Panchayati Raj – No Confidence Motion – Removal of Pradhan – Section 12 of the West Bengal Gram Panchayat Act, 1973 – Validity of Notice – Petition Dismissed – Elected Pradhan challenged the notice dated 13th April, 2026 convening a special meeting on 18th April, 2026 for consideration of a no-confidence motion – Petitioner contended that the notice was short of the clear seven days' period prescribed under Section 12(3) and that the meeting date fell outside the thirty-day limit under Section 12(10) – Held: Notice does not suffer any illegality; writ petition dismissed [Paras 1, 2, 12, 13].

Seven Days' Notice – Mandatory or Directory – Section 12(3) – Use of "Shall" – Procedural Provision – Court held that the seven-day notice requirement under Section 12(3) is procedural and not mandatory in nature – Mere use of the word "shall" does not render a procedural provision mandatory, particularly when no consequence of non-compliance is prescribed in the statute – It is nobody's case that the petitioner did not receive any notice of the meeting – Notice held valid [Paras 8, 10].

Thirty-Day Outer Limit – Section 12(10) – Meeting Adjourned Due to Circumstances Beyond Control – Extension of Time – Meeting originally scheduled for 6th April, 2026 could not be held due to non-availability of police personnel, being a circumstance beyond the control of the prescribed authority within the meaning of Section 12(4) – Held: Where the meeting is adjourned for reasons beyond the control of the prescribed authority, the thirty-day period under Section 12(10) stands correspondingly extended – Rescheduled meeting on 18th April, 2026 held to be within the extended period [Paras 7, 8].

Conflict of Division Bench Decisions – Binding Precedent – Earlier Judgment to Prevail – Two Division Bench judgments took contrary positions on the mandatory nature of the seven-day notice – Held: Where two Benches of equal strength have conflicting views, the earlier decision shall prevail unless overruled by a superior court or rendered inapplicable by a change in law [Para 9].

Democratic Process – No Confidence Motion – Fundamental Right of Democracy – Court observed that it is a fundamental principle of democracy that elected representatives can also be removed by a no-confidence motion – Petitioner/Pradhan having lost the confidence of the majority of Panchayat members has no alternative but to accept the democratic decision – High Court jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to thwart established democratic principles governing Gram Panchayat institutions [Paras 11, 12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Notice dated 13th April, 2026 and meeting date of 18th April, 2026 upheld – No order as to costs.

Electricity Law – Renewable Power Purchase Obligation – Captive Power Plants – Vires of APERC RPO Regulations 2017 and 2022 – Petitioner operating an 80 MW Captive Power Plant synchronized on 03.02.2013 at Vizianagaram – APERC issued show-cause notice for non-compliance of RPPO for 2012-13 to 2018-19 and determined a liability of Rs.16,24,90,400/- – Petitioner contended that RPO liability should be capped at 5% as per Ministry of Power clarification dated 01.10.2019 applicable to CPPs commissioned before 01.04.2016 – APERC held Ministry clarifications had no binding force on the Commission – Held: Challenge to 2017 Regulations belated as they are no longer in force and have worked themselves out – Challenge to 2022 Regulations sustainable to the extent APERC was obliged to consider the clarification dated 01.10.2019 as a material factor before framing the said Regulations [Paras 37, 53, 54].

Statutory Interpretation – "Shall be Guided" – Sections 61 and 86(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 – National Tariff Policy – Advisory Role of Central Government – The phrase "shall be guided" as occurring in Sections 61 and 86(4) does not render the National Tariff Policy or Ministry of Power directives bindingly mandatory on the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions – The framing of RPPO Regulations falls exclusively within the domain of the Commission, which however must treat the National Tariff Policy and Ministry directives issued thereunder as material considerations – Role of Central and State Governments is advisory only – Regulatory Commissions possess full autonomy in fixing RPPO – Relied upon: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Tata Power Co. Ltd. Transmission v. MERC & Ors. [Paras 46, 49, 50].

Ministry of Power Clarifications – Capping of RPO for CPPs – Clarification dated 01.02.2019 pegged RPO of CPP at the level applicable in the year of commissioning – Clarification dated 01.10.2019 further specified that for CPPs commissioned before 01.04.2016, RPO be fixed at the level mandated for FY 2015-16 – Held: These clarifications, while not binding, constitute material considerations that APERC was obliged to consider before framing the 2022 Regulations – APERC failed to demonstrate that such consideration was undertaken [Paras 25–27, 51–54].

Direction to APERC – APERC directed to consider the clarification dated 01.10.2019 and decide whether any amendment is necessary to the 2022 Regulations – If guidance accepted, necessary amendment to be incorporated and appropriate relief extended to petitioner – No coercive action for recovery of any amount beyond the obligation as fixed by the clarification dated 01.10.2019 for the period it remained in force, pending such consideration – Petitioner obligated to comply with 2022 Regulations if APERC decides not to amend them for valid reasons – Petitioner's liability under 2017 Regulations to be satisfied in full [Para 55, 56].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Challenge to APERC RPO Regulations 2017 rejected as belated – APERC directed to consider the 01.10.2019 clarification in relation to the 2022 Regulations and decide on amendment – Interim protection against coercive recovery granted pending such consideration – No costs.

Criminal Law – Bail - Cyber Fraud – Digital Arrest – Organized Crime – Bail Refused – Senior citizen in his late seventies subjected to continuous psychological coercion, threats and intimidation by fraudsters impersonating CBI officials, compelling transfer of Rs.22.92 crores between 04.08.2025 and 04.09.2025 – Rs.1.90 crores credited into IndusInd Bank account linked to applicants, siphoned same day – Held: Each participant in a digital arrest scam plays a pivotal role; applicants cannot be characterized as peripheral players or mere conduit holders at this stage of investigation [Paras 1–13, 33–34].

Bail – Regular Bail – Chargesheet Filed – Not Determinative – Accused Mohit and Ashok Kumar sought regular bail on grounds that chargesheet had been filed and investigation qua them was over – Held: Filing of chargesheet does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly where larger conspiracy is yet to be unearthed, cheated amount remains unrecovered, and CBI has recently taken over investigation – WhatsApp chats on Ashok Kumar's device established that Mohit and Ashok were working in tandem and in furtherance of the conspiracy [Paras 30, 34–35].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Digital Evidence – Vipul Rana and Himanshu Singh sought anticipatory bail – CCTV footage and CDR established Vipul Rana's presence at hotel with co-accused, contradicting his claim of remaining in Delhi – Himanshu Singh's presence at hotel established but mobile device not yet furnished – Held: Custodial interrogation of both applicants indispensable given fragile nature of digital evidence and likelihood of manipulation or destruction – Anticipatory bail refused [Paras 31, 34–35].

Supreme Court – Suo Motu Cognizance – Digital Arrest Scams – CBI as Primary Investigating Agency – Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) 3/2025 took judicial note of rising digital arrest incidents targeting senior citizens and directed CBI to be the primary agency to investigate such cases on a pan-India basis, including into role of bankers and opening of mule accounts – Court held that such offences erode public trust and confidence and impact the entire society [Paras 24, 28].

Bail Jurisprudence – Precedents Not to be Applied Mechanically – Slight change in facts can alter the entire complexion of a case – In matters involving digital arrest, extra sensitivity and different approach required – Observations tentative and not to be treated as final expression on merits [Paras 27, 37].

Decision: All four bail applications dismissed – Accused Ashok Kumar and Mohit not entitled to regular bail – Accused Vipul Rana and Himanshu Singh not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Service Law – Pension – Delayed Release of Retiral Benefits – Interest – Fundamental Right – Petitioner retired on 31.03.2009 after 34 years of service; retiral benefits including GPF, leave encashment, GIS and salary arrears were released with delays ranging from six to nine months; pension papers were not processed in time despite Petitioner having submitted all documents in advance and after retirement – Respondents attributed delay to non-availability of Service Book and procedural challenges – Held: Procedural challenges cannot justify delay in release of pension and retiral benefits; it was the responsibility of the Respondents to initiate the process at least three months before the date of retirement; delay in release of terminal benefits amounts to deprivation of the right to life and liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner entitled to interest on delayed payments beyond 30.06.2009 till actual date of payment [Paras 37–40].

Rate of Interest – Article 65 – GPF Rate – Article 65(1) of Central Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 provides for payment of interest at GPF rate on delayed payment of pension and gratuity attributable to administrative lapses – GPF rate of interest from 2008 to 2023 varied between 8.8% to 7.1% – On an equitable basis, interest awarded at 8% p.a. simple interest [Paras 42–45].

Commuted Pension – Restoration After Fifteen Years – Second relief claimed by Petitioner that fifteen-year period of commuted pension ended on 31.03.2024 entitling him to full restoration of pension – Held: For restoration of full pension, Petitioner is required to file an application and follow prescribed procedure; no directions can be issued in this petition, however if application has been or is filed, the same shall be processed expeditiously and preferably within three months [Paras 46–47].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Respondents directed to compute and pay interest at 8% p.a. simple interest for the delayed period in release of pension beyond 30.06.2009 till date of payment, within eight weeks – Relief of full restoration of pension to be pursued by Petitioner through separate application – Petition disposed of accordingly.

Service Law – Termination – Simultaneous Acquisition of Qualifications – Absence of Statutory Prohibition – Teacher appointed in 1997 as untrained Assistant Teacher, completed in-service training in 1999, and granted regular pay scale in 2000 – Served continuously for 29 years without adverse record – Services terminated vide order dated 11.12.2025 on the ground that petitioner had simultaneously obtained Certificate in Physical Education and passed Intermediate Examination during academic session 1993-94, and had concealed this fact at the time of appointment – Held: In the absence of any statutory provision, rule, or regulation prohibiting simultaneous pursuit of two courses, this ground cannot constitute a valid basis for disqualification or termination – Impugned order quashed – Writ petition allowed [Paras 43-52].

Natural Justice – Termination Without Departmental Inquiry – Procedural Infirmity – No regular departmental inquiry conducted as mandated under the U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 read with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Termination effected merely on the basis of notices, without formulation of charges, without adducing evidence, and without affording meaningful opportunity of hearing – Held: Such course of action is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice [Para 48].

Long Continuance in Service – Absence of Fraud – Equitable Bar Against Annulment – Petitioner rendered nearly three decades of continuous and unblemished service – Impugned order bereft of any categorical finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or submission of forged documents – Earlier inquiry reports dated 03.03.2021 and 27.07.2024 both recorded that complaints were unsubstantiated – Educational qualifications, including High School Certificate (1991), Certificate in Physical Education (1993-94), and Intermediate Certificate (1995), never cancelled or invalidated by any competent authority – Held: Drastic consequence of termination in such circumstances wholly disproportionate and legally unsustainable [Paras 45-49].

Defiance of Court Order – Salary Withheld Despite Interim Direction – This Court in Writ-A No. 15556 of 2025 had directed completion of inquiry within two months and payment of current salary – Despite the said order, salary not paid and services terminated by order dated 11.12.2025 – Court noted this conduct while quashing the impugned order [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Budhh Nagar, quashed.

Murder and Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Affirmed – Sections 302/394/34 IPC – Both appellants convicted by the Trial Court for murder and robbery of the deceased Dooja Devi on 09.05.1997 – Prosecution relied on a chain of circumstances comprising last seen together, recovery of stolen articles and blood-stained clothes at the instance of accused, and medical evidence – Held: When all the circumstances are taken cumulatively, they form a complete and unbroken chain leading only to the guilt of the appellants – Prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 31, 47].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Governing – For conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, each link must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain collectively must exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – Each witness's testimony must be meticulously analysed and reasonable inferences explicitly delineated – Finding of guilt must be reached after proper evaluation of all circumstances to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis [Para 32].

Last Seen Together – Evidentiary Value – Appellants were seen by PW-2 at about 12 noon at the rear door of the house in the company of the deceased and by PW-7 leaving the vicinity shortly thereafter with a grey briefcase – Time gap between last seen and discovery of body was so narrow as to exclude the possibility of intervention by a third person – Appellants admitted presence at the spot in statement under Section 313 CrPC – Absence of any suggestion of prior enmity or false implication renders testimony of PW-2 and PW-7 reliable and creditworthy – Conviction cannot be sustained on last seen evidence alone; prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances [Paras 34, 35, 36].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act – Recovery of stolen jewellery, suitcase, wristwatch, and camera from both appellants within 4-5 days of the incident at their respective instances – Articles duly identified by PW-1 in Test Identification Parade and in court – Possession of stolen articles of the deceased soon after murder raises a presumption of guilt under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act; such presumption weakens if considerable time has elapsed – Appellants failed to offer any explanation for such possession [Paras 38, 41, 45].

Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Section 27 Evidence Act – Section 106 Evidence Act – Blood-stained clothes of both accused recovered from the house of appellant Surya Narain pursuant to disclosure statement of appellant Anil Kumar – FSL report confirmed presence of human blood – Though blood grouping could not be determined due to degradation over time, such inability does not diminish evidentiary value – Failure to explain the presence of blood on clothes is a fact especially within the knowledge of the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance [Paras 38, 39].

Investigation – Lapses – Effect – Non-examination of the unknown caller, son of the deceased, and SI Atul Kumar Mishra does not create a dent in the prosecution case as nothing turns on their testimonies – Defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal when substantive evidence otherwise proves the guilt of the accused – No independent public witness at recovery does not render police witnesses unreliable; there is a presumption that public officials would depose truthfully [Paras 41, 43].

Silence under Section 313 CrPC – In the face of strong incriminating circumstances, failure of the accused to offer any explanation consistent with their innocence in their statement under Section 313 CrPC further reinforces the prosecution case and constitutes a significant circumstance against them [Para 43].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of both appellants under Sections 302/394/34 IPC affirmed – Appellants directed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent within one week.

Education Law – Review Jurisdiction – SSLC Examination – Grading System – Draft Rules – The State of Karnataka filed a Review Petition against the order directing it to conduct valuation for SSLC 2025-2026 as per the Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025 – State sought review on the ground that a Draft Notification dated 10.04.2026 for introduction of a grading system under the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board Act, 1966 had not been placed before the Court at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition – Held: The SSLC examination had already been conducted from 18.03.2026 to 02.04.2026 before the Draft Rules were notified on 10.04.2026; the Draft Rules being yet to be promulgated in accordance with law, there is no error apparent on the face of the record – Review Petition disposed of [Paras 6, 8, 10].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Scope – A Draft Notification yet to be published by the competent authority and not having attained the force of law cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record for the purposes of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – It is always open to the State Government to take decisions in accordance with law in future, which lies within its domain, unless challenged before the Court [Para 8].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Scope – Power of judicial review under Article 226 is to interfere with the decision-making process and not with the decision itself – The court's order should not curtail the power of the State Government to take lawful decisions in future – The second part of paragraph 8 of the impugned order clarified accordingly [Para 9].

Decision: Review Petition disposed of – Valuation for Academic Year 2025-2026 to be conducted as per Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025 – State Government's power to take future decisions in accordance with law preserved.

Criminal Contempt – Section 2(c) – Scandalising the Court – YouTube Videos – Banners Targeting Judicial Officers – Respondent No. 2 operated a YouTube channel "Fight 4 Judicial Reforms" and uploaded videos with banners naming specific judicial officers, imputing that litigants before them should abandon hope of justice, and using abusive and derogatory language against the Supreme Court and the entire judicial system – Held: While campaign for audio-video recording of court proceedings and generalised criticism of the judicial system would not amount to contempt, personally attacking named judicial officers and imputing absence of justice in their courts – without verifying facts from the judicial record – went beyond fair criticism and was intended to scandalize and lower the authority of the courts; the act constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The plea of bona fides and public interest rejected as the intent was mala fide and the content was res ipsa loquitur [Paras 48–52].

Fair Criticism vs. Criminal Contempt – Right Under Article 19(1)(a) – Distinction – Fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts, made in good faith in public interest without imputing improper motives, is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and does not amount to contempt – Criminal contempt is committed when the publication is calculated to lower the authority of the court or to create apprehension in the public mind about the integrity and fairness of the Judge or to deter litigants from relying on the court's administration of justice – Proof of actual interference is not necessary; it is sufficient if the publication is likely or tends in any way to interfere with the proper administration of law – Contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with economy, great care and restraint, and only where silence is no longer an option [Paras 39–47].

Respondent No. 1 in Both Cases – Unconditional Apology – Discharge – Respondent No. 1 in Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 3/2025 (Mr. Shiv Narayan Sharma) and Respondent No. 1 in Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 4/2025 (Mr. Deepak Singh) tendered unconditional and unqualified apologies, appeared in person, and undertook not to repeat such conduct – Court found the apologies genuine and accepted the same – Both respondents No. 1 discharged from their respective contempt cases [Paras 4, 11, 56].

Decision: Respondent No. 2 (Mr. Gulshan Pahuja) found guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Notice issued to him under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025 for submissions on punishment under Section 12 of the Act within two weeks – Respondent No. 2 directed to remain personally present on 12.05.2026 – Respondents No. 1 in both cases discharged – Copy of judgment to be translated into Hindi and supplied to Respondent No. 2.

Sale Deed – Cancellation – Coercion – Limitation – Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Appellant's suit seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 25.10.1996 and permanent injunction dismissed by trial court – On appeal, High Court examines whether sale deed was executed under coercion and whether suit was barred by limitation – Held: No credible evidence of coercion established; suit filed on 12.10.2009 grossly time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation period of 3 years having commenced from 26.10.1996 when facts first became known to plaintiff – Appeal dismissed at admission stage with costs [Paras 32–50].

"Registered Sale Deed Carries Presumption of Valid Execution" – Sections 58 and 60, Registration Act, 1908 – Appellants failed to rebut statutory presumption of valid execution and registration – Sale deed executed at Tehsil Etah, a crowded public place, before scribe and witnesses; sub-registrar made independent enquiry from vendor before registration – Attesting witness DW-2 proved due execution – No FIR registered despite allegations of abduction and gunpoint coercion; no eyewitness examined – Held: Plaintiff failed to rebut presumption of validity; mere oral assertions insufficient to impeach registered document [Paras 38–43].

"Valuation and Stamp Duty — Allegation of Undervaluation Unsustained" – Section 47-A, Indian Stamp Act – Appellants contended that property was worth ₹20 lakhs but sale deed valued it at ₹2.05 lakhs – ADM (Administration), Etah, vide order dated 17.05.2002, upheld valuation as per prevailing circle rate (land @ ₹700/sq.m.; construction @ ₹2,000/sq.m.) and found stamp duty properly paid – Held: Allegation of undervaluation and insufficient stamping not proved [Para 43].

"Oral Evidence Inadmissible to Contradict Terms of Written Instrument" – Section 92, Indian Evidence Act – Sale deed specifically recorded that possession of disputed property was handed to defendants at time of execution – Appellants' oral assertion of continued possession contradicts express recital of registered instrument – Held: Such contradiction is barred by Section 92; oral evidence cannot be led to contradict terms of a dispositive document [Para 46].

"Limitation for Cancellation of Instrument Runs from Date of First Knowledge" – Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963 – Plaintiff's wife moved application before sub-registrar on 26.10.1996 itself; thereafter made complaints to SP, Chief Minister, and SDM – SDM advised filing suit for cancellation in 2007 but suit filed only on 12.10.2009, approximately 13 years after accrual of knowledge – Held: Limitation commenced on 26.10.1996 when facts of alleged execution first became known; suit filed belatedly is grossly barred by time [Paras 47–48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC with costs throughout – Impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.2025 affirmed.