Partition Suit – Maintainability of Revision – Article 227 – Order Accepting Partition Commissioner’s Report – Held: A revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order accepting the Partition Commissioner’s Report if the final decree is yet to be passed – The order accepting the Commissioner’s Report, without drawing up of final decree, does not constitute a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and is not independently appealable under Section 96 or Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC – Once final decree is passed working out rights of parties, it becomes appealable – Held: Interlocutory order accepting Commissioner’s Report can be challenged under Article 227 to prevent denial of remedy where appeal does not lie [Paras 1, 4, 8, 22, 24, 30]

Civil Procedure – Partition Decree – Distinction Between Preliminary and Final Decree – Reiterated that a preliminary decree declares rights of co-sharers, while a final decree works out those rights through metes and bounds division – Until final decree is passed, rights are not conclusively determined, and execution cannot proceed – Court must follow Order 26 Rule 14(3) CPC before passing a final decree [Paras 11–16, 22–23]

Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction – Challenge to Acceptance of Commission Report – Reiterated: No appeal lies from an order merely accepting Commissioner’s Report unless it culminates in a final decree – Party aggrieved may challenge such order under Article 227 – Section 105 CPC permits challenge in appeal from final decree if no separate appeal lies earlier – Prior decisions in Sanat Kumar Dey and Papy George do not preclude Article 227 remedy [Paras 24, 26–30]

Decision: Application under Article 227 held maintainable – Civil Revision Applications to be de-tagged and heard on merits by appropriate bench – Issue of substantive challenge to Commissioner’s Report to be considered upon further hearing [Paras 30–32]

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Conspiracy and Murder – Rejection – Appellants accused of providing finance and dangerous weapons to co-accused for eliminating the deceased (Santhosh Kumar @ Kanuma) – Charged under BNS, Arms Act, and SC/ST Act – Trial court rejected bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS – High Court affirmed the rejection, noting that providing logistics and finance for murder is as grave as direct involvement – Held: Prima facie materials exist to attract the commission of the alleged offence; bail rejected due to the heinous nature of the crime and likelihood of witness tampering [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Conspiracy – Role of Accused – Financial Aid and Weapon Supply – Charge sheet (Column 17) detailed the specific roles of the accused in a conspiracy to murder the deceased due to prior enmity – Appellants (Accused 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20) allegedly provided funds and weapons (long knives/machhu) – Court observed that the materials prima facie establish participation in the conspiracy – The role of funding and arming the perpetrators is grave and disentitles the accused to bail [Paras 6-7, 14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Parity Principle – Non-Applicability – Co-ordinate Bench had granted bail to Accused No. 17 and Accused No. 15 in separate petitions – Appellants sought release on grounds of parity – Court held that despite the release of co-accused, the specific roles of the present appellants in facilitating the crime warranted detention – Parity cannot be the sole ground when prima facie material points to involvement in a heinous offence punishable with death or life imprisonment [Para 8].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere confirmed – Bail rejected.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Causing Death by Negligence – Section 304-A IPC – Conviction – Petitioner convicted under Sections 304-A & 279 IPC based on death caused due to rash and negligent driving of a JCB – Post-conviction, compromise reached with complainant (father of deceased) – Held: Compromise between accused and legal heirs of deceased cannot form basis to quash FIR or conviction under Section 304-A IPC, which affects public interest and societal order – Offence not private in nature – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-17]

Criminal Procedure – Section 528 BNSS / 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Power to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise must be exercised sparingly and with due regard to nature of offence – High Court cannot quash proceedings involving grave offences like Section 304-A IPC merely on basis of compromise – Public interest overrides private settlement in such cases – Reiterated: Victim-centric justice and rule of law must be preserved [Paras 10-14]

Victimology – Role of Victim and Family – Offence Under Section 304-A – Deceased is real victim – Legal heirs cannot substitute or waive public interest – Any compromise between accused and family of deceased insufficient to justify quashing of proceedings involving death – Rule of law must prevail over monetary or private settlements [Paras 12-13]

Judicial Discretion – Quashing Post-Conviction – Held: Conviction already recorded by Trial Court based on evidence – Quashing at post-conviction stage not permissible merely due to subsequent compromise – Serious offences with societal impact must be prosecuted to conclusion [Paras 14-16]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Quashing of FIR No.48 dated 09.06.2022 under Sections 304-A & 279 IPC and judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2024 refused – High Court reaffirms that offence under Section 304-A IPC is not of private nature and cannot be quashed on basis of compromise – Observations not to affect appeal proceedings – No order as to costs [Para 17]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Partition Suit – Cause of Action Disclosed – Appellant sought partition of ancestral and joint family properties – Trial court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC citing prior consent decree, limitation, and lack of co-ownership – Held: Plaint discloses cause of action – Questions of limitation, title, and effect of prior consent decree are mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial – Plaint cannot be rejected at threshold [Paras 13–16, 20, 25–27]

Civil Procedure – Consent Decree – Misrepresentation – Order XXIII Rule 3 – Bar under Rule 3A – Plaintiff claimed signatures on compromise were obtained by misrepresentation – Presence not recorded in decree – Plaintiff not recorded as party to earlier suit – Held: Whether plaintiff was party to decree or her rights extinguished by it is a triable issue – Bar under Rule 3A CPC applies only to parties to compromise decree – Not adjudicable at preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 17, 21–22]

Limitation – Accrual of Cause of Action – Consent Decree and Subsequent Denial – Plaintiff claimed her rights were denied after mother’s death and refusal by brother to partition properties unless she relinquished claim over other property – Held: Accrual of cause of action is a disputed factual issue – Cannot be conclusively decided at Order VII Rule 11 stage – Limitation defence to be adjudicated during trial [Paras 21, 25]

Family Law – Coparcenary Property – Hindu Joint Family – Plaintiff's Right to Partition – Plaintiff, daughter, claimed right in ancestral and coparcenary property – Father supported her claim – Held: Whether HUF exists and plaintiff is entitled to share are triable issues – Mere absence of detail about HUF or co-ownership in title documents is not ground for rejecting plaint – Rejection of suit at threshold unwarranted [Paras 19–20]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope limited to plaint and annexed documents – Validity of consent decree, extent of partition rights, and alleged misrepresentation must be adjudicated at trial – Court cannot reject plaint based on defence pleadings or external documents – Rejection set aside and suit restored [Paras 13, 17, 26–29]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 07/05/2024 set aside – Plaintiff’s suit for partition (CS(OS) 90/2017) restored to original number – Parties directed to appear before Roster Bench on 02/12/2025.

Civil Writ - Industrial Zoning – Use of Land in Food Processing Park – Environmental Impact – Writ Appeal Dismissed as Infructuous – Appellants challenged licence agreement (Ext.P4) issued by KINFRA in 2013 permitting R5 (Malabar Gold Pvt. Ltd.) to establish a gold manufacturing unit in Kakkancheri Food Processing Park – Held: The land was part of a general zone within the industrial park, as per State notification and KINFRA scheme, permitting non-food industries – NEERI report confirmed negligible environmental impact – Retail operations commenced in 2023 under lease deed dated 07/05/2021 – Appeal challenging earlier licence agreement rendered infructuous by subsequent developments – No interference warranted with judgment of learned Single Judge [Paras 2.3, 6–10].

Industrial Development – Scope of Permissible Activities – Zoning – High Court upheld that Kakkancheri Park included food, IT, biotech, and general industrial zones – Gold manufacturing facility permitted within general zone, subject to pollution control compliance – No bar under 1993 Act or 1999 Act prohibiting such activity – Park’s mixed-use character supported by Government Notification and KINFRA Board decisions [Paras 5–7, 9–10].

Environmental Concerns – NEERI Report – Negligible Impact – Appellants alleged risk from chemicals used in gold manufacturing to food-related production – Held: NEERI’s expert report found environmental risk to be negligible – Manufacturing permitted subject to clearances – No basis for interference under Article 226 [Paras 2.3, 10].

Writ Appeal – Infructuous Appeal – Licence Agreement Implemented – Construction Completed – Lease Deed Executed – Commercial Operations Started – Held: Once lease deed signed and unit commenced operations, challenge to initial licence agreement becomes infructuous – Writ Appeal dismissed on this ground [Paras 4, 9].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Challenge to licence agreement (Ext.P4) held infructuous in view of subsequent lease, construction, and operational commencement – No illegality in permitting gold manufacturing unit in general zone of KINFRA Park – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld.

Motor Accident Compensation – Just Compensation – Enhancement in Absence of Cross Appeal – Deceased, a self-employed photographer aged 45 years, died in accident involving APSRTC bus – Tribunal awarded Rs.19,97,000/- without granting future prospects or applying correct multiplier – High Court held: Even in absence of appeal by claimants, Courts are duty-bound to award “just compensation” under Section 168 of the MV Act – Following Pranay Sethi, Sarala Verma, and Ramla, compensation enhanced to Rs.26,80,000/- with 7.5% interest [Paras 13–20].

Negligence – Evidence and Burden of Proof – APSRTC contended accident was due to deceased’s negligence – Driver examined as RW-1 failed to rebut evidence – Eye-witness (PW-2) and police records (FIR, charge sheet) confirmed negligence of bus driver – Tribunal and High Court held accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by APSRTC driver [Paras 10–11].

Assessment of Income – Self-Employed Deceased – Documentary evidence insufficient to prove income of Rs.40,000/- – Tribunal rightly disbelieved income certificate (Ex.A5) – Income reasonably assessed at Rs.18,000/- per month – High Court upheld income computation but modified multiplier and added conventional heads [Paras 11–14].

Multiplier – Error in Tribunal’s Application – Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 though deceased was aged 45 – High Court corrected error and applied multiplier of 14 as per Sarala Verma – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 15–16].

Interest Rate – Award of Interest – Tribunal granted 6% per annum – High Court modified and awarded 7.5% per annum in line with consistent judicial practice [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award modified – Compensation enhanced from Rs.19,97,000/- to Rs.26,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum – Appellant (APSRTC) directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months – No order as to costs – All pending IAs closed [Paras 20–21].

Election Law – Rejection of Election Petition – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Application for rejection of election petition on grounds of vague pleadings and lack of cause of action – Allegations included concealment of assets in Form 26, improper acceptance of nomination, and non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding EVM/VVPAT use – Held: Petition discloses material facts and poses triable issues – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 not warranted [Paras 1, 30–34].

Material Facts – Concealment of Assets – Petitioner alleged suppression of property and liabilities by the returned candidate in election affidavit – Revenue documents annexed – Held: Sufficient disclosure of material facts pleaded – Applicant's explanations and defences are matters of trial, not grounds for rejection at the threshold [Paras 2, 17, 30–31].

Nomination Challenge – Improper Rejection of Objection – Petitioner alleged her objection to the nomination was wrongly rejected by Returning Officer on erroneous grounds – Documents regarding objection annexed – Held: Pleadings raise substantial triable issue under Section 100(1)(d)(i) – Not liable to be struck down at threshold [Paras 17–18, 31].

EVM/VVPAT Irregularities – Non-compliance with Section 61A – Petitioner alleged absence of permanent identification on EVMs and denial of information under Rule 93 – Forensic examination sought – Held: Allegations sufficiently pleaded to warrant trial under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act [Paras 18, 32–33].

Verification and Form Compliance – Petition accompanied with Form 25 and verified per Section 83 – Held: No defect in verification or affidavit that renders petition liable to rejection [Para 19].

Cause of Action – Pleadings Disclose Triable Issues – Petition sets out basic and primary facts to challenge election under statutory grounds – Distinguished from cases where pleadings were vague or defective – Petition not liable to rejection at the threshold [Paras 29–34].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Election Petition to proceed to trial.

Preventive Detention – PIT NDPS Act – Habeas Corpus – Detention order and confirmation order quashed due to non-consideration of representation by State Government independent of Advisory Board opinion – Failure to apprise detenu of right to represent to Central Government – Non-consideration of bail orders vitiates detention order – Held: Detention illegal and set aside [Paras 15-22].

Constitutional Law – Article 22(5) – Independent Consideration of Representation – Section 9(f) of PIT NDPS Act – Petitioner contended that the State Government (Respondent No. 2) failed to consider the representation dated 17.07.2025 independent of the Advisory Board's opinion while passing the confirmation order – Court examined original records and found the confirmation order was approved based on the Advisory Board's report without any independent perusal or examination of the representation – Held: The power of the Government to confirm detention under Section 9(f) is independent of the Advisory Board's opinion – The Government is strictly bound to consider the representation independently – Failure to do so violates Article 22(5) and vitiates the confirmation order [Paras 10-16, 18].

Procedural Safeguards – Right to Representation to Central Government – Revocation of Detention – Section 12 of PIT NDPS Act – Detaining Authority failed to apprise the detenu of his right to make a representation to the Central Government – Held: While not expressly stated in Article 22(5) or Section 9(f), the detenu must be apprised of the fact that a report is made to the Central Government to enable him to exercise the right to seek revocation under Section 12(1)(b) – Failure to apprise affects the detenu's fundamental right to make a representation [Paras 19-21].

Subjective Satisfaction – Consideration of Bail Orders – Detaining Authority did not consider the bail applications and orders passed in the three criminal cases pending against the detenu – Held: It is mandatory for the Detaining Authority to consider bail applications and orders – Non-consideration of these material facts vitiates the subjective satisfaction and the detention order [Para 17].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order of confirmation (Annexure-B) and Detention Order (Annexure-A) quashed – Detenu to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.

Tender Law – Bid Evaluation – Technical Disqualification – Arbitrary Selection – Judicial Review – Opposite Party No.2 submitted credentials for work related to sewage pump house and wastewater treatment plant – NIT specifically required experience in “cleaning of overhead tanks/underground reservoirs by mechanical means” – Submitted work order unrelated and of far lower value than threshold – Held: Employer (NALCO) misconstrued and misapplied essential tender conditions – Work submitted did not fall within “similar work” as defined – Declaration of Opposite Party No.2 as L1 was arbitrary, irrational, and violated Article 14 [Paras 6.3–8.4]

Public Contracts – Scope of Judicial Review – Terms of NIT – Essential Conditions Must Be Rigidly Enforced – Court reiterated that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision – However, deviation from essential terms must apply equally to all bidders – In this case, deviation was applied only to one bidder without justification – Therefore, interference by writ court is warranted [Paras 7.2–8.3]

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Equal Treatment in Tendering – While government has freedom in awarding contracts, that freedom must be exercised transparently and fairly – Allowing a bidder with non-conforming experience to qualify offends equality and fairness – Acceptance of such a bid defeats purpose of tender conditions and affects public interest [Paras 6.6, 8.2]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Declaration of Opposite Party No.2 as L1 quashed – NALCO directed to re-evaluate bids in accordance with NIT – No order as to costs.