Criminal Law – Prohibitory Order – Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.) – Legality of ex-parte order restricting a Pontiff's entry into a district – Held: Order quashed for being disproportionate, lacking emergent justification for its ex-parte nature, and violating fundamental rights, especially when based on a prior order clarified by the Apex Court not to be a basis for fresh restrictions [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Procedure – Prohibitory Order – Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.) – Nature and Scope – Held: The power under Section 163 BNSS (akin to Section 144 Cr.P.C.) is remedial and preventive, intended for urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger requiring immediate prevention or speedy remedy; it is not to be used to suppress legitimate expression or democratic rights, and must be exercised bona fide, reasonably, with application of mind, and employing the least intrusive measures, balancing rights and restrictions. Repetitive orders are an abuse of power. [Paras 12.2, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.10, 15]

Criminal Procedure – Prohibitory Order – Ex-parte Orders – Justification for – Held: Ex-parte orders under Section 163(2) BNSS (erstwhile Section 144(2) Cr.P.C.) are justified only in genuine emergencies where circumstances do not permit timely service of notice; the Magistrate must record material facts, reasons for urgency, and why notice could not be issued, as a mere statement of necessity is insufficient, and failure to provide a pre-decisional or post-decisional hearing when time permits renders the order illegal. [Paras 12.2, 12.5, 13.3, 13.4, 13.7, 13.8, 14, 17]

Criminal Procedure – Prohibitory Order – Duration and Proportionality – Held: Orders under Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.) are temporary, not permanent or semi-permanent, with a maximum duration of two months by a Magistrate; the restraint must be minimal, commensurate with the object, and proportionate to the apprehended threat, not exceeding the constraints of the particular situation in nature or duration; a blanket order debarring entry into an entire district for two months when the event was for three days is excessive and disproportionate. [Paras 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 13.3, 13.11, 14, 16, 17, 19]

Constitutional Law – Judicial Review – Scope of – Held: Orders passed under Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.), though executive/administrative, are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/32 of the Constitution if they violate fundamental rights; judicial review focuses on the decision-making process, interfering only if the order is patently without jurisdiction, vitiated by mala fides, based on no material, or suffers from manifest arbitrariness, and not to substitute the court's opinion for that of the competent authority. [Paras 12.3, 12.5, 12.6, 13.5, 13.8, 14]

Constitutional Law – Fundamental Rights – Freedom of Movement, Speech, and Religion – Restrictions on – Held: The fundamental rights to free movement (Article 19(1)(d)), speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), and to profess and propagate religion (Articles 25, 26) are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interest of public order; however, such restrictions must be least intrusive, justified by objective and concrete material facts, and not based on mere subjective impression, surmises, or exaggerated susceptibilities, as the State has a duty to protect these rights. [Paras 8, 9, 12.5, 12.6, 13.7, 13.8, 14, 17]

Precedent – Application of Apex Court Clarification – Held: The Apex Court's clarification that a previous prohibitory order should not form the basis for passing fresh orders must be strictly adhered to; relying solely on a prior dismissed writ petition and the Apex Court's non-interference order as the exclusive foundation for a new restrictive action, especially when the Apex Court explicitly stated it should not be a basis for externment from other districts, constitutes a blatant violation and suggests an absence of other material against the petitioner. [Paras 2.1, 4, 8, 9, 18]

Decision – Writ Petition – Quashing of Prohibitory Order – Held: The writ petition is allowed, and the prohibitory order dated 04.11.2025 is quashed; the order failed the tests of constitutionality and legality, being disproportionate, lacking emergent justification for its ex-parte nature, and violating fundamental rights, particularly as it was based on a prior order clarified by the Apex Court not to be a basis for fresh restrictions; all consequential actions taken or to be taken pursuant to the impugned order also stand obliterated. [Paras 19, 20]

Rent Law – Fair Rent Fixation – Retrospective Operation – Equitable Relief – Arrears – Tenant Surrender – Delay in Proceedings – Tenant cannot be burdened with arrears at newly fixed fair rent retrospectively from 2013 when rent control proceedings prolonged for over a decade – Appellate Court had fixed Rs.32,000/month with 5% annual increase from 2014 onwards – Held: Direction to pay arrears at a rate 150 times higher than existing rent would result in grave prejudice – Rent to be paid at Rs.25,000/month from 24.02.2021 (date of Rent Controller’s order) and Rs.32,000/month from 18.03.2024 (Appellate Court’s order) – Arrears from 2013 to 2021 not recoverable in rent control proceedings but liberty left to landlord to pursue civil remedy – Modification granted to ensure balance of interests [Paras 1, 2, 5, 6].

Rent Control – Public Policy – Delay in Adjudication – Effect – Rent control statutes intended to protect both landlord and tenant – Proceedings that linger for more than 10 years cannot be used to justify oppressive financial burdens – Held: Rent control litigation cannot be permitted to function as an instrument of oppression due to systemic delays – Tenant’s act of surrender during pendency cannot be overlooked [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Limitation – Civil Suit for Arrears – Cause of Action – Landlord’s claim for arrears from 2013 onwards to be decided in civil suit – Court refrains from deciding limitation issue in rent control proceedings [Para 4].

Decision: Order of Appellate Authority modified – Landlord entitled to claim arrears only from 24.02.2021 at Rs.25,000/month and from 18.03.2024 at Rs.32,000/month with 5% increase – Revisions disposed of accordingly.

Civil Law - Ex-parte Decree – Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Non-issuance of Ordinary Summons – Registered Post Service Questioned – Failure of Courts to Consider Mandatory Service Requirements – Presumption under Section 27 General Clauses Act Rebuttable – Limitation & Date of Knowledge Ignored – Orders Set Aside and Matter Remanded for Fresh Decision [Paras 16–22].

Ex-parte Decree – Application under Order 9 Rule 13 – Ground of Non-Service – Defendant asserted she was never served and first learnt of decree on 5.10.2009; application filed promptly thereafter – Alleged manipulation of postal report by postman related to plaintiffs – Plaintiffs denied allegations; claimed refusal of registered letter [Paras 4–6].

Evidence on Service – Postman Examined – Defendant Led Evidence of Postal Complaint – Defendant examined herself and her son-in-law; postal official produced records; postman RW-2 supported refusal entry – Courts below relied heavily on refusal endorsement without considering surrounding circumstances [Paras 10–12].

Mandatory Requirement of Ordinary Service – Order 5 Rule 9(1) CPC – Trial Court never exercised discretion to exempt ordinary service; records show no summons issued through ordinary process – Defendant proceeded ex parte solely on basis of refusal of registered post – Held improper and contrary to Rule 9(1) and pre-repeal Rule 19(a) which mandated simultaneous registered post service along with ordinary process [Paras 16–18].

State Amendment Misapplied – Order 5 Rule 10 (Punjab Rules applicable to H.P.) – District Judge wrongly relied on proviso permitting first-instance registered post service at plaintiff’s request – No such request by plaintiffs on record; no finding that plaintiffs sought this mode – Hence registered post alone insufficient to effect valid service [Para 19].

Presumption of Service under Section 27 General Clauses Act – Rebuttable – Court held that refusal endorsement alone cannot be treated as conclusive when surrounding material casts doubt; possibility of manipulation of postal reports recognized; both Courts failed to consider circumstances warranting closer scrutiny – Constitutes failure to exercise jurisdiction [Paras 20–22].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Application Dismissed Without Proper Finding – Courts below treated application as time-barred because defendant withdrew application under Section 5 Limitation Act – However, finding on limitation was influenced by erroneous assumption of valid service; failure to determine actual date of knowledge vitiates finding [Paras 13–15, 21].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction by Courts Below – Both Courts ignored material facts regarding service and mandatory procedural requirements; revisional interference warranted under Section 115 CPC [Para 22].

Remand – Orders of District Judge (9.1.2020) and Civil Judge (31.5.2019) set aside – Matter remanded to trial Court for fresh adjudication of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in light of observations made [Para 23].

Petition Disposed – Pending applications also disposed; record directed to be sent back immediately [Para 24].

Consumer Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Restoration – Writ Jurisdiction – Complaint filed before State Consumer Commission dismissed for non-prosecution – Single Judge set aside dismissal relying on Sections 38(2)(c) and 49 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, holding the Commission was bound to decide on merits even in absence of complainant – Held: Single Judge erred in entertaining writ petition under Article 226 – Alternative remedy under Section 58(1)(b) before National Commission was available – Writ appeal allowed, judgment set aside [Paras 3-6, 8.2, 9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Scope – Availability of remedy before National Commission bars writ under Article 226 – Court reiterates that statutory mechanism cannot be bypassed merely because order is erroneous or jurisdictionally flawed – Cites Supreme Court decision in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510 – Held: Entertaining writ despite statutory remedy violates settled principles of judicial review [Paras 5.2, 8, 8.1].

Consumer Protection – Appeal vs. Revision – Statutory Remedy – Dismissal of complaint not appealable under Section 51 – However, remedy of revision under Section 58(1)(b) remains available – Held: Even if dismissal was for non-prosecution, revision before National Commission could have addressed alleged jurisdictional irregularity [Paras 5.1, 8].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge set aside – Respondents granted liberty to approach National Commission within 30 days – Time spent in High Court proceedings to be excluded for limitation purposes [Para 9].

Taxation Law - Customs – Adjudication after Remand – Cross-Examination – Tribunal directed that all six relied-upon witnesses be made available for cross-examination – After remand, three witnesses appeared and were cross-examined, deposing in favour of petitioners – Three others failed to appear despite four opportunities – Adjudicating authority relied only on statements of non-appearing witnesses and ignored evidence of appearing witnesses – Held illegal and contrary to settled principles [Paras 1–2, 8].

Section 138-B, Customs Act – Relevancy of Statements – Clause (b) mandates cross-examination before statement can be used – Clause (a) applies only where non-availability is proved (death, inability, being kept out of the way, unreasonable delay, etc.) – Adjudicating authority must record a specific finding of impossibility of securing witness – Further, assessee must be confronted with such statement with opportunity to rebut – Held: Mandatory procedure not followed; reliance on untested statements impermissible [Paras 9–11].

Natural Justice – Denial of Cross-Examination – Statements of witnesses who were never tested through cross-examination cannot be used to fasten liability without satisfying strict conditions of Section 138-B(1)(a) – Absence of reasons, absence of findings on non-availability, and non-confrontation render the order unsustainable – Ignoring cross-examined witnesses’ testimony held violative of fair play [Paras 10–12].

Tribunal’s Remand Directions – Compliance – Tribunal remanded matter solely to permit cross-examination of all six witnesses – Post-remand proceedings had to evaluate both categories of witnesses: (i) three produced and cross-examined, and (ii) three unproduced – Adjudicating authority failed to apply correct approach as laid down in Section 138-B – Held: Directions not properly understood or applied [Paras 6–12].

Judicial Review – Scope – High Court clarifies correct legal approach under Section 138-B – Adjudicating authority must first attempt to secure presence of witness; if presence cannot be secured, must record finding; next, must confront assessee with statement; then must evaluate statement with corroboration – None of these steps were followed – Impugned order quashed [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.03.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication strictly in accordance with law and Court’s directions – To be completed within 12 weeks – All issues kept open [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Allegation of Forgery and Land Grab – Accused No. 3 sought pre-arrest protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No. 559 of 2025 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of IPC – FIR alleged that applicant conspired to execute forged conveyance deed by altering Power of Attorney and tampering revenue records – FIR lodged 12–15 years after impugned transactions, raising issue of delay – Held: Delay, civil settlements, existence of registered documents and permission under tenancy law weigh in favour of applicant – Anticipatory bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1, 10, 30, 35-39, 47, 49, 54, 56, 69-70].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Relevance – Transactions date back to 2003–2011 – Conveyance deed executed in 2008, rectification in 2011, and permission under Section 43 of BTAL Act granted after due inquiry – Civil suits filed, confirming deeds executed – No action taken by complainant or predecessors for over a decade – Held: Delay affects reliability of allegations and suggests attempt to unsettle concluded title – Prima facie, FIR appears to revive stale disputes under guise of criminal prosecution [Paras 35-39, 44-48, 54].

Forgery – Allegations of Tampering with 7/12 Extract – Prosecution relied on Tahsildar’s statement that extract annexed to 2008 deed was of a different village (Godev instead of Navghar) and lacked Section 43 entry – Alleged use of whitener to alter revenue records – Held: Allegations are serious and raise issue of public record tampering – However, documents are registered and on public record since 2008 – Criminality, if any, to be investigated but does not warrant custodial interrogation at this stage [Paras 40-42, 55].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity Not Shown – Applicant cooperated during interim protection – Appeared before IO, produced documents – No specific recovery shown to require custody – Co-accused purchasers already granted bail – Held: Liberty cannot be curtailed merely because investigation is ongoing – Stringent bail conditions can secure cooperation and prevent obstruction [Paras 42-43, 58-62].

Antecedents – Applicant Involved in 35–42 Cases – Some cases resulted in acquittals, quashing, or summary reports – Allegation that criminal history was partially suppressed – Held: Antecedents not to be ignored but not decisive unless they show pattern of evasion or obstruction – Balance can be maintained through safeguards ensuring cooperation with investigation [Paras 18, 28, 63-68].

Precedent – Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana (2023) 8 SCC 181 – Relied on by prosecution to argue that delay not fatal in cases of land grab and forgery – Held: Facts distinguishable – In Manchanda, forged document remained concealed for 20 years – In present case, documents are registered, acted upon, and part of public record – Principle of delay remains relevant when no concealment or fraud on record is established [Paras 50-54, 56-57].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bond of ₹50,000 with two local sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation, prevent tampering and protect investigation – Order clarified to not affect parties’ civil rights – Civil proceedings may continue independently [Paras 70-73].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Complainant claimed accused borrowed Rs.5,40,000/- and issued cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- in partial discharge – Cheque dishonoured with remark “payment stopped by drawer” – Complainant relied on promissory note and supporting witness – Held: Initial presumption under Section 139 arises, but accused successfully rebutted it by establishing preponderance of probability that the cheque was not issued in discharge of alleged debt – Acquittal by trial court upheld [Paras 3–14].

Cheque Dishonour – Defence Evidence – Accused claimed cheque was issued for earlier loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and was later repaid – Accused relied on variations in handwriting/ink on cheque and promissory note, and testimony of his brother – Court found the defence plausible – Letter stopping payment on cheques predates dishonour – Held: Defence raised sufficient doubt about complainant’s version – Rebuttal of presumption under NI Act proved by defence evidence [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Appeal – Scope of Interference with Acquittal – Appeal against concurrent findings of acquittal by trial and sessions court – High Court found no perversity in appreciation of evidence – Held: View taken by trial court is reasonable and supported by evidence – No ground to interfere in acquittal under Section 378 CrPC [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent/accused confirmed – Trial court’s finding that presumption under NI Act was rebutted and complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt upheld.

Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Withdrawal After Acceptance – Rule 66(5) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1986 – Petitioner, a Medical Officer, sought voluntary retirement effective 4 July 2023, later attempted to withdraw it before acceptance and again after retirement alleging depression – Retirement duly accepted by competent authority – Held: Once resignation/voluntary retirement is accepted and comes into effect, employee ceases to be in service and cannot seek reinstatement – Doctrine of locus poenitentiae applies only before effective retirement date – No procedural illegality found [Paras 5–8, 17–18].

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Mental Disability – Applicability to Voluntary Resignation – Petitioner’s contention that her depression constituted “mental illness” under Section 2(5) of the Act raised for first time in writ petition – No medical certificate or contemporaneous evidence of disability produced – Held: Plea of disability cannot be raised belatedly to nullify valid retirement – Authorities had no obligation to infer mental incapacity absent medical record [Paras 9–11, 17].

Administrative Tribunal – Scope of Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Tribunal rightly held that resignation was validly processed – High Court refused to reappreciate factual findings in absence of perversity or illegality [Paras 8, 18].

Disabilities Act – Section 47 and 20 – Non-Applicability – Remedy Before Commissioner – Court held that if petitioner genuinely claimed protection as a disabled person, she ought to have approached the Commissioner under Disabilities Act – Failure to do so confirmed that plea was afterthought following dismissal before Tribunal [Paras 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Direction Contrary to Statutory Rules – High Court reiterated that it cannot direct authorities to act in violation of service rules – State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309 applied [Para 19–20].

Precedents Distinguished – Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board (AIR 2008 SC 990), Kunal Singh v. Union of India (AIR 2003 SC 1623), and Geetaben Ratilal Patel v. District Primary Education Officer (AIR 2013 SC 3092) held inapplicable as those cases involved established disabilities existing during service; petitioner’s claim arose post-retirement [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No ground to interfere with MAT order – Rule discharged – No costs [Para 22].

Land Revenue – Correction of RoR – Natural Justice – Order recalling rent fixation and altering RoR passed by Additional Tahasildar without issuing notice or hearing the recorded tenants – Held: Violates settled principles of natural justice; order quashed; matter remanded for fresh hearing [Paras 4-6, 8].

Record of Rights – Correction without Notice – Audi Alteram Partem – Additional Tahasildar recalled earlier rent-fixation order and restored land to previous status without issuing notice to petitioners whose names already stood recorded in RoR – Held: Any correction of RoR affecting rights of recorded tenants must mandatorily be preceded by notice and opportunity of hearing – Impugned order passed in violation of natural justice and thus unsustainable [Paras 3-6].

Revenue Proceedings – Rent Fixation – Petitioners had valid rent receipts and RoR entries pursuant to Tahasildar’s order dated 16.07.2019 – Subsequent suo motu recall by Additional Tahasildar on 03.02.2020 without hearing the petitioners held arbitrary and contrary to law – Order deserves to be quashed [Paras 2-4, 6].

Natural Justice – Mandatory Compliance – Court reiterated that any order affecting vested rights in land records cannot be passed behind the back of the recorded persons – Absence of notice renders order void for breach of natural justice – Hearing is indispensable whenever RoR correction affects existing entries [Para 5].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.02.2020 quashed – Matter remitted to Additional Tahasildar for fresh adjudication after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned – Proceedings to be completed preferably within two months from appearance of parties [Paras 7-9].