Writ - Service Law – Dismissal from Cooperative Society – Disciplinary Proceedings – Principles of Natural Justice Complied – The petitioner, Secretary of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, was dismissed after findings of financial embezzlement – Earlier dismissal was set aside for violation of natural justice but directions were issued to conduct fresh inquiry after supplying documents – Held: On facts, petitioner was afforded due opportunity, served charge sheets, and called for hearings but did not cooperate – Dismissal order upheld, no violation of natural justice found [Paras 5-21].

Continuation of Inquiry Post Retirement – Legally Permissible – The petitioner retired during pendency of inquiry – Held: Disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement can continue post-retirement – No illegality in proceedings continuing beyond superannuation in accordance with regulations and judicial directions [Paras 16, 20].

Scope of Judicial Review – Limited Interference in Disciplinary Proceedings – The Court reiterated settled law that High Courts under Article 226 do not re-appreciate evidence in departmental inquiries if procedural fairness is established – Citing Supreme Court precedents, interference is warranted only in cases of procedural illegality, perversity, or violation of natural justice – None established in present case [Paras 15, 21].

Findings of Embezzlement – Serious Misconduct – Proportionality of Punishment – Specific findings recorded of repeated embezzlement, non-deposit of collections, manipulation of accounts over years – Financial loss to society proved – Held: Allegations substantiated by evidence, punishment of dismissal not shockingly disproportionate given seriousness of misconduct [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Dismissal Order Upheld – The Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision, dismissed the writ petition, and declined interference – Found no procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, or disproportionality in punishment [Paras 21-22].

Devaswom Tender Conditions – Sub-letting and Encroachment by Kuthaka Holder – Breach of Tender Terms – Disciplinary Directions Issued - The Court considered suo motu proceedings initiated based on a report of unauthorised sub-letting and excess land occupation by the 7th respondent (kuthaka holder) in Stall No.113 at Pamba Manappuram – The 7th respondent failed to disclose co-partnership at the time of tender and sub-let portions of the stall to third parties, which was a clear violation of tender guidelines – Held: The respondent's action is in breach of tender terms, and the Devaswom Board is directed to take further disciplinary action beyond mere recovery of excess rent, including cancellation or blacklisting if warranted [Paras 16-19].

Public Auction Regulation – Mandatory Personal Conduct of Business – Court reiterated that kuthaka holders must personally operate the stall and are barred from re-auctioning or sub-leasing as per general guidelines framed in Sreekumar V. v. TDB – Held: Violation of these conditions undermines transparency and fairness in temple property management—stringent enforcement ordered [Paras 11-13].

Devaswom Board Duties – Duty to Enforce Tender Terms – Court observed that Travancore Devaswom Board officials failed in timely action against violation – Directions issued to enforce periodic inspection of stalls, to prevent unauthorised encroachments and sub-letting, and to proceed against violators strictly in terms of guidelines and circulars [Paras 19-20].

Income Tax Compliance – Tender Participants’ Financial Disclosure Mandatory – The Court noted lack of initial disclosure regarding partnership and inadequate financial compliance disclosures – Non-disclosure deemed material violation of tender process [Paras 17].

Decision – Directions Issued – Travancore Devaswom Board directed to take appropriate legal action against the 7th respondent within two months for breach of tender conditions, ensure regular monitoring of stalls, and maintain transparency in tendering process – Suo Motu proceedings disposed accordingly [Para 20].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Final Decree in Partition – Section 96, CPC and Orders 20 Rule 12 & 26 Rule 13 CPC – Appeal partly allowed – The appeal was filed by the defendant challenging the division of agricultural land and residential house finalized in a decree – The Court held that while the Commissioner’s report was overall valid, the irrigation facilities required equitable modification – Bore-wells, though situated in the portion allotted to the plaintiff, were directed to be treated as common along with the open well, ensuring access to water resources for both parties – The division of residential house by horizontal partition was upheld, considering equitable division without prejudice to possession rights [Paras 1-22].

Irrigation Rights – Common Use of Water Resources – Section 96 CPC – Modification Directed – The Court noted that the open well was already declared common, but additional bore-wells crucial for irrigation were solely allotted to the plaintiff – To ensure fairness and agricultural sustainability, the Court modified the decree, directing shared use of bore-wells and ensuring unhindered water passage between properties – Held: Right to irrigation is a crucial civil right warranting equitable access in partition proceedings [Paras 15-21].

Residential Property – Division Despite Possession – Partition Suit – The appellant's contention to exclusively retain the residential house was rejected – The Court observed that long-term residence did not extinguish the plaintiff’s right – Horizontal division was upheld based on Commissioner’s report ensuring both parties received equitable share including access to roadways – Demolition was avoided by suggesting minimal structural alteration for effective division [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Court modified final decree concerning irrigation rights by making bore-wells common to both parties while upholding the division of house property and agricultural land – No costs awarded – Connected civil miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 21-22].

Matrimonial Law - Recovery of Gold Ornaments and Istridhan – Partial Modification of Trial Court Decree – Quantum of Recovery Reduced – The wife claimed recovery of 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments allegedly entrusted to the husband – The Family Court had awarded recovery of 50 sovereigns or its market value as on the date of petition – Upon reappraisal of evidence, High Court found inconsistencies in wife’s version regarding entrustment and retention of gold ornaments – Photographs and admissions indicated part of the ornaments remained with the wife – Held: Wife entitled to recover 30 sovereigns or their market value at the time of recovery; decree modified to that extent [Paras 6-9].

Valuation Date – Entitlement to Market Value on Date of Recovery – The Family Court erroneously awarded market value of gold ornaments as on date of petition – High Court clarified settled position that valuation must be as on date of recovery – Decree modified accordingly [Para 9].

Maintenance – No Interference with Award of Maintenance – The wife and daughter were granted ₹4,000/- and ₹3,000/- respectively as monthly maintenance – High Court found appellant’s claim of inability to earn unsubstantiated and no evidence of wife’s independent means of livelihood – Held: Maintenance amount reasonable, Family Court rightly fixed maintenance based on husband’s earning capacity – No interference warranted [Para 10].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Dismissal Unchallenged – Family Court had dismissed husband’s claim for restitution of conjugal rights; no appeal filed challenging that finding – Held: Finding attained finality [Para 1].

Decision – Decree Partly Modified and Revision Dismissed – Appeal partly allowed reducing recoverable quantity of gold ornaments to 30 sovereigns with market value as on date of recovery; maintenance decree upheld in entirety; revision petition dismissed [Para 11].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Limitation, Validity of Agreement, and Admissibility of Evidence – Second Appeal Dismissed – Defendants filed second appeal challenging concurrent decrees granting specific performance of an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff – The High Court held that the Trial Court and Appellate Court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence including Ex.A.15 agreement of sale, corroborative revenue records, and oral testimony establishing due execution and possession – The Court further held the suit was within limitation since no time was fixed for performance and cause of action arose upon refusal in 2011 – No substantial question of law was found warranting interference under Section 100 CPC – The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 1-30].

Limitation – Specific Performance Suit Within Limitation – Article 54 of the Limitation Act – Agreement of sale dated 22.04.2002 contained no time for performance – Plaintiff issued legal notice demanding execution of sale deed on 30.05.2011 after first notice of refusal dated 16.03.2011 – Suit filed on 27.07.2011 within limitation period – Both courts correctly applied Article 54 holding limitation started from refusal of performance – High Court upheld the finding and rejected limitation argument of appellants [Paras 13, 25-27].

Validity of Agreement of Sale – Execution and Consideration Proved – Defendants denied execution of agreement – Plaintiff established execution through oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, corroborated by mutation of name in revenue records and acknowledgment of possession – High Court upheld concurrent findings that Ex.A.15 was genuine, supported by consideration and validly executed by defendants after receiving ₹70,000 – Possession confirmed by revenue records and Village Revenue Officer’s testimony [Paras 19-24].

Admissibility of Agreement – Stamp Duty Paid – Document Admissible – Defendants objected to admissibility of Ex.A.15 on ground of inadequate stamp duty – Held: Stamp duty and penalty were duly paid as evidenced by Ex.A.1 challan before the District Registrar – High Court affirmed admissibility of Ex.A.15 and rejected appellants' contention regarding inadmissibility [Paras 19-20].

Possession – Possession Delivered to Plaintiff and Confirmed by Revenue Records – Plaintiff proved continuous possession from 2002 supported by mutation entries, issuance of pattadar passbook, and corroborative oral evidence – Defendants admitted in cross-examination that they did not challenge revenue records – High Court agreed with lower courts' finding on possession supporting decree for specific performance [Paras 22-24].

Second Appeal Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings Not Interfered – High Court reiterated principles under Section 100 CPC that interference is not warranted unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence – As lower courts' findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence, second appeal was dismissed [Paras 15-16, 28-30].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Decree for specific performance upheld – Suit not barred by limitation – Agreement of sale validly executed with possession delivered – No substantial question of law found – No costs awarded – Pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed [Para 30].

Tenancy Law - Eviction Suit – Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Section 12(1)(e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act – Eviction Decree Set Aside – The High Court set aside the eviction decree granted by the First Appellate Court which was passed on assumption of tenancy without written rent deed or receipts – Documentary evidence by appellant including driving licence, ration card, and long possession proved absence of tenancy – Held: Mere ownership and sale deed do not establish tenancy – Eviction decree reversed – Trial Court’s dismissal restored [Paras 19-25].

Appeal and Right to Possession – Appeal Not Infructuous Post Execution – Section 144 CPC – The Court held that eviction execution during appeal does not bar adjudication on merits – The right of appeal survives and restitution under Section 144 CPC is available if the appeal succeeds – Decree execution during pendency of appeal does not extinguish substantive rights – Held: Appeal allowed despite dispossession, possession rights restored [Paras 12-18].

Appellate Court Jurisdiction – Duty to Consider Trial Court Reasoning – Reversal without Appreciation of Evidence Invalid – The High Court ruled that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing trial court decision without properly dealing with trial court findings and evidence – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari to highlight illegality in ignoring reasoning of lower court – Held: First Appellate Court’s order unsustainable in law [Paras 24-25].

Proof of Tenancy – Mere Title Not Sufficient – Burden on Plaintiff – The High Court reaffirmed the principle that landlord must establish tenancy by admissible evidence – Sale deed and oral statements insufficient in face of pre-existing possession and lack of rent evidence – The findings that tenancy existed were based on conjectures and surmises – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove tenancy, eviction decree invalid [Paras 19-25].

Decision of the Case – Second Appeal Allowed – Decree of First Appellate Court Reversed – Trial Court Judgment Restored – Suit for eviction dismissed – Appellant’s possession protected – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 26-27].

Regular Bail – Section 18 of the NDPS Act - Long Incarceration Before Trial Conclusion – Grant of Bail Justified – The petitioner faced prolonged incarceration exceeding 2 years 10 months on allegation of recovery of 2.6 kg opium – Court noted the trial’s slow progress with only 5 out of 13 witnesses examined after charges framed – Citing improbability of carrying contraband in transparent polythene in plain sight, Court found continued detention unjustified – Bail granted considering marginal excess of recovery over commercial quantity and inordinate trial delay [Paras 1-4].

Right to Personal Liberty – Presumption of Innocence and Humanitarian Bail Approach – Court relied on Supreme Court’s ruling in Dataram v. State of U.P. (2018) affirming bail as a rule and custody as exception – Prolonged detention infringes Article 21 guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity – Held: Bail appropriate when trial remains incomplete and custody period is excessive [Para 4].

Right to Speedy Trial – Constitutional Safeguard – Citing Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980), Court reiterated that accused must not suffer indefinite pre-conviction incarceration, particularly when trial shows no sign of early completion – Held: Liberty cannot be curtailed due to systemic delay [Para 4].

Final Decision – Bail Granted – Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on execution of requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – Court clarified no expression on merits of the case [Para 4].

Criminal Law - NDPS - Forfeiture of Property – Dismissal of Appeal Due to Procedural Defect – Remedy Restored – The petitioners challenged the order of Appellate Tribunal dismissing their appeal under Section 68(O) NDPS Act on grounds of non-removal of defects, where petitioner No.2 could not file a signed affidavit due to incarceration – The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits, especially since the defect was beyond the petitioner’s control – Held: Administrative dismissal of appeal set aside; petitioners permitted to cure defect and revive appeal, which shall be decided on merits [Paras 6-11].

Access to Justice – Procedural Defects Not to Override Substantive Rights – Fair Adjudication Mandated – The Court observed that inability to comply with procedural requirements due to genuine difficulties, such as custodial status of a petitioner, cannot be a ground to deny substantive adjudication – Directions issued to enable attestation of affidavit through jail authorities and facilitate revival of appeal before the Tribunal [Paras 7-10].

Fair Procedure – Duty of Tribunal to Accommodate Practical Difficulties – Appeal Revived – The Court emphasized the responsibility of appellate authorities to avoid hyper-technical dismissals, particularly when the defect arose from circumstances beyond the litigant’s control – Directed the Tribunal to adjudicate appeal afresh on merits without being influenced by prior dismissal [Paras 9-11].

Decision of the Court – Administrative Dismissal Set Aside – The writ petition was allowed by setting aside the dismissal order dated 07.01.2025 of the Appellate Tribunal; petitioners granted liberty to cure defects and revive appeal within stipulated period – Directions issued to Jail Superintendent for facilitating affidavit attestation [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹3,000 for sanctioning a bill – The High Court observed that the de facto complainant (PW.1) and key witnesses (PW.2 and PWs.3-7) were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution’s version – Accused offered spontaneous explanation that the money was a hand loan sent by PW.16, which was corroborated by PW.16 – Held: In the absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of bribe, mere recovery of money is insufficient to convict – Conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 2-35].

Bribery and Illegal Gratification – Requirement of Proof of Demand – Demand Not Established – Held: Demand of bribe is sine qua non to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – PW.1 turned hostile, and no direct evidence of demand was established – The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 23-26, 33-35].

Recovery of Tainted Money – Mere Recovery Without Demand Insufficient – Held: Recovery of tainted money from the accused without establishing demand or voluntary acceptance does not fulfill ingredients of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act – Appellant’s explanation of receiving hand loan remained unrebutted – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26, 30-34].

Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act – Not Applicable in Absence of Demand – Held: Presumption under Section 20 requires proof of demand and acceptance – When foundational facts regarding demand are absent, presumption cannot arise – Acquittal warranted [Para 27].

Appellate Interference – Acquittal on Reappreciation of Evidence – Appellate Court found concurrent hostile testimony, absence of demand, and credible alternative explanation – Conviction set aside on reevaluation of evidence in light of binding precedents [Paras 23-35].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Fine amount to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Miscellaneous applications closed [Para 35].