Service Law – Recruitment – Withdrawal of Relaxation – Village Horticulture Assistant – Notification dated 10.01.2020 issued to fill 1783 leftover posts from earlier 2019 recruitment – Government initially relaxed educational qualifications through Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and Memo dated 01.05.2020 allowing in-service candidates (MPEOs, MIAOs, MIDCs) with B.Sc (BZC), B.Sc/M.Sc with Horticulture, and B.Sc (Agriculture) to apply – Later, five days before written exam, relaxation withdrawn vide Government Memo dated 20.09.2020 and again via unpublished Memo dated 06.10.2020 – Held: Withdrawal arbitrary and invalid as relaxation was granted when no statutory rules existed – Petitioners had already appeared for exam under interim protection – Results to be processed and merit-based selection to follow [Paras 1, 6–9, 31–49]

Administrative Law – Executive Instructions vs Statutory Rules – Recruitment can be carried out under executive instructions in absence of statutory rules – Statutory rules brought into force on 19.06.2020 cannot apply retrospectively to recruitment process commenced under executive instructions in 2019–2020 – Held: Executive instructions valid till codified rules came into force – Any withdrawal of concessions mid-process without due publication amounts to violation of Article 14 [Paras 33–36, 37–39, 44]

Constitutional Law – Rule of Law – Non-Retrospectivity of Rules – Recruitment process initiated via 2020 notification cannot be governed by later statutory rules – Doctrine of “rules of the game” upheld – Government cannot alter eligibility criteria retrospectively after accepting applications and allowing participation in exam – Held: Principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness and legitimate expectation violated by post-facto withdrawal of relaxations [Paras 37–44]

Res Judicata – Applicability – Prior decisions in W.P. No. 16670 of 2019 and W.P. No. 1908 of 2020 did not consider the specific legal issues now raised – Held: Earlier decisions do not bar present batch of writ petitions – Distinction explained and upheld [Paras 45–47]

Relief – Merit-based Consideration – All petitioners already appeared in written examination – Results now published – Held: Respondents directed to process final selection based on merit – Seniority to be notional – No back wages – Recruitment to be completed within 12 weeks [Para 49]

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed in part – Withdrawal of Corrigendum dated 30.01.2020 and Memo dated 01.05.2020 held illegal – Petitioners' eligibility restored – Respondents to process results and complete recruitment based on merit within 12 weeks – No back wages – Notional seniority to be accorded.

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Trial Concluded – Plaintiff sought to amend plaint to correct typographical errors, add omitted Khasra numbers and names of co-sharers – Amendment allowed despite trial having concluded – Held: Amendments were minor, clarificatory, and necessary for complete adjudication of the partition suit – Procedural law should not obstruct substantive justice – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC not an absolute bar where amendment is bona fide and avoids multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 3, 4, 10, 12-14]

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Trial court allowed impleadment of legal heirs of deceased co-sharer and one omitted necessary party – Held: In a partition suit, all co-sharers are necessary parties – Impleadment essential to ensure binding and executable decree – Trial court correctly exercised discretion to avoid piecemeal litigation [Paras 4, 6, 11-14]

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order allowing amendment and impleadment – Held: Discretion exercised by trial court was judicial, reasoned and not perverse – No interference warranted under supervisory jurisdiction of High Court [Paras 13-15]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned composite order dated 25.09.2025 upheld – Amendment and impleadment rightly allowed in the interest of complete adjudication and justice.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 435 Days – Rejected – State sought condonation of 435-day delay in filing appeal against decree dated 10.09.2022 – Claimed delay due to procedural steps, internal processing, and official hierarchy – Held: Documents on record showed Collector Ratlam was aware of the decree as early as August 2023 – Despite this, certified copy was sought only in February 2024 and appeal filed in March 2024 – No explanation provided for the interregnum – Delay not satisfactorily explained [Paras 2, 9–10]

Condonation of Delay – Government as Litigant – Equal Treatment with Private Parties – Cited precedents including Postmaster General v. Living Media and Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board – Court reiterated that governmental entities are no longer entitled to liberal delay condonation solely on ground of bureaucratic inertia – Delay must be supported by bona fide and credible explanation, not mere procedural excuses [Paras 6–8]

Explanation vs Excuse – Judicial Approach Clarified – Court distinguished between ‘explanation’ (a reasoned account showing due diligence) and ‘excuse’ (an afterthought to avoid responsibility) – Held: Delay explanation in this case amounted to an excuse rather than a bona fide explanation – Mere assertion of internal delay without substantiating timelines or diligence rejected [Para 10]

Judicial Discretion – No Sufficient Cause Made Out – Dismissal of Appeal – Held: Delay not explained with sufficient cause – Absence of credible justification indicated gross negligence and lack of diligence – I.A. for condonation of delay dismissed – Consequently, the appeal itself dismissed as barred by limitation [Paras 10–11]

Decision: Application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2236/2024) rejected – First Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation – Direction issued to return trial court record with copy of order.

Criminal Law – Direction to Register FIR – Section 175(3) BNSS – Judicial Cognizance – Trial Court directed police to register FIR on private complaint supported by proof of 17 RTGS transfers totaling ₹63,00,000 allegedly misappropriated by petitioner under guise of “fancy interest” investment – Held: Trial Court rightly found prima facie materials warranting investigation; direction to register FIR is not illegal – Magistrate need not issue notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage; opportunity to be afforded only after registration and investigation [Paras 2–5].

Jurisdiction – Police Station Competence – Contention that Madipakkam Police lacked jurisdiction rejected – FIR properly registered based on locus of receipt and transaction nexus; petitioner had participated in preliminary enquiry before same station – Hence, no prejudice caused [Paras 3 & 5].

Bail – Anticipatory Bail – Violation of Conditions – Cancellation – Both accused obtained anticipatory bail on condition of depositing ₹30,00,000 (₹20,00,000 by A1, ₹10,00,000 by A2) – 2nd accused later moved modification to restrain withdrawal of deposit despite prior undertaking – Held: Such conduct amounts to abuse of process and breach of condition; anticipatory bail of 2nd accused cancelled – Petitioner’s deposit of ₹20,00,000 permitted to be released to de facto complainant [Paras 6–7, 9].

Criminal Revision – Maintainability – Revision against direction to register FIR not maintainable when order is based on prima facie satisfaction and no cognizance yet taken – Magistrate’s order neither perverse nor without jurisdiction; hence, interference under Section 401 CrPC not warranted [Paras 5–6].

Procedural Correction – Clerical Error – Date in trial court order corrected from 24.02.2025 to actual signing date 12.02.2025; direction issued to rectify same in records and FIR [Para 8].

Mediation – Settlement Possibility – Matter referred to Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Chennai – Mr. Saikrishnan appointed as Mediator – Parties directed to appear for mediation on 18.11.2025 [Para 10].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Magistrate’s order upheld – FIR in Crime No.753/2025 sustained – Anticipatory bail of 2nd accused cancelled – Petitioner’s deposit of ₹20,00,000 to be released to de facto complainant within two weeks – Matter referred for mediation [Paras 7–10].

Land Revenue – Khatedari Rights – Urban Land – Waiver – UIT challenged orders of RAA and BOR (2003) conferring khatedari rights on Girdhari – Court held that UIT had accepted and acted upon those orders by issuing pattas under Section 90-B and granting construction permissions – Held: UIT, having waived its right and acted in acquiescence, was estopped from reasserting ownership claim [Paras 6–15].

Estoppel – Settlement by Legal Heir – Khatedari Rights – Respondent Koyali earlier withdrew her claim over Khasra Nos. 83 and 104 and gave written no-objection to UIT for pattas – Later sought declaration of khatedari rights on same land – Held: Not maintainable – Having accepted benefit of settlement, Koyali was estopped from reasserting rights over land she had relinquished [Paras B(6)–B(13)].

Joint Cultivation – Khatedari Entitlement – Widow’s Rights – Girdhari and his brother Bhera Ram were admitted joint cultivators – Widow Koyali, as sole legal heir of Bhera Ram, entitled to 50% share in Khasra No. 108 – RAA’s 2005 order declaring shared tenancy affirmed – Held: Koyali entitled only to half share in Khasra No. 108 [Paras B(14)–B(15)].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Order – Review – Will Not Proved – Hanuman Ram, son of Girdhari, sought recall of ex parte order claiming rights under an unproven Will – Court found notices were refused by him and he had acted in acquiescence – Held: BOR erred in allowing his appeal – Reversal of BOR’s 2018 order to extent of Hanuman’s claim [Paras B(16)–B(21)].

Urban Development – Pattas under Section 90-B – Validity – Judgment in Rem – Divisional Commissioner’s 2007 cancellation of pattas issued by UIT was quashed in Writ Petition No. 42/2008 – Court reaffirmed that the quashing was a judgment in rem – No relief possible based on cancelled order – Connected writ petitions dismissed or disposed of accordingly [Paras C(1)–C(6), D(1)–D(4)].

Decision: Petition by UIT dismissed – Orders dated 28.06.2003 and 03.09.2003 upheld – Koyali not entitled to khatedari rights over Khasras 83 and 104 due to waiver – Entitled to 50% share in Khasra No. 108 – Hanuman Ram’s claims dismissed – Connected writ petitions dismissed or disposed of in view of finality of earlier orders or pending special appeals.

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Stringent conditions – Petitioner, a foreign national, caught with 416 grams of MDMA (commercial quantity) – Bail sought on ground that grounds of arrest not communicated in writing as required under Article 22(1), Section 47 BNSS and Section 52(1) NDPS Act – Held: Arrest memo signed and explained in English; communication to friend also made – No demonstrable prejudice shown – Procedural irregularity, if any, is curable – Restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act apply – Bail denied [Paras 6–24].

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Grounds of Arrest – Compliance – Communication need not always be in writing if substantial compliance is made – If grounds are explained and understood, requirement is fulfilled – No violation shown in present case [Paras 17–20].

BNSS – Section 47 – NDPS Act – Section 52 – Grounds of arrest – Substantial compliance sufficient – Presence of arrest memo, explanation in English, and early legal representation indicate awareness of charges – Custody not rendered illegal [Paras 18–23].

Distinction – Applicability of Pankaj Bansal line of cases – Held: Stringent interpretation in Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar not applicable where there is no demonstrable prejudice and NDPS conditions under Section 37 prevail – Facts distinguishable – No automatic bail for procedural lapse [Paras 14–19, 22].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail denied – Court finds compliance with mandatory requirements – Section 37 NDPS Act limitations not satisfied – No violation of constitutional or statutory rights demonstrated.

Property Law – Easement of Grant – Boundary Description – Appellant claimed right of pathway over ‘B’ Schedule property described as “common battai” in sale deed of 09.06.1964 – Contended that mention of pathway as boundary conferred easementary right – Held: Mere reference to a “pathway” as boundary does not amount to an express or implied grant of right of way unless clearly intended by the grantor – Courts below rightly found no evidence of grant or usage by public or adjoining owners – ‘B’ Schedule property being private land of respondents’ family, not a poramboke or public path – No easementary right accrued [Paras 13–21, 23].

Easement – Necessity and Prescription – Proof and Burden – No evidence of easement of necessity since appellant had alternative access through own ridges – No proof of uninterrupted use “as of right” for statutory period – Burden lies on claimant to prove continuous, open, and as-of-right user, which was not discharged – Physical features showed ‘B’ Schedule land 4 feet above level of appellant’s property, inconsistent with plea of necessity [Paras 18–22].

Boundary Description – No Presumption of Right – Description of “common battai” in boundary of sale deed cannot, by itself, confer or presume easementary right unless coupled with clear evidence of grant or usage – Section 28 of Easements Act restricts easement of necessity to extent of actual necessity existing at the time of creation – Held, mentioning boundary as battai insufficient to imply easementary right [Paras 19–23].

Distinction from Precedent – Precedent Kuppakkal v. Mathan Chettiar, AIR 1924 Mad 834 distinguished – In that case, right of access existed to street or public road; present case involves private property of defendants, not public pathway – Hence, principle in Kuppakkal not applicable [Paras 14–20, 24].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld – No easementary right proved over ‘B’ Schedule property – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Probation – Applicability of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 201 IPC for rash and negligent driving causing injury – Lower courts sentenced him to imprisonment and fine – In revision, convict sought release on probation citing good conduct, family circumstances, and first-offence status – Probation Officer’s report recommended benefit of probation – Held: Offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment; convict is a first offender with good antecedents; long pendency (20 years) justifies a reformatory approach – Hence, petitioner released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing bond and surety [Paras 6–10, 17, 21–27].

Probation of Offenders Act – Judicial Discretion – Nature of Offence – Courts must consider the expediency of probation having regard to the nature of offence – Reiterated principles from Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82, emphasizing deterrence in Section 304-A cases but allowing judicial discretion in lesser offences – Extended probation benefit to offences under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC following Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 185 and State through CBI v. Sanjiv Bhalla, (2015) 13 SCC 444 [Paras 11–17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Reformatory Sentencing – Indian criminal justice system is reformative rather than retributive – Sending a first offender to prison often proves counterproductive; probation provides a constructive opportunity for reformation and social rehabilitation – Court emphasized that punishment should not extend hardship to dependents of the convict [Paras 23–25].

Sentence – Modification – Probation Conditions – Order of sentence modified – Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court to maintain peace and good behaviour for two years – Further directed to deposit ₹5,000 as additional compensation to injured persons, payable through the trial court – In case of breach of bond conditions, sentence to revive automatically [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Revision petition partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence modified – Petitioner released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Para 30].

Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Computation of Period of Limitation – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Petitioner challenged order dated 09.12.2024 rejecting review of earlier order dated 12.07.2019 concerning impleadment/substitution—Delay of 18 days occurred in filing revision petition after receiving certified copy—Respondents objected that effective delay was nearly six years from original order of 2019—Held: Challenge confined only to order dated 09.12.2024; earlier order’s validity may be examined at hearing of revision but not relevant for limitation computation—Hence delay to be reckoned from 09.12.2024 [Paras 10–11].

Condonation of Delay – Principles – Bona Fides and Sufficient Cause – Delay explained by petitioner due to bereavement following death of elder brother—Certified copy delayed due to winter court holidays—Court reiterated that while considering condonation, merits of main matter are irrelevant—Only bona fides of cause and balance of equities matter—Relied on H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah (Deceased by LRs), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 [Para 11].

Decision – Delay of 18 days condoned—Revision petition to be registered and listed for admission after one week—Miscellaneous case disposed of without costs [Paras 12–14].