Civil Writ - Society Membership – Balija Community – Eligible Applicants Denied Consideration – Appeals Allowed - Petitioners seeking membership in a community society were denied consideration despite eligibility – District Registrar directed the society to consider requests, but the society failed to act – Held: Petition maintainable, registrar’s directive valid, and existing Governing Council is legally functional and bound to consider applications – Learned Single Judge's dismissal on ground of expired term of council set aside [Paras 1–6, 13–26].

Maintainability – Article 226 – Statutory Public Duty – Writ Lies Against Society - Though respondent No.3 is a registered society, its activities are governed by the Act and overseen by state authorities – Held: Writ petition maintainable under Article 226 as petitioners sought enforcement of a statutory public duty – Court relied on Supreme Court precedent in U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey [(1999) 1 SCC 741] [Paras 10–13].

Governance – Continuation of Governing Council – Powers Not Suspended – Membership Duty Remains - Society’s governing body, though past its term, continued under bye-laws and was not under suppression or restricted – Held: Governing Council retains authority to act and must consider membership applications – Single Judge erred in holding otherwise [Paras 14–18, 22–25].

Final Decision – Writ Appeals Allowed – Directions to Admit Members and Hold Elections - Appeals allowed and writ petition restored – Society directed to consider membership applications within 4 weeks and conduct elections within 3 months thereafter [Paras 27–28].

Civil Law - Usufructuary Mortgage – Redemption Rights – Mortgage Does Not Mature into Ownership by Lapse of Time – Plaintiffs’ Ownership Upheld – The plaintiffs sought declaration and possession over ancestral land, claiming merger of mortgage and ownership rights and redemption of mortgage – Held: The Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the defendants’ possession as mortgagees ripened into ownership – In light of Supreme Court ruling in Singh Ram v. Sheo Ram, a usufructuary mortgagee cannot claim ownership merely by lapse of time; redemption rights of mortgagor do not extinguish unless limitation is triggered under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 6–7, 11].

Revenue Record – Value of Long-standing Entries – Fard-Badar Cannot Overturn Long-standing Mutation – The High Court held that jamabandi entries consistently reflected the plaintiffs as owners until they were changed by fard-badar after more than 20 years – Such unilateral alteration without valid basis cannot displace the plaintiffs' title, especially in absence of legal redemption or transfer [Paras 10–11].

Appellate Court’s Error – Misreading of Evidence – Cross-examination Misinterpreted – The Lower Appellate Court placed undue reliance on a stray admission in cross-examination without reconciling with consistent revenue records and judicial proceedings affirming plaintiffs' ownership – Such selective reliance was held unsustainable [Paras 6, 11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of Appellate Court Set Aside – Trial Court’s Decree Restored – The High Court allowed the second appeal, restored the decree of the Trial Court declaring plaintiffs as owners of their respective 1/3rd shares free from encumbrance, and set aside the contrary findings of the Appellate Court [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Sections 323, 325, 341 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced - Petitioners were convicted for causing hurt and wrongful restraint – Sentenced to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines – Revision petitions filed after dismissal of appeals – Held: Findings of conviction not perverse – However, considering that petitioners underwent over 3 months in custody and faced trial for more than 7 years, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 3, 7, 10–11].

Sentencing – Discretion in Non-Mandatory Sentences – Period Already Undergone Considered Sufficient - No minimum sentence prescribed for the offences under Sections 323/325/341 IPC – Court exercised discretion guided by principles laid down in Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P. – Held: When sentence is discretionary, it must be proportionate, mindful of rehabilitation and passage of time – Petitioners' conduct since conviction considered [Paras 8–9].

Multiple Petitioners – Parity in Sentencing – No Distinction Made Despite Prior Cases - Though State opposed relief citing prior involvement of two petitioners – Court found no basis to deny relief as sentence was not mandatory and time factor weighed heavily – Sentence reduced for all petitioners [Paras 6–7].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified - Trial Court’s conviction findings affirmed – Sentence of two years modified to period already undergone (3 months and 16 days) – Petitioners to be released if not wanted in any other case – All pending applications also disposed [Paras 11–13].

Civil Writ - Stone Crusher Licence – Safer Zone Declaration – Validity of Licence – Cancellation Order Set Aside - Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their stone crusher licence on the grounds that the unit was allegedly within 100 meters of a Major District Road – It was held that the area had already been declared a safer zone in 2017 after proper inspection and grant of Form-C licence in 2019 – The subsequent conflicting reports on distance were deemed unreliable – Held: The cancellation order dated 31.03.2022 was quashed as being factually and legally unsustainable [Paras 3.1–5.4].

Statutory Interpretation – Deemed Licence Extension – Section 5(2) of Amended Act – Extension Granted - Petitioner sought a declaration that the Form-C licence be deemed extended for 20 years as per the amendment – The Court upheld that since the licence was valid on the date of the amendment, it attracted the benefit of the deeming provision – Held: Licence deemed extended for 20 years from 02.02.2019 [Paras 5.5–6.1].

Contempt of Court – Interim Order Compliance – Contempt Petition Not Surviving - Since the licence cancellation was stayed via interim order dated 28.04.2022 and ultimately quashed, the contempt petition for non-compliance lost relevance – Held: Contempt petition does not survive in light of the judgment in writ petitions [Paras 3.3.1, 7].

Final Decision – Both writ petitions allowed – Licence cancellation set aside and deemed extension of 20 years granted – Contempt petition dismissed as infructuous [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Commencement Date under BOT Contract – Construction Start on Partial Possession Does Not Alter Commencement Date – Arbitrator Validly Held Date as 23.03.2006 – Court upheld arbitrator’s interpretation that full physical possession was a precondition under the agreement – Partial possession and early start by concessionaire irrelevant – Held: Interpretation plausible and within bounds of agreement [Paras 5-15].

Limitation – Objections to Arbitral Award – Commencement from Date of Final Denial of Claim – Claim Held Within Time – Communication from State denying full concession period triggered cause of action – Respondent promptly invoked arbitration – Held: Arbitral proceedings within limitation under Section 21 of the Act [Paras 6-11].

Damages and Compensation – Absence of Contractual Clause – Arbitrator’s Award of Compensation for Non-Closure of Railway Crossing Set Aside – No Clause Permitting Monetary Damages – Held: BOT model compensates via toll collection, not cash – Award of Rs.14.12 crore with interest patently illegal and beyond contract terms – Entitlement to compensation quashed [Paras 16-20, 28-31].

Compound Interest – Absence of Contractual Provision – Award of Interest on Interest Unsustainable – Arbitrator granted interest compounded quarterly despite no enabling clause – Court quashed total interest of Rs.30.85 crore on this ground – Held: Interest claim non-maintainable without contractual basis [Paras 26-27, 34].

Severability of Award – Valid and Invalid Portions Legally Distinct – Court Partially Set Aside Award – Claim for toll collection till 22.01.2012 upheld – Other heads including damages and interest struck down – Held: Claims severable as per Supreme Court ruling in Gayatri Balasamy – Partial modification permissible under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award upheld to extent of toll collection retention by respondent – Award of compensation for delay, non-closure of LRC, and interest thereon set aside – Award modified by quashing illegal components [Paras 39-40].

Anticipatory Bail – Corruption Allegation – Section 7 of the PC Act – Bail Denied – Petitioner, a Patwari, sought anticipatory bail in a corruption case alleging demand of ₹60,000 bribe for a favourable inquiry report – Held: Specific allegations supported by audio recording and trap proceedings – No case of false implication or political vendetta made out – Anticipatory bail not warranted in corruption cases except in rarest of rare circumstances – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 7–11].

Public Servant – Misuse of Position – Custodial Interrogation Justified – Petitioner held position of public trust – Despite claim that inquiry report was submitted prior to alleged demand, Court noted possibility of earlier or later misconduct could not be ruled out – Custodial interrogation necessary to unearth full scope of the offence – Rejection of anticipatory bail upheld [Paras 4, 8, 11].

Evidentiary Threshold – Prima Facie Involvement – FIR Supported by Material – FIR not based solely on oral allegation – Corroborated by trap recovery from co-accused and supporting audio – Sufficient to establish prima facie involvement – Detailed evaluation deferred to trial stage [Paras 3, 6, 10].

Final Decision – No Extraordinary Circumstances – No ground for invoking judicial discretion under Section 482 BNSS – Allegations grave and supported by initial inquiry – Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed without prejudice to merits of the trial [Paras 9, 12–13].

Criminal Revision – Conviction Under Sections 465, 471, 409, 120-B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Petitioners convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur, for offences involving criminal breach of trust and forgery – Appeals dismissed by Sessions Judge – Revision petitions filed and kept pending for over 16 years – Held: Conviction well-founded based on material on record – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts [Paras 2–4, 12].

Sentence – Reduction on Ground of Delay and Mitigating Factors – Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone - FIR registered in 1997; conviction in 2007; appeal dismissed in 2009; revision petitions heard in 2025 – Petitioners Nanak Singh and Darshan Singh had undergone only about two and a half months in custody – Held: Considering age, time lapse of over 28 years since FIR, and partial incarceration, sentence reduced to period already undergone on condition of paying ₹50,000 each to Gram Panchayat – Sentence of fine and default term unchanged [Paras 9, 13–14].

Death of Co-Accused – Abatement of Proceedings – Proceedings Abated - During pendency of revision petitions, petitioners Gura Singh and Dharam Singh passed away – Proceedings abated in respect of the deceased accused as per order dated 14.05.2025 [Para 8].

Decision – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Revision Petitions Disposed - Court found no merit to disturb conviction – However, in exercise of discretion under revisional jurisdiction, modified sentence considering long passage of time and limited custody – Revision petitions disposed of on these terms [Paras 12–14].

Civil Writ – PIL - Storm Water Drain – Retaining Wall Height – Flood Prevention – PIL Allowed - Petitioner Association sought completion of a 15-foot retaining wall to prevent flooding near 10th Cross, S.R. Layout – BBMP’s technical report supported the need for retaining wall of 3 to 3.5 metres (approx. 10 to 11.5 feet) – Held: Reduction of height for crossover access by private apartment (Respondent No.6) would compromise flood protection and was scientifically unsound – Direction issued to BBMP to complete retaining wall as planned [Paras 2–10, 14–17].

Access Rights – Alternative Entry – Lack of Sanctioned Road – No Right to Crossover - Respondent No.6 claimed need for crossover via 10th Cross to access their apartment – BBMP’s sanctioned plan and technical report confirmed existing access through 9th Cross – Held: No sanctioned road exists through 10th Cross; request for crossover is unnecessary and unsupported – Petitioner's apprehension of flooding justified [Paras 11–13, 15].

Scientific Basis – Engineering Assessment Prevails – Height Determination Upheld - The BBMP report established that reducing wall height to 1.10 metres for a culvert would nullify the purpose of the 3–3.5 metre retaining walls built along the entire SWD path – Held: Technical inputs from BBMP affirm need for uniform wall height to ensure flood safety – Court declined to interfere with planned specification [Paras 10, 14–15].

Final Decision – PIL Entertained – Directions Issued – BBMP Ordered to Complete Retaining Wall - Considering monsoon urgency and public safety, BBMP directed to complete remaining 15-metre stretch of retaining wall within six weeks – Petition disposed of with binding directions [Paras 16–19].

Service Law – Gratuity – University Mess Workers – Employer-Employee Relationship Established – Petitioner University challenged orders directing payment of gratuity to mess workers engaged through mess committees – University contended workers were engaged by student bodies and paid from mess funds – Held: As per Hostel Rules and University Statutes, appointments and disciplinary control vested with Warden/Assistant Warden – Students’ mess committees had only recommendatory role – Workers were employed in connection with the work of the University and under its ultimate control – University deemed to be employer for purposes of the Gratuity Act [Paras 1–3, 16–21, 23].

Statutory Interpretation – Payment of Gratuity Act – Broad Interpretation Favoured – Sections 2(e) and 2(f) define 'employee' and 'employer' expansively to include persons indirectly engaged in work of establishment and authorities with ultimate control – Held: Gratuity Act being a beneficial legislation must be liberally construed – University, having control over hostel administration and employment terms, is liable to pay gratuity to mess workers [Paras 19–20].

Hostel Rules – Legal Effect – Administrative Guidelines with Statutory Backing – Hostel Rules issued under Kerala Agricultural University Act and First Statute showed comprehensive control of University over hostels and messes – Held: Whether or not rules have statutory flavour is immaterial – Practical control and managerial supervision establish employer status [Paras 17–18, 22].

Case Law Distinguished – Prior Judgments Not in Conflict – Decisions in Sathikumar P. v. Vice Chancellor and Warden, College of Horticulture v. RPFC dealt with different statutory contexts – No conflict as issues of selection eligibility and provident fund liability differ in scope – G.B. Pant University case relied upon to support conclusion that cafeteria/mess workers can be University employees despite student committee involvement [Paras 7–15].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Controlling Authority’s Orders Upheld – University liable to pay gratuity to mess workers employed in hostels under its control – No costs awarded [Para 23].