by disclosing full chain of purchase from licensed dealer (M/s Bhuvan Pharma) and licensed manufacturer (Nectarine Pharmacy) – No evidence to show mens rea or knowledge on part of the appellant – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 20–22, 26, 29, 31]

Burden of Proof – Section 19(3) Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Compliance Proven – Appellant produced purchase bills showing medicine sourced from licensed wholesaler, who in turn purchased from the manufacturer – Wholesaler confirmed sale to appellant – Manufacturer confirmed sale to wholesaler – Held: Appellant had no reason to suspect drug quality and had met statutory compliance under Section 19(3) and Section 19-A (U.P. Amendment) [Paras 20, 22, 26, 29]

Drug Sample Analysis – Failure to Test Manufacturer's Control Sample – Benefit of Doubt – Though Drug Inspector seized 118 tablets from same batch at Nectarine Pharmacy, he failed to send those samples to Central Drug Laboratory – Reliance solely on manufacturer’s internal test report found insufficient – Held: No valid comparative basis to conclude drugs at appellant’s shop were not from same batch – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant [Paras 27–28, 30–31]

Prosecution Lapses – Absence of Independent Witnesses – Coercion Alleged – No independent witnesses present during seizure or sampling – Appellant claimed samples not prepared in his presence, and he was threatened with MISA detention during Emergency – Court found procedural irregularities and lack of transparency by Drug Inspectors – Prosecution’s case not free from doubt [Paras 16, 18, 24, 26]

Mens Rea – Not Attributable to Appellant – Manufacturer Liable – No evidence to show appellant knew the drugs were substandard – Held: Only manufacturer responsible for quality control – Dealer cannot be held liable where proper source of purchase is established and statutory burden is discharged [Paras 20–22, 31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and sentence dated 09.02.1984 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Section 27(a)(ii) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged [Paras 32–33]

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Cancellation – Petitioner and selected candidate secured equal marks in MBK selection – Petitioner alleged fabrication of marks to favour Opposite Party No.6 – Inquiry by District Project Manager confirmed irregularities – Collector directed re-evaluation of selection process following government guidelines – Held: In case of tainted selection, entire process must be scrapped – No one, including petitioner, can claim benefit under an illegal selection [Paras 2, 3, 6, 8]

Administrative Law – Fair Selection Process – Duty to Adhere to Guidelines – Collector acted upon inquiry report revealing non-transparent selection and guideline violations – Directed fresh selection – Held: Mandating appointment of petitioner without valid selection would amount to endorsing illegality – Petitioner free to participate in fresh process [Paras 6, 8]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Mandamus – Scope – Petitioner sought mandamus for appointment despite proven irregularities – Court held that relief cannot be granted where selection process itself is vitiated – Principles of fairness and transparency must prevail – Petition devoid of merit [Paras 8, 9]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order of Collector dated 11.03.2022 upheld – Petitioner not entitled to appointment based on tainted selection – Permitted to participate in fresh selection if not already concluded.

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Refusal to Accept Summons – Presumption of Service – Summons sent to Appellant’s known addresses returned with endorsements of “refused” – Legal notices had also been previously served at same addresses – Appellant failed to rebut presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act – Held: Service was duly effected, and ex parte decree justified [Paras 23–34, 42–44, 49].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Delay of 43 days in filing application to set aside ex parte decree not supported by sufficient cause – Conduct showed negligence and lack of bona fides – Court reiterates that “sufficient cause” must be proven with due diligence and not invoked casually [Paras 18, 46–50].

Civil Procedure – Refusal of Summons – Legal Presumption – Court reiterates legal principle that refusal to accept summons amounts to valid service – Relied on Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545 and Vishwabandhu v. Sri Krishna, (2021) 19 SCC 549 – No evidence of impeccable character adduced by Appellant to rebut legal presumption of service [Paras 40–44, 48–49].

Civil Procedure – Bona Fides and Diligence – Appellant failed to appear or respond until execution commenced – Alleged lack of knowledge disproved by tracking reports and prior service – Plea of false address and lack of notice rejected as frivolous – Court held that appellant’s conduct reflected clear neglect [Paras 35, 37–39, 50].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Requisites under Order IX Rule 13 – Either improper service or sufficient cause must be established – Both not satisfied in present case – High Court upholds Trial Court’s rejection of application to set aside decree [Paras 12, 48, 51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC rightly rejected – Ex parte decree stands confirmed – Pending applications rendered infructuous

Constitutional Law – Resignation by Legislator – Inaction by Chairman – Writ maintainable – Petitioner, a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, submitted resignation on 23.11.2024 – Chairman failed to act upon it for over nine months – Held: Under Article 190(3)(b) and Rule 190 of the Council Rules, the Chairman is duty-bound to verify only voluntariness and genuineness of resignation and render a decision within reasonable time – Inaction held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 26, 56, 64, 68]

Discretionary Power – Limits on Constitutional Functionaries – No absolute discretion – Discretion under Article 190(3)(b) and Rule 190 must align with constitutional standards – Use of term “may” in Rule 190(2) interpreted as “must” in light of constitutional intent and Parliamentary debates – Chairman cannot indefinitely delay action on resignation – Time beyond a month unreasonable [Paras 24, 29-33, 60-63]

Judicial Review – Legislative Procedure – Limited scope of interference – Courts may not decide voluntariness/genuineness but may intervene against prolonged delay – Held: Chairman’s prolonged inaction offends Wednesbury reasonableness and constitutional morality – Judicial review available on grounds of arbitrariness [Paras 24, 39, 44, 64-66]

Legislative Practice – Timeline for inquiry into resignation – Based on debates during 33rd Constitutional Amendment, inquiry into voluntariness/genuineness must be completed preferably within a fortnight or, at most, a month – Chairman’s call for personal interaction after one year held unjustified – Court directed completion of process within four weeks [Paras 53, 55, 68]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Chairman directed to complete inquiry into petitioner’s resignation and render a decision within four weeks – Inaction held illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14.

Criminal Law - CrPC – MPDVPK Act – Jurisdiction – Cognizance – Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) CrPC – Offences under Section 394 IPC and Sections 11/13 MPDVPK Act being “specified offences” – Only Special Court competent to take cognizance under Section 8 of MPDVPK Act – Magistrate not empowered to direct registration of FIR for specified offences – FIR and Magistrate’s order quashed – Petition allowed [Paras 10–15].

Criminal Procedure – Section 156(3) CrPC – Stage of Investigation – Distinction between ordering investigation and taking cognizance – Held: Direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is not itself cognizance; however, only a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 CrPC can issue such direction – Since MPDVPK Act excludes Magistrate’s power to take cognizance regarding specified offences, Section 156(3) order also cannot be invoked for such offences [Paras 10, 13].

Special Courts – MPDVPK Act – Sections 6 & 8 – Exclusive jurisdiction – Specified offences – Section 394 IPC expressly included in “specified offence” under Section 2(f)(2)(iii) – Only Special Court can take cognizance of such offences – Magistrate lacks jurisdiction even at pre-cognizance stage for directing registration of FIR in respect of specified offences – Order of Magistrate invalid [Paras 11–14].

Interpretation – Section 2(b) & 2(f) MPDVPK Act – Definition of “dacoit” and “specified offence” – Offences committed in notified dacoity-affected areas fall exclusively within Special Court jurisdiction – Magistrate cannot assume competence merely because investigation is at initial stage [Para 14].

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Magistrate’s order directing registration of FIR for offences under Section 394 IPC and Sections 11/13 of MPDVPK Act set aside – FIR registered pursuant thereto also quashed as being without jurisdiction – Petition allowed [Para 15].

Civil Law – Remand of Case – Order 41 Rule 23A CPC – Failure to Appreciate Evidence Independently – Context of Trial Court decreeing a suit for possession solely based on a previous judgment (Ex. PX) without independent findings on title – Held: The Trial Court committed a material procedural error by failing to record independent findings on the core issue of title (Issue No. 1). Instead of discussing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court relied exclusively on a previous judgment (Ex. PX) concerning the same land. Since Ex. PX was subsequently set aside by the Appellate Court, the entire foundation of the Trial Court's decree collapsed. The Lower Appellate Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the decree and remand the matter for a fresh decision, as the Trial Court had effectively failed to apply its judicial mind to the pleadings and evidence on record. A wholesale remand is permissible and necessary when the Trial Court has not decided material issues on their own merits. [Paras 14-15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Case remanded to Trial Court. [Para 16]

Religious Institution – Classification under Endowments Act – Notification – Appellants challenged inclusion of Yogananda Ashramam as a public religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of A.P. Endowments Act – Evidence showed that Ashramam was established and maintained by founders' family without any public endowment, offerings, or public access – Court found that management was always with the family and public participation was minimal and not as of right – Held: Ashramam not a public religious institution within meaning of Section 2(23) – Notification quashed [Paras 10–22, 26–28]

Natural Justice – Publication under Section 6(c)(ii) – Procedure – Court held that no notice was given to appellants before notification enlisting Ashramam as public religious institution – Violation of principles of natural justice – Held: Notification issued without following Sections 43, 44, and income assessment under Section 65 – Procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable – [Paras 23–25, 28]

Specific Endowment – No Dedication of Property – Settlement deed did not indicate any dedication of property or income for public religious or charitable use – No evidence of specific endowment as per Section 2(25) – Held: Absence of endowment defeats classification as religious institution or temple – [Paras 21–22]

Legal Precedents – Private Religious Institutions – Followed precedents in VVVRK Yechendra v. State of A.P. and Miryala Narayana v. State of A.P. – High Court reiterated that publication under Section 6 must follow registration and hearing of affected parties – Held: Classification made in violation of binding procedural requirements and liable to be struck down – [Paras 23–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Gazette Notification under Section 6(c)(ii) dated 13.07.2000 quashed – Order of Deputy Commissioner dated 25.08.2009 in O.A. No. 42 of 2001 set aside – Ashramam held to be a private institution – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Advocates – Suspension from Practice – Ex Parte Order – Principles of Natural Justice Violated – Bar Council of U.P. passed an order suspending petitioner for 10 years from practicing law on the allegation of bigamy – Petitioner argued he was not served notice or given opportunity of hearing – Court found that notice dated 17.02.2025 fixed appearance on 10.03.2025, but the order was passed prematurely on 23.02.2025 – Held: Suspension order passed in violation of natural justice – Quashed with liberty to issue proper notice and pass a reasoned order [Paras 3, 17–19].

Moral Turpitude – Allegation of Bigamy – Absence of Conviction – Whether acts of bigamy constitute moral turpitude in absence of conviction considered – Petitioner relied on Raj Kishor Yadav case – Court held moral turpitude must be tested contextually and cannot be presumed without adjudication – Distinguished Madras High Court judgment in P. Mohanasudaram which involved a conviction – Held: Without conviction, bigamy allegation alone cannot justify professional suspension [Paras 4–6, 13–16].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Despite availability of appeal under the Advocates Act, writ petition entertained due to denial of natural justice – Held: Writ maintainable in exceptional circumstances where procedure is blatantly violated [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 23.02.2025 quashed – Bar Council directed to issue a fresh notice and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of judgment.