Criminal Procedure - Recall of Witness - Change of Counsel - Additional Evidence - Delay in Proceedings- Change of Counsel – Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the dismissal of applications under Section 311 CrPC – Held: The alleged lack of competence of the previous counsel cannot justify reopening the examination of the complainant. Allowing such applications routinely based on change of counsel would be unreasonable and delay the trial. [Paras 8, 11]

Additional Evidence - Disguise for Retrial – Analysis – Held: Additional evidence must not be used as a disguise for retrial or to change the nature of the case. Applications for additional evidence should be allowed only if it is essential for the just decision of the case and not to fill lacunae. [Para 11]

Prejudice and Delay in Proceedings – Consideration – Held: Summoning witnesses at a belated stage is likely to cause prejudice and should not be allowed if the reasons for recalling the witness are not satisfactory. The trial court rightly dismissed the applications to prevent delay and abuse of the process. [Para 12]

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The trial court's orders dated 04.07.2016 and 20.07.2016, rejecting the applications under Section 311 CrPC, are upheld. The applications were found to be filed at an advanced stage of the case with no cogent reason and appeared to be an attempt to delay the proceedings. [Para 13]

Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Second Application - Change in Circumstance - Bail Jurisprudence- No Change in Circumstance – Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail – Held: A second anticipatory bail application on the same cause of action is not maintainable without a change in circumstance, fact situation, or law. The petitioner did not approach the trial court as directed in the prior order. [Paras 13-15]

Individual Right vs. Investigational Right - Abuse of Process – Analysis – Held: The court must balance the individual’s right to personal freedom with the investigational rights of the police. Provisions of anticipatory bail cannot be abused. A second application is only permissible if new circumstances arise or the earlier findings are obsolete. [Paras 13-14]

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the absence of new circumstances or adherence to legal remedies provided in the prior order. The petitioner’s failure to approach the trial court and attempt to evade the process of law shows highhandedness and lack of respect for judicial directions. [Paras 16-17]

Maintenance Allowance – Non-payment – Breach of Protection Order – Interpretation and application of Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act – Whether non-payment of maintenance allowance amounts to economic abuse and breach of a protection order under the DV Act – Principles of purposive interpretation and mischief rule applied – Objective of the DV Act to provide immediate relief, prevent destitution, and protect the rights of women – Section 31 can be invoked for every breach of order as a continuing offence – Dissenting from a previous Kerala High Court judgment and concurring with the interpretation made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court – Importance of conducting proper inquiries when the petitioner has regularly paid the maintenance. (Para 1-23)

Purposive Interpretation – Societal transformation – Legislative intent – Role of the court in understanding the purpose of the law and helping it achieve its objective – Principles laid down in Heydon’s case and other relevant precedents – Interpretation should suppress mischief, advance the remedy, and align with the changing needs of society – Purpose of the DV Act to provide social justice, equality, and dignity to women – Maintenance allowance as a moral claim transformed into a legal obligation – Importance of interpreting the law to enable the achievement of the Act’s objectives. (Para 11.2, 11.4, 12.1, 14, 20.1)

Mischief Rule – Historical background – Identifying the mischief that existed before the statute – Eliminating the mischief through interpretation – Applying the principle of suppressing the mischief to achieve the object of the legislation – Rejecting constructions that reduce the legislation to futility or put roadblocks in its way – Giving effect to interpretations that contribute to the smooth working of the system for which the statute was enacted – Importance of considering the historical context and societal realities in interpreting the law. (Para 11.2, 11.4, 11.5)

Continuing Offence – Non-payment of maintenance allowance as a continuing offence – Each breach of the protection order amounts to a separate offence – Jurisdiction of the law enforcement authority to register a criminal case under Section 31 of the DV Act for non-payment of maintenance allowance – No legal bar to registering the case – Non-payment of maintenance allowance deemed to be a breach of the protection order – Purpose of the provision to prevent destitution and vagrancy – Penalty for breach of protection order provided under Section 31 of the DV Act – Importance of distinguishing between non-payment of maintenance and instances where the maintenance has been regularly paid. (Para 16, 20.1)

Inquiry into Payment of Maintenance – Importance of conducting proper inquiries when the petitioner has regularly paid the maintenance – Need for a fair assessment of the facts and evidence before registering a case under Section 31 – Preventing unnecessary harassment of the respondent – Duty of the court and law enforcement authorities to ensure justice is served and the rights of both parties are protected – Quashing of proceedings when the petitioner has produced relevant documents proving regular payment of maintenance. (Para 23)

Conclusion: Section 31 of the DV Act is a key provision and the heartbeat of the Act to regulate the violator of protection orders. Non-payment of maintenance allowance amounts to economic abuse and breach of a protection order, and each breach constitutes a continuing offence. The law enforcement authority has jurisdiction to register a criminal case under Section 31 for every breach of the order. Proper inquiries should be conducted to ascertain the facts before registering a case, especially when the petitioner has regularly paid the maintenance.

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Regularization of Services - Mandamus - Petitioner engaged on daily wages as Pump Attendant sought regularization from 01.02.1996 instead of 01.10.2003, despite claiming fulfillment of eligibility criteria as per the instructions and circulars of 1996. The petitioner's claim was challenged by the State citing previous litigations and misrepresentation. Held, the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands by concealing material facts and previous writ petitions, resulting in the discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction not being exercised. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Concealment of Facts - Impact on Judicial Relief - Analysis - Held - the petitioner’s failure to disclose prior litigations and complete history of her employment and claims resulted in the dismissal of the petition. The Court emphasized the duty of litigants to present all material facts and circumstances to enable fair adjudication. Concealment and suppression of facts warranted dismissal of the petition with potential costs. [Para 9]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - The Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the petitioner’s attempt to mislead the Court by concealing previous litigation and material facts. [Para 10]

Educational Law – Termination of Services – Interim Relief – Section 7-A (12) of Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services of Employees) Act, 1974 – Petitioner’s services terminated by respondent school – Petition filed before Punjab Educational Tribunal – Interim relief sought and declined due to lack of quorum – Writ petition maintainable but interim relief not granted – Nature of contractual relationship dictates compensation, not reinstatement – Petition dismissed. [Para 12]

Jurisdiction of Educational Tribunal – Analysis – Tribunal has jurisdiction over disputes between employees and management of unaided institutions – Absence of quorum justifies maintainability of writ petition – Tribunal's inability to entertain interim prayer due to lack of quorum – Relationship between petitioner and school contractual – Remedy lies in compensation, not reinstatement. [Para 7-12]

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Rights of parties to be governed by final adjudication by Tribunal – No interim relief granted – Petitioner may seek compensation if termination found wrongful – Petition dismissed. [Para 13-15]

Service Law - Appointment of Lambardar - Age and Educational Qualifications - Authority of Collector - Judicial Review -Appointment of Lambardar - Criteria and Collector’s Authority – Civil writ petition challenging the appointment of Sarabjit Singh as Lambardar – Held: The choice of the Collector regarding the appointment of a Lambardar is to be set aside only in case of perversity or illegality. The Collector's decision, considering all relevant factors including age and educational qualifications, is upheld. [Paras 12, 14]

Age and Educational Qualifications - Relevance in Appointment – Analysis – Held: Age and educational qualifications are relevant factors in the appointment of a Lambardar. A younger and more educated candidate is preferable for such positions. The Collector’s decision to appoint Sarabjit Singh, who was younger and more educated than the petitioner, is justified. [Paras 15-16]

Illegal Possession of Panchayat Land - Impact on Appointment – Consideration – Held: Allegations of illegal possession of Panchayat land against the petitioner, supported by revenue records, were rightly considered by the Collector in determining the suitability for the post. The presence of such allegations can disqualify a candidate. [Paras 3, 11]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. The orders of the District Collector, Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner upholding the appointment of Sarabjit Singh as Lambardar are affirmed. There is no infirmity or illegality in the appointment process. [Paras 23]

Non-discrimination in government employments - Denial of promotion to a disabled employee - Promotion rules requiring maintenance of medical category SHAPE-1 - Difference between 'combatised' and 'combatant' personnel - Interpretation of exemption notifications - Legislative intent to protect disabled employees while ensuring safety and security - Denial of promotion not solely based on disability. [Para 16-19]

Section 47(2) of the Act of 1995 and Section 20 of the Act of 2016 - Protection against denial of promotion based on disability - Promotion rules mandating maintenance of medical category SHAPE-1 - Denial of promotion not solely based on disability - Medical eligibility conditions in paramilitary forces - No violation of statutory provisions. [Para 20-21, 26]

Prescription of minimum medical standards for promotion - Not a denial of promotional opportunity to persons with disabilities - Stipulation of standards for safety, security, and efficiency - Intention of the Act to provide assistance to persons with disabilities while ensuring public safety and welfare. [Para 28-29]

Distinction between removal or reduction in rank and denial of promotion - Disabled employees cannot be removed or reduced in rank - Option to adjust employee against another post or keep them on a supernumerary post - Denial of promotion based on disability triggers protective mechanism. [Para 22-25]

Requirement of meeting minimum medical standard for promotion - Not a denial of promotion based on disability - Illustration of physical characteristics and qualifications for specific posts - Section 47(2) not applicable in such cases. [Para 28-31]

Compliance with recruitment rules and statutory medical eligibility conditions - Paramilitary force's need for maintaining safety and security - Denial of promotion not solely due to disability - No discrimination against the employee. [Para 30-31]

Decision: The petition challenging the denial of promotion to the disabled employee is dismissed.

Juvenile Justice – Bail – Section 12 – The petitioner's bail application was initially rejected solely due to his habit of drinking. Held: The petitioner is entitled to bail as there is no material to show that his release would bring him into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. Bail granted. [Paras 1-16]

Right to Bail for Juveniles – Legal Position – According to Section 12 and settled legal positions, bail for a child in conflict with the law is a matter of right, and its denial is an exception. The rejection of the petitioner's bail solely on the basis of his drinking habit was not justified as there was no evidence to meet the exceptions outlined in the Act. [Paras 10-15]

Case Law and Precedents – The Court referred to several judgments where bail was granted to juveniles despite serious allegations, reinforcing the principle that bail is a right for juveniles unless specific exceptions apply. [Paras 7, 11-13]

Decision – Bail Granted – The petitioner's Criminal Revision was allowed, and the orders rejecting his bail were set aside. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds. [Paras 15-16]

Arbitration Law – Non-Speaking Award – Section 34 – Appeal challenging the arbitral award and its dismissal on the ground that the award was non-speaking and thus invalid. Held: For an award to comply with Section 31(3) of the Act, it must contain reasons supporting the conclusions unless the parties agree otherwise. The absence of reasons constitutes a patent illegality under Section 34 of the Act. The impugned award and order were set aside. [Paras 1-10]

Requirement of Reasons – Compliance with Section 31(3) – The arbitral award must provide reasons to justify the conclusions reached unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are necessary. In this case, the award lacked such reasons, making it non-compliant with Section 31(3) and hence patently illegal. [Para 8]

Judicial Precedents – Standard for Reasons in Awards – Citing various Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that reasons are essential to demonstrate the thought process behind the conclusions in an award. The failure to provide reasons renders the award legally flawed and subject to being set aside. [Paras 5-7]

Decision – Award and Order Set Aside – The Court set aside the arbitral award and the order dismissing the objections, allowing the appeal and remitting the matter for fresh proceedings in accordance with the law. [Para 9]