Land Acquisition – Challenge to Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act – Acquisition Upheld – Petitioners contended that the term “Multipurpose Scheme” was vague and not a valid public purpose under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Court held that "Multipurpose Scheme No.10" constituted a valid and specific purpose and satisfied the statutory requirements – Notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 were properly issued and published – Held: No vagueness or illegality in purpose of acquisition [Paras 14(i), 37-39, 54].

Opportunity of Hearing – Section 5A of the Act of 1894 – Compliance Found – Petitioners alleged denial of personal hearing under Section 5A – Court found that individual notices were served, and legal representatives appeared via advocates – Dispatch records, appearance registers, and Vakalatnamas produced – Held: Requirement of personal hearing and consideration of objections was duly complied with [Paras 14(ii), 29-30, 43-44].

Limitation – Declaration under Section 6 and Award under Section 11 – Proceedings Not Lapsed – Petitioners alleged that declaration under Section 6 was beyond one year from notification under Section 4 and that award under Section 11 was passed beyond two-year period – Court held that Section 6 declaration and Section 11 award were issued within prescribed timeframes from last publication dates – Held: No lapse under Sections 6 or 11A [Paras 14(iii)-(v), 31-32, 41-42].

Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 – Inapplicability – Petitioners argued deemed lapse due to non-payment of compensation – Court held Section 24(2) applies only where award predates 01.01.2009 by five years – Award in this case passed on 22.10.2009 – Held: Section 24(2) not applicable and compensation either paid or deposited with competent authority [Paras 14(vi)-(vii), 45-46].

Notice under Section 9 – Directory Nature – Non-compliance Not Fatal – Petitioners challenged proceedings due to alleged non-service of Section 9 notices – Court held that even if notices were not individually served, provision is directory in nature – Held: Absence of notice under Section 9 does not vitiate acquisition [Paras 14(iv), 48-49].

Discrimination and Equitable Treatment – Allegation Unsubstantiated – Petitioners alleged discriminatory treatment in exclusion of some lands – Court held no factual foundation or evidence to support claims – Held: No discrimination made out in land selection [Paras 14(viii)-(ix), 47].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petitions Filed Post-Award – Challenge Barred – Writ Petitions were filed in 2012, years after award passed in 2009 – Court held challenge was delayed without sufficient explanation and barred by laches – Held: Petitions not maintainable on account of delay [Paras 16(i), 50-53].

Final Decision – Acquisition Proceedings Found Legal and Valid – No Constitutional or Procedural Violation – The High Court held that acquisition proceedings were carried out in accordance with law, with compliance to statutory mandates and procedural safeguards – No grounds made out for interference – Held: All intra-court appeals dismissed [Paras 55-57].

Civil Writ – Employment Law - Recruitment Process – Eligibility Criteria – Non-Qualification in Preliminary Test – Appeals Dismissed - Appellants were not issued hall tickets for the 3rd level of Police Constable (Civil) recruitment test – Though they participated in 2nd level physical tests based on interim orders, they had failed the 1st level (preliminary written test) – Held: Interim participation did not grant right to claim further process participation – No equity can be claimed in light of binding directions in W.P. No. 6631 of 2023 and batch [Paras 3–8].

Binding Precedents – Compliance with Earlier Division Bench Orders – No Equity for Interim Relief - The Court emphasized that in earlier litigation (W.P. No. 6631 of 2023), it was made clear that appellants could not claim equity due to interim directions – Held: Single Judge rightly directed respondents to act per W.P. No. 6631 of 2023, which attained finality – No error in refusal to grant relief to appellants [Paras 6–8].

Examination Procedure – Sequential Qualification Mandatory – Deviation Not Permitted - As per recruitment notification dated 28.11.2022, only candidates qualifying in the preliminary test could proceed to subsequent levels – Held: Appellants were permitted to take 2nd level test under interim orders but failed to clear the first stage – Therefore, disqualification from 3rd level was justified [Paras 4–5].

Final Decision – Writ Appeals Dismissed – No Relief Granted - All three writ appeals dismissed – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions also disposed of [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Challenge Illegal Arrest – Non-production Before Magistrate Within 24 Hours – Arrest Declared Illegal – The petitioner was detained at Delhi airport on 17.05.2025 at 17:30 hours and was produced before the magistrate only on 18.05.2025 at 22:45 hours – Court held this exceeds the statutory 24-hour limit under Section 58 of BNSS and violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution – Held: Petitioner’s arrest is vitiated and illegal [Paras 21, 24, 30].

Failure to Notify Grounds of Arrest – Section 48 of BNSS – Violation of Statutory Duty – Grounds of arrest were not communicated to any nominated person as mandated – Instead, the petitioner’s father, also a complainant, was wrongly informed – Held: This is a clear violation of Section 48 of BNSS and further renders the arrest illegal [Paras 26, 29].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 and 22(2) – Right to Liberty Violated – Detention beyond 24 hours without magistrate’s sanction, and failure to inform nominated person of arrest, amount to breach of fundamental rights – Held: Continued custody of petitioner is unconstitutional – Immediate release ordered [Paras 30, 32].

Malafide Arrest – Familial Civil Dispute – FIR Lodged at Odd Hour – FIR filed post-midnight and Look Out Circular (LOC) issued same day – WhatsApp chats showed pressure to settle family dispute using custody – Held: Arrest made with undue haste, misuse of police process observed – However, no comment made on trial merits [Paras 25, 31].

Decision: Petition Allowed – Arrest declared illegal for non-compliance with Section 48 and 58 of BNSS and violation of Articles 21 and 22(2) – Petitioner ordered to be released forthwith – Observations confined to the arrest issue and shall not affect merits of the case [Paras 32–33].

NDPS Act – Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Granted - Petitioner in judicial custody since 23.12.2020 with only two of ten witnesses examined over four and a half years – Held: Inordinate delay in trial infringes the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Jitendra Jain v. Union of India to hold that constitutional liberty overrides Section 37 NDPS embargo in cases of prolonged incarceration [Paras 4, 9–11, 16].

NDPS Act – Sampling Procedure – Standing Order 1/88 – Violation Alleged - Prosecution mixed contents of 12 recovered packets before sampling – Held: This procedure violates Standing Order 1/88 and may compromise reliability of evidence – Court referred to Laxman Thakur v. State and Union of India v. Bal Mukund – Though not conclusively ruled upon, the lapse creates doubt and is to be tested during trial [Paras 5–6, 13–14].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Parcel Addressed to Another – Recovery from Shared Premises – Factual Dispute - Contraband parcel bore name of Naresh Chopra but was delivered to applicant's residence, where additional drugs were recovered – Held: Question of exclusive possession and conscious knowledge of parcel contraband needs determination during trial – Cannot be presumed conclusively at bail stage [Para 12].

Foreign National – Flight Risk – Bail with Safeguards – Granted - Respondent opposed bail citing flight risk due to applicant’s foreign nationality – Held: Such risk can be mitigated with conditions including surrender of passport, reporting to police, and furnishing surety – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 7, 15–16].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Incarceration Exceeds Four Years – Court directed release of petitioner on personal bond of ₹50,000 with similar surety and compliance with specified conditions including surrender of passport, monthly reporting, and no contact with witnesses – Bail application disposed [Paras 16–18].

Civil Writ - Rehabilitation Policy – Eligibility of Minors – Cut-off Date Under 2015 Policy – Writ Petitions Dismissed - Petitioners were denied rehabilitation on the ground of being minors as on 01.01.2015 – Appellate Authority upheld ineligibility due to non-fulfillment of age and documentary criteria – Held: The 2015 Policy mandates that applicants must have attained 18 years of age by the cut-off date; absence of voter ID in qualifying years and reliance on documents post cut-off date rendered claims invalid – Court found no merit in the plea for relaxation based on subsequent documentation [Paras 58–62].

Rehabilitation Policy – Commercial Use of Jhuggi – Ineligibility under Clause 8 of Part B – Writ Petitions Dismissed - Petitioners’ claims rejected as their jhuggis were found to be used solely for commercial activities at the time of survey – Videographic evidence supported findings – Held: As per Clause 8 of Part B of the 2015 Policy, exclusive commercial use disqualifies applicants; mixed-use must be residential-cum-commercial with occupancy – Petitioners failed to establish residential use – Allotment rightly denied [Paras 63–67].

Survey Process and DUSIB’s Role – No Procedural Infirmity Found – Objection Overruled - Petitioners argued that DDA excluded DUSIB from survey and eligibility determination, vitiating process – Court held issue settled by prior judgment (Sanjeev Bhadra v. GNCTD) – Held: DDA, being the land-owning agency, acted within its mandate; DUSIB’s limited role as nodal agency does not invalidate the rehabilitation exercise undertaken by DDA [Para 57].

Decision – Dismissal of Petitions – Petitioners Held Ineligible – The Court found no merit in the factual or legal submissions raised in either category of petitions – Observing that rehabilitation under the 2015 Policy is conditional and not a fundamental right, the Court dismissed all writ petitions and related applications [Paras 62, 67–68].

Service Law – Withholding of Pension – Rule 3 Part III KSR – Action Held Arbitrary – Petitioner, a retired Principal of Government Engineering College, was denied pensionary benefits citing pending review petition against prior Supreme Court dismissal of SLP – Held: In absence of pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings, withholding pension violates Rule 3 of Part III KSR – State’s action amounted to harassment and was arbitrary and illegal – Fundamental rights under Article 14 and property rights infringed [Paras 6–7, 15–16].

Fundamental Rights – Enforcement under Article 226 – Maintainability of Petition under Article 227 Expanded – Though relief was sought under Article 227, Court invoked powers under Article 226 to enforce fundamental rights – Held: Constitutional courts can enforce fundamental rights even when petition is formally under Article 227, especially in face of manifest arbitrariness – Tribunal’s limited power to enforce rights distinguished from High Court’s broader constitutional mandate [Paras 12–14].

Administrative Law – Tribunal’s Jurisdiction vs. Constitutional Court’s Role – Doctrine in L. Chandrakumar Case Reaffirmed – High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction over Tribunal decisions under Articles 226 and 227 – Enforcement of fundamental rights is distinct from service dispute adjudication and remains exclusive to constitutional courts – Held: Tribunal lacks authority to enforce fundamental rights even though it may adjudicate violations [Paras 9–11, 14].

Judicial Review – Arbitrariness in State Action – Constitutional Check – Petitioner’s appointment as Vice Chancellor was statutory and not voluntary – Disciplinary action based on assumption of that post already quashed – Held: Delay in pension disbursement unjustifiable and reflects mala fide exercise of power – Court cautioned against misuse of state power to harass retired officers [Paras 1–3, 6–7].

Decision – Petition Allowed – State directed to release entire terminal benefits including pension within two weeks – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach Tribunal for interest claim – Exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction justified due to violation of constitutional rights [Para 16].

Civil Writ - Public Appointment – Managing Director – Section 20 of Warehousing Corporations Act – Interim Appointment Quashed – State Government appointed retired police officer as Managing Director without effective consultation with Board of Directors – Held: Appointment violative of Section 20(1)(c) which mandates consultation with Board before such appointment – Learned Single Judge rightly quashed appointment and directed selection of regular MD based on merit – Interim appointment cannot be extended indefinitely [Paras 2–4, 8–9, 11–13].

Writ Jurisdiction – Quo Warranto – Valid Scope – Court May Interfere Where Statutory Violation in Appointment – Respondent’s appointment challenged under writ of quo warranto for not complying with statutory prerequisites – Held: Petition maintainable as breach of statutory procedure is evident – Appellant’s administrative experience irrelevant when appointment process is non-compliant with Section 20 – Procedure trumps performance [Paras 3–5, 11–12].

Interim Administrative Continuance – Legal Boundaries – No Perpetuity in Interim Appointments – Appointment of Sri. Anil S. Das was admittedly interim – Court held such continuation cannot be indefinite – Ordered Corporation to appoint a new Managing Director within two months – Future extension of current interim post explicitly barred [Paras 11–14].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Order of Single Judge upheld – Kerala State Warehousing Corporation directed to appoint new Managing Director through lawful process within two months – Interim continuation of Sri. Anil S. Das to cease post that period, without extension [Para 14].

Muslim Law - Wakf Administration – Direct Management – Mismanagement and Irregularities – Resolution Upheld - Petitioner, elected as President/Mutawalli, challenged the Wakf Board’s resolution dated 11.05.2022 assuming direct management of the mosque – Allegations included non-maintenance of accounts, unauthorized construction of minara, and fund misappropriation – Held: Material on record showed persistent irregularities; assumption of management justified [Paras 6–14].

Natural Justice – Enquiry Conducted – No Violation Shown – Audit Report Access Not Essential - Petitioner contended denial of opportunity to peruse audit report – Court held that petitioner was given due notice and participated in enquiry – Audit-based action taken under Section 48 of Wakf Act, no mandatory requirement to supply copy unless specifically sought – No breach of natural justice found [Paras 12–16].

Mutawalli’s Responsibility – Cannot Deny Liability – Mismanagement During Tenure - Petitioner attempted to blame past administrations – Held: As Mutawalli from 10.11.2019 to 09.11.2022, petitioner bore duty to rectify and report financial irregularities – Continued payment for minara construction after takeover shows defiance – Special Resolution of 27.07.2022 removing committee went unchallenged [Paras 7–11].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Tribunal's Order Affirmed - The Waqf Tribunal's order upheld – Resolution assuming direct management deemed valid – Petition and connected CMPs dismissed without costs [Paras 17–18].

Income Tax Law - Cloud Computing Services – Taxability under DTAA – No Royalty or FIS – Exemption Upheld – The Assessee, a US-based cloud service provider, was held not liable to tax in India on payments received from Indian customers – The Tribunal found, and the High Court affirmed, that such payments were for standard automated cloud computing services that did not involve any transfer of rights in intellectual property or scientific equipment – Held: Charges were not taxable as royalty or fees for included services under Article 12 of the India–US DTAA [Paras 1–6, 13–16, 40].

Royalty under Section 9 and Article 12(3) – No Right to Use Scientific Equipment – Taxability Not Attracted – The AO's characterization of cloud service payments as “equipment royalty” was rejected – The Court held that customers merely accessed AWS's infrastructure without acquiring any right to use or exploit it independently – The phrase “right to use” under Article 12(3)(b) must be interpreted narrowly – Held: Payments were not for royalty under domestic law or DTAA [Paras 12, 37–39, 47].

Fees for Included Services – No Transfer of Technical Knowledge or Skills – Not Taxable – Technical support offered by AWS was ancillary and did not make available any knowledge or process to customers – Customers only accessed services and did not gain control over AWS’s technology – Held: The services did not satisfy the “make available” test under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA and thus were not taxable as FIS [Paras 11, 15, 17, 29–30, 39].

Precedent – Payments for Cloud Services Not Taxable – Consistent Judicial View – The Court followed binding precedents including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. and its own prior decisions in Salesforce.com Singapore Pte. Ltd., Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd., and Asia Satellite – Held: Subscription-based access to cloud platforms does not amount to royalty or FIS when no IP rights are transferred [Paras 42–44, 46–47].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law – The High Court held that the ITAT correctly applied the law to undisputed facts – Payments made to AWS were not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment and due to the lack of transfer of rights or technical know-how – All pending applications were also dismissed [Para 48].