Taxation Law – DTVSV Act – Eligibility for Settlement – Petitioner’s appeal before CIT(A) dismissed for delay – Appeal pending before ITAT as on specified date under DTVSV Act – Rejection of application for settlement under DTVSV Act challenged – High Court held petitioner eligible for benefits as time for filing appeal before ITAT had not expired on specified date – Legislative intent of DTVSV Act to reduce litigation and expedite tax arrears collection emphasized – Revenue's interpretation contrary to objectives of DTVSV Act – Orders rejecting settlement benefits set aside [Paras 1-47].

Fiscal Policy – Legislative Intent – DTVSV Act – Objective to resolve tax disputes and expedite revenue collection – High Court affirmed liberal and purposive interpretation of beneficial legislation – Settled law that remedial statutes to be construed broadly to provide complete remedy – Reliance on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments supporting liberal construction of fiscal statutes for achieving legislative goals [Paras 12-29, 36-45].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Rejection of Forms 1 and 2 under DTVSV Act set aside – Petitioner permitted to file Form-4 – Revenue directed to proceed with application in accordance with DTVSV Act – Emphasis on objective of timely revenue collection and reducing litigation backlog [Paras 46-47].

Service Law – Pension – Petitioner sought pension entitlement from the date of retirement – Contention that extension period post-retirement should be included in qualifying service – High Court held that the service rendered during the session-end benefit period must be calculated towards regular service, thereby meeting the qualifying service requirement for pension – Respondents’ stance that reappointment does not count towards pension dismissed – Mandamus issued to fix and release the pension with arrears from the due date [Paras 1-15].

Government Orders – Interpretation – The Court examined Government Orders to determine if session-end benefit should be treated as continuation of service – Government Order dated 28.02.2012 treated service as continuous, leading to the fulfillment of the qualifying service period for pension – Contradictory Government Order portions declared ultravires and set aside for violating Article 14 [Paras 4-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner entitled to pension – Service during session-end benefit considered regular service – Pension and arrears to be paid forthwith [Paras 14-15].

Service Law – Termination of Temporary Employee – Petitioner challenged termination from the post of Mali after the reinstatement of the original incumbent, Shyam Besra, who was acquitted of criminal charges – Petitioner argued violation of Rule 67 of the Jharkhand Service Code, which mandates that a permanently vacated post should not be filled substantively until a year has lapsed – Petitioner also contested the termination without notice, arguing it violated natural justice and constitutional rights [Paras 1-10].

Contract Law – Validity of Conditional Appointment – Petitioner’s appointment was conditional, subject to the outcome of an appeal filed by Shyam Besra – Contested the validity of this condition under Sections 16 and 29 of the Indian Contract Act, arguing it created an undue influence and an uncertain tenure – Court held that conditional appointments are valid under specific circumstances, especially when the condition is clearly communicated and accepted [Paras 4-9].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court examined the scope of judicial review in employment matters, particularly the termination of temporary employees – Emphasized that while the termination was not illegal, there was a need to consider the petitioner’s five years of service and the procedural fairness involved [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of with Directions – Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent no. 2 for reconsideration of his case – Ordered the respondent to consider the petitioner’s service history sympathetically and decide on his reappointment or compensation within twelve weeks – If adverse, a reasoned order must be communicated to the petitioner [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Bail in Rape and POCSO Case – Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Allegations included following the victim, expressing intent to marry, forcibly taking her to a lodge, committing rape, and issuing threats – Victim’s age contested by petitioner based on school certificate used as age proof without birth/matriculation certificate – High Court granted bail citing lack of definitive age proof and delay in lodging complaint [Paras 1-7].

Evidence – Proof of Victim’s Age – Prosecution relied on school certificate to establish minor status of victim – No birth or matriculation certificate provided – Court acknowledged the need for authentic age verification documents, impacting the application of POCSO Act [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Bail granted with conditions: Petitioner to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount. Petitioner to avoid tampering with or influencing prosecution witnesses. Petitioner to attend all court hearings and cooperate with the investigation.

Excise Law – Confiscation Order – Seizure of Black Jaggery and Alum – Writ Petition – The petitioner, operating a proprietary business under the name "New Lucky Kirana and General Stores" with valid trade and tax licenses, challenged the confiscation order and seizure of black jaggery and alum by the Excise authorities. The petitioner contended that mere possession or transportation of black jaggery is not an offence under the Telangana Excise Act unless it is proven to be intended for the manufacture of illicit liquor. The Court referred to the Full Bench judgment in Ganesh Traders and other precedents, emphasizing the necessity of a "reason to believe" for such seizures. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 46C of the Act and ordered the release of the seized goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee. [Paras 1-9]

Reason to Believe – Legal Precedents – Compliance with Law – The Court reiterated that Excise authorities must have a reasonable belief that the seized material is intended for illicit liquor production. The petitioner's case highlighted the lack of evidence for such intent, thereby making the confiscation arbitrary. Citing Ganesh Traders and Athukuri Subba Rao, the Court stressed strict compliance with the Excise Act provisions and allowed the petitioner to challenge the confiscation order through appropriate legal channels. [Para 8]

Decision – Appeal and Conditional Release – The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the confiscation order and mandated the provisional release of the seized goods upon providing a bank guarantee. This measure ensured compliance with legal procedures while safeguarding the petitioner’s rights. [Para 8-9]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – The application for quashing the FIR was based on the grounds that the alleged cause of action occurred at Indore, and the FIR was lodged as a counter-blast to a divorce petition filed by the applicant. The Court held that the existence of a counter-blast motive and the different residence claims did not justify quashing the FIR as these are matters to be examined during the trial. The court cited precedents establishing that the pendency of a civil proceeding does not affect the validity of criminal proceedings [Paras 1-13].

Jurisdiction – FIR Lodgment and Investigation – It was contended that the FIR was lodged at Kareli, District Narsinghpur, where the respondent did not reside. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the FIR lodgment is valid if mental cruelty persists at the parental home, giving the local police jurisdiction to investigate. The presence of financial transactions linked to Kareli also supported jurisdiction [Paras 12-16].

Malafide Intentions – Role of Complainant’s Relatives – The applicants argued that the FIR was lodged maliciously due to the complainant's father's position as a practicing lawyer in Kareli. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the status of the complainant's relatives does not invalidate the FIR if it discloses a cognizable offence [Paras 17-20].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Transfer of FIR – The Court stated that if a Police Station lacks territorial jurisdiction, it must transfer the FIR to the appropriate station, but this does not provide grounds to quash the FIR initially lodged [Paras 21-22].

Errors in Framing Charges – Correction Mechanism – The Court addressed an error in naming while framing charges and clarified that such errors could be corrected through an application under Section 216 of the IPC during the trial, not a ground for quashing the charges [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Application dismissed. The Court found no merit in the arguments for quashing the FIR or charges and emphasized that these matters should be addressed during the trial [Paras 27-28].

Bail – NDPS Act – Grant of Bail – Petitioners charged with transportation of narcotics – Trial Court had granted bail to similarly placed co-accused – Petitioners alleged to be mere drivers with no previous criminal record – High Court grants bail considering parity and lack of previous criminal involvement [Paras 1-8].

Offence under NDPS Act – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(c) – Petitioners accused of aiding in the transportation of narcotics – Arrest based on credible information and subsequent seizure – High Court observes that severity of charges alone does not preclude bail – Bail granted with conditions to ensure non-interference with investigation [Paras 1-8].

Conditions for Bail – Compliance and Consequences – Petitioners released on personal bond with sureties – Conditions include regular appearance before police and non-interference with the investigation – High Court warns of serious view on any breach leading to potential cancellation of bail [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Criminal petitions allowed – Bail granted to both petitioners with conditions – Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, closed [Paras 8].

Pension and Gratuity – Withholding due to Criminal Cases – Petitioner, a former lecturer, sought release of pensionary benefits – Criminal cases pending but no conviction – No departmental proceedings initiated – Held, pendency of criminal cases without conviction is not a ground for withholding pensionary benefits – Cited precedents affirming pension as a right, not bounty – Mandamus issued to release benefits within 12 weeks [Paras 1-17].

Legal Precedent – Right to Pension – Apex Court judgments highlight pension as a property right under Article 300A – D.S. Nakara case underscored pension as deferred salary – Other judgments reinforce that withholding pension/gratuity without statutory provision is impermissible [Paras 9-15].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Directed respondents to fix the petitioner’s pension considering the 6^th and 7^th pay revisions, and pay the amount of gratuity, leave encashment, and other benefits within 12 weeks from the date of the order [Para 16].

Redemption of Mortgage – Rights of Legal Heirs – Plaintiffs (Appellants) sought redemption of a mortgage bond dated 13.09.1969 and claimed 2/3^rd share of the property as legal heirs of Abdul Rahim – Trial Court decreed suit in favor of plaintiffs recognizing their share – First Appellate Court reversed the decision, questioning the redemption right post-execution of a sale deed – Second Appeal addressed substantial questions of law regarding res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC – High Court held that principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC do not bar the present suit – Redemption right upheld based on finality of earlier suit’s judgment confirming plaintiffs’ 2/3^rd share [Paras 1-22].

Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC – Previous judgment in Title Suit No. 16 of 1974, which confirmed plaintiffs’ 2/3^rd share and right to redemption, attained finality – High Court emphasized that res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC are inapplicable as the cause of action in the present suit (redemption) differs from the earlier declaratory suit [Paras 17-22].

Finality of Earlier Judgment – High Court overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision – Reinstated the Trial Court’s decree favoring the plaintiffs – Confirmed the 2/3^rd share and the right to redeem the mortgaged property, recognizing legal heirs’ rights under Mohammedan Law [Paras 14-16, 20-22].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s decree restored – Plaintiffs entitled to redemption of 2/3^rd share of the suit property.