Civil Law - Mutation Proceedings Challenged – Based on Time-Barred Decree – Limitation Applies – Orders Quashed - Petitioners challenged mutation granted to respondent No.4 based on a 1995 final decree—Held: Mutation application filed in 2013–2014 was hopelessly barred under Article 136 of Limitation Act—Revenue authorities erred in recognizing a decree long unenforced and beyond prescribed time limits [Paras 6–13, 16].

Section 4 ROR Act – Application for Mutation Must Be Filed Within 90 Days – Mandatory Compliance Required - As per ROR Act, any person acquiring rights via court decree must apply within 90 days—Respondent No.4 failed to comply; thus mutation based on decree is invalid—Court emphasized statutory deadline cannot be relaxed casually [Paras 6, 9–10, 16].

Engrossment of Decree – Does Not Postpone Limitation – Supreme Court Precedent Applied - Citing Chiranji Lal v. Hari Das, Court held that delay in providing stamp paper or engrossment does not delay limitation—Execution period begins from decree date itself [Para 12].

Section 58B of Telangana Land Revenue Act – Not Applicable – Misapplication of Provision - Respondent authorities relied on Section 58B to validate decree—Court held it applies only to occupancy rights, not to decrees in partition suits—Erroneous legal basis rejected [Para 16].

Delay and Laches – Undue Delay Defeats Equity – Mutation Denied - Respondent No.4’s inaction for over 18 years deemed fatal—Court reiterated that law aids the vigilant and not the indolent—Principle of vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt applied [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Mutation Orders Dated 07.03.2015 and 04.11.2019 Set Aside – Revenue Records to Be Rectified – Passbooks to Be Issued to Petitioners in Accordance With Law [Para 17].

Civil Writ - Rejection of application filed under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation Act - Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Completion Without Formal Denotification – Collector Rightly Declined Jurisdiction - Court held that once the Draft Scheme under Section 13(1) is finalized and certificates are issued under Section 15, and the scheme is confirmed under Section 16, the consolidation proceedings are deemed complete for all practical purposes – Mere absence of Gazette Notification under Section 26A does not revive Collector’s power under Section 32 – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 11-12].

Concurrent Civil Suit – Title Suit Pending – Proper Forum Available – Writ Not Maintainable - Since the petitioner had already filed Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 challenging the same gift deed and seeking its cancellation, Court held that consolidation authorities need not proceed in parallel – Civil Court is appropriate forum for adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Delay – Prolonged Delay without Satisfactory Explanation – Petition Filed After 5 Years of Gift Deed - Gift deed was executed in 2016, but petition under Section 32 filed only in 2021 – Plea of petitioner that knowledge arose later was disbelieved – Court noted suppression of fact that petitioner had already participated in earlier title suits related to the same gift [Paras 10-12].

Interpretation – Sections 5 and 32 Read with Full Bench Decision – Voidness of Transfers Post-Consolidation Cannot be Invoked Indefinitely - Following Full Bench in Panna Devi and other judgments, Court reiterated that transfers made post-confirmation of consolidation proceedings cannot be challenged merely due to lack of formal notification under Section 26A if the process is otherwise completed [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Collector’s Order Upheld – Petitioner Directed to Pursue Remedy Before Civil Court [Para 13].

Election Dispute – Qualification to Vote – Rule 6 of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules – Bar on Voting Confirmed – The appellants, former members of the Managing Committee of a Cooperative Society, were restrained from voting in the APMC election on the ground that they ceased to hold the qualifying capacity prior to the election date – Held: Rule 6 mandates that to vote, the person must continue to hold the qualifying capacity on the date of election – Since appellants’ term expired on 30.06.2022, their exclusion was justified [Paras 10-14].

Jurisdiction of Presiding Officer – Limited but Valid Exercise – Presiding Officer Empowered to Scrutinize Qualification under Rule 6 – The Presiding Officer was competent to prevent voting when voters ceased to hold qualifying capacity – Such action was consistent with Rule 6 and the 1965 Guidelines – No adjudication beyond the mandate of Rule 6 was involved [Paras 14-17].

Alternative Remedy – Availability of Election Petition – Rule 28 of 1965 Rules – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – The Court reiterated that election disputes regarding inclusion/exclusion of voters or objections to the electoral roll must be addressed through an election petition under Rule 28 – Petitioners’ bypassing of this remedy was impermissible [Paras 15-19].

Exceptional Circumstances – No Ground Made Out – The Court rejected the argument that the case involved extraordinary circumstances warranting judicial review under Article 226 – The Full Bench decision in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. applied – Remedy exclusively lies in an election petition [Paras 18-19].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Division Bench upheld the learned Single Judge’s decision refusing to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal – No interference warranted as the issue is sub-judice in a pending election petition [Paras 19-21].
 

UAPA Bail – Prima Facie Case – Appellant Found in Possession of Looted Prohibited Arms – Bail Denied - Appellant apprehended in camouflaged dress along with looted prohibited bore weapons during Manipur ethnic violence – Investigation reveals Appellant’s past criminal history, training, and active participation in PLA activities – Recovery linked to stolen statearmoury weapons – Court held prima facie case under Sections 18, 23, and 39 of UAPA established, barring bail under Section 43D(5) [Paras 48-57]. 
 
Distinct FIRs – NIA FIR and Manipur FIR – Jurisdiction of NIA Valid - Appellant's contention regarding double jeopardy and re-arrest after bail rejected – Held: FIRs distinct as NIA case involves larger transnational conspiracy, while Manipur FIR relates to incident-specific charges – NIA jurisdiction upheld as MHA notification remains effective despite High Court setting aside procedural transfer order [Paras 30-34]. 
 
Co-accused Not Arrested – Discretion of Investigating Agency – Not a Ground for Bail - Court held that NIA’s selective arrest policy based on security situation and individual roles cannot be faulted – Appellant’s leadership role and influence distinguished him from co-accused who were enlarged on bail – Co-accused status cannot be a ground for parity [Paras 35-
36]. 
 
Tripod Test – Risk of Influencing Witnesses and Disturbing Public Order – Bail Refused - Appellant found to have significant local influence; apprehension that his release may aggravate law and order – Court accepted prosecution’s sealed cover materials indicating threat to peace and investigation – Bail denied considering seriousness of allegations and potential threat [Paras 55-57]. 
 
Doctrine of Speedy Trial – Not Absolute – Gravity and Prima Facie Case Under UAPA Override - Although the Court recognized the right to speedy trial under Article 21, it held that in UAPA cases, gravity of offence and national security considerations weigh against enlargement on bail unless conditions under Section 43D(5) are clearly not met [Paras 47, 57]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Bail Rejected – NIA Directed to Proceed with Investigation Expeditiously [Paras 57-58]. 
 

Civil Law – Injunction - Defamation – Prima Facie Case and Rebuttal Opportunity – Wikipedia Content – Interim Relief Granted - Plaintiff alleged defamatory statements published on its Wikipedia page by anonymous administrators – Court found that statements were derived from editorial/opinion sources and not neutral or contextually accurate – Defendants No. 2 to 4, despite service, failed to appear or rebut allegations – Held: Impugned content is ex-facie defamatory and not reflective of source intent [Paras 5, 21-24].

Intermediary Liability – Section 79 IT Act – Duty Post Actual Knowledge – Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy Violated - Defendant No.1 claimed intermediary status under IT Act, 2000 – However, as platform professing neutrality, held to higher responsibility – Court cited Google India v. Visaka Industries to reaffirm intermediary obligations post actual knowledge via court order – Held: Defendant No.1 must act to prevent defamatory misuse once put on notice [Paras 15-16].

Right to Reputation vs. Free Speech – Bonnard Standard Reiterated – Protection from SLAPP Suits – Court Emphasized Cautious Use of Interim Injunctions - Referring to Bloomberg v. Zee and Bonnard v. Perryman, Court stated interim injunctions in defamation must meet strict scrutiny – However, given no response from Defendants No. 2 to 4 and clear misuse of editorial content, interim relief justified – Balance of convenience and irreparable harm weighed in Plaintiff’s favour [Paras 18-19, 24].

Single Publication Rule – Not Applicable – Fresh Cause of Action Arose – Court Distinguished Between Reproduction and Contextual Defamation - Court held that impugned statements on Wikipedia page were not verbatim reproductions of earlier sources – Content was distorted and taken out of context – Hence, single publication rule did not apply; cause of action was not time-barred [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Application Allowed in Part – Wikipedia Ordered to Remove Defamatory Content – Defendant No.1 directed to take down defamatory content and lift protection status of Plaintiff’s page – Application allowed in terms of prayers (b) and (c) [Para 25].
 

Civil Writ - Tender Condition – Tie-Breaker Based on Younger Age – Found Arbitrary – Violative of Article 14 - Petitioner and respondent No.7 secured equal marks for dealership selection – Clause 7.2.1(b) of IOCL's brochure gave preference to the younger candidate in case of tie – Held: Sub-classification among similarly placed candidates within the same age bracket of 21-35 years has no rational nexus with the object of the selection process – Condition struck down as discriminatory [Paras 14-18]. 

Judicial Review – Limited Interference in Tender Conditions – Scope Explained - Tender conditions can be judicially reviewed when found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Article 14 – Held: Petition is maintainable despite petitioner participating in the process, as challenge pertains to post-process tie-breaker and not essential tender terms [Paras 6, 17-18]. 

Age as Classification – Not an Immutable Characteristic But Not Rational in Present Context – Court Rejects Younger Age Preference - Held: While age is not constitutionally listed as an immutable characteristic like race, caste, or sex, there is no rational basis for preferring younger candidates within the same age group where both secure equal marks – Classification struck down [Paras 12-16]. 

Alternative Criterion Available – Educational Qualification Already Provided as TieBreaker - Clause 7.2.1(c) prescribes educational qualification as the next parameter for tie-breaker – Held: Preference could have been given on that basis rather than making arbitrary preference based on mere younger age [Para 16]. 

Decision – Petition Allowed – Clause 7.2.1(b) Declared Unconstitutional – IOCL Directed to Devise Suitable Tie-Breaker Criteria Before Proceeding Further [Para 18-19]. 
 

Child Custody – Trauma Due to Litigation – Modification of Custodial Arrangements Set Aside – Welfare of Child Paramount - The Family Court altered an earlier consent decree granting shared custody based on allegations of the mother violating its terms – The child, diagnosed with ADHD, was unwilling to go with the father and displayed emotional distress in court – Held: Courts must exercise parens patriae role and prioritize the child’s emotional and psychological welfare – Modification of custody based solely on presumed non-compliance of mother unsustainable when child’s trauma is evident – Impugned order set aside; original decree restored [Paras 21-31].

Child Rights – Court Appearance by Children – Guidelines Issued – Psychological Harm Recognized - The Court found that repeated court appearances had caused the child emotional breakdown and feelings of stigmatization – Held: Children should not be compelled to appear in court unless absolutely necessary – Orders passed to ensure dignity, privacy, and minimal disruption to children involved in custody disputes [Paras 23-34].

Exchange of Custody – Court Premises Not Ideal – Neutral Venues Recommended - The practice of using court premises for custody exchange can reinforce trauma in children – Held: Neutral venues, preferably chosen with parental consensus, should be prioritized unless exceptional reasons dictate otherwise – Registry directed to circulate this guideline to all Family Courts [Paras 34-35].

Decision of the Case – Appeal Allowed – Custody Arrangement Restored – Guidelines for Child-Friendly Judicial Processes - The appeal was allowed, and the original custodial arrangement restored – Detailed directions issued to ensure children’s welfare in family litigation – Registry ordered to circulate guidelines to Family Courts [Paras 31-35].

Disqualification – Misconduct under Section 42(10) – Removal of Municipal Property Without Authority – Disqualification Upheld - Petitioner (President) directed removal of Municipal materials from pump-house without authority or Council’s approval – Pump-house was subsequently demolished – Held: Petitioner acted negligently and facilitated the loss of Municipal property – Misconduct proved – Disqualification under Section 42(10) valid [Paras 15-42].

Principles of Natural Justice – No Prejudice Demonstrated – Plea of Violation Rejected - Though petitioner alleged denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, no request was made for such opportunity and no prejudice shown – Held: Absence of cross-examination did not vitiate the proceedings in the peculiar facts of the case – Disqualification order valid [Paras 15-27].

Emergency Powers – Section 43(2) Not Invoked – Procedure Not Followed - Petitioner failed to demonstrate exercise of emergency powers properly – No report to Standing Committee as required under Section 43(2) – Action unilateral and without statutory backing – Conduct amounted to dereliction of duty [Paras 31-38].

Loss Recovery – Regional Commissioner Lacked Jurisdiction under Section 308 – Personal Liability Set Aside - Regional Commissioner lacked authority to fasten liability for loss under Section 308 – Only Deputy Commissioner is competent – Portion of order fixing personal liability set aside with liberty to proceed afresh as per law [Para 44].

Land Ownership Dispute – Observations on Title Not Binding – Limited to Disqualification Proceedings - Observations made by Regional Commissioner regarding title or ownership of disputed land held not binding or conclusive – Left open to be decided independently in competent proceedings [Para 45].

Decision – Writ Petition No. 4409/2023 Dismissed – Disqualification Confirmed – Writ Petition No. 15015/2023 Partly Allowed – Findings on Property Rights Clarified [Para 46].
 

Preventive Detention – Public Order vs Law and Order – Detention Quashed - The petitioner was detained under the J&K Public Safety Act based on prior FIRs and a 2024 petty offence – Court held the alleged acts did not disturb public order and were adequately addressable under regular criminal law – Detaining authority failed to justify why normal legal remedies were insufficient – Detention held to be illegal and quashed [Paras 13–15, 26].

Application of Mind – Copy-Paste from Police Dossier – Detention Invalid - Grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of police dossier without independent analysis – Court held this demonstrated non-application of mind by the detaining authority – Such mechanical exercise of power vitiates detention orders – Held: Detention order suffers from constitutional infirmity [Paras 12, 27].

Constitutional Safeguards – Violation of Article 22(5) – Right to Representation Denied - The petitioner was not provided with all relied-upon documents nor given proper opportunity to make representation – Breach of Article 22(5) and PSA procedural requirements established – Court emphasized need for cautious exercise of preventive detention powers in light of Article 21 rights [Paras 3, 15, 28].

Legal Threshold – Disturbance to Community Not Proven – Supreme Court Precedents Applied - Applying rulings in Ram Manohar Lohia, Arun Ghosh, Rekha, Ameena Begum, and others, the Court reiterated that mere criminal acts or FIRs do not justify preventive detention unless they disturb the life of the community – Detention must address “public order,” not routine law and order issues [Paras 16–25].

Decision – Detention Order Quashed – Petitioner Ordered to be Released - The Court found merit in the writ petition – Held: Detention order No. DMS/PSA/07/2024 dated 04.04.2024 is illegal – Ordered immediate release of petitioner from custody [Paras 26, 29].