Service Law – Termination on Basis of Criminal Case – Acquittal Makes Termination Illegal – The petitioner was terminated based on pending criminal proceedings, but he was acquitted by a judgment dated 30/10/2021 – The Court held that the termination was unjustified as the Education Officer ignored the acquittal order and acted arbitrarily [Paras 6-7].

Employment Law – Reinstatement with Continuity of Service – The Court quashed the termination order dated 12/04/2022, holding that the petitioner was wrongfully removed from service – Directed reinstatement with full continuity of service as Shikshan Sevak, entitling him to regular promotion as an Assistant Teacher in accordance with applicable rules [Paras 10-11].

Back Wages – 50% Awarded Due to Arbitrary Termination – The Court held that since the Education Officer knowingly terminated the petitioner despite his acquittal, the petitioner was entitled to full back wages – However, as per the petitioner’s voluntary statement, he agreed to accept only 50% back wages to put the dispute to rest—The Court allowed this concession but stated that if the BMC further litigated, the claim for full back wages would be revived [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Termination Quashed – Reinstatement with 50% Back Wages – The Court set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement with continuity of service – 50% of back wages to be paid within 60 days, failing which the amount would carry 6% interest per annum – Subsequent re-appointment treated as inconsequential as the petitioner’s original appointment stood restored [Paras 11-12].
 

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing - Declaration as Proclaimed Person – Procedural Non-Compliance – Order Quashed – The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in proceedings arising out of a complaint under Section 420 read with 120B IPC – The Trial Court issued a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC without first issuing summons or bailable warrants – Held: Failure to record satisfaction regarding the accused’s intentional evasion vitiates the proclamation; declaration as proclaimed person quashed [Paras 6-9].

Consequential FIR under Section 174-A IPC – Quashing Justified – Based on the proclamation order, an FIR under Section 174-A IPC was registered against the petitioner – The Court held that since the declaration as a proclaimed person was legally flawed, the consequential FIR could not stand – Held: FIR under Section 174-A IPC quashed [Paras 10-12].

Right to Fair Procedure – Compliance with Section 82 CrPC Mandatory – The Court reiterated that before declaring an accused a proclaimed person, the Trial Court must ensure compliance with Section 82 CrPC – Reference made to Major Singh @ Major v. State of Punjab, 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406 – Held: Courts must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty [Paras 13-15].

Petition Allowed – Declaration as proclaimed person and FIR quashed – The Court found the impugned orders to be arbitrary and violative of legal procedure – Held: Petition allowed, all proceedings against the petitioner set aside [Paras 16].

Civil Law - Impleadment of Party – Necessary or Proper Party – No Interference Warranted – The petitioner challenged the Rent Controller’s order allowing the respondents’ application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Kuljinder Singh (petitioner's attorney) as a necessary party – The Court noted that the respondents had made specific allegations that the petitioner had sublet the premises to Kuljinder Singh after securing eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act – Held: Since the dispute involved allegations of subletting, impleadment was justified for a complete adjudication of the case [Paras 5-7].

Principle of Dominus Litis – Applicant's Right to Choose Parties – The Court held that the applicant in a legal proceeding has the right to decide whom to implead, provided there is a reasonable basis for doing so – Since the respondents had already mentioned Kuljinder Singh in their pleadings but omitted him in the memo of parties due to an oversight, rectifying the error through impleadment was legally valid – Held: No interference required; impleadment order upheld [Paras 7-8].

No Prejudice to Petitioner – Impleadment Does Not Delay Proceedings – The petitioner argued that adding Kuljinder Singh as a party would delay the proceedings – The Court rejected this argument, noting that any delay would primarily affect the respondents, who were seeking possession – Held: The impleadment order did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner; revision petition dismissed [Paras 8].

Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petitioner’s challenge – Held: Since impleadment was necessary for effective adjudication, no grounds existed for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India [Paras 8].

Civil Writ - Registration of Births – Change of Name in Birth Certificate – Sections 14 & 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 – No Express Provision for Name Change – Held: The Act and Rules provide for registration of a child’s name if not initially recorded but do not contemplate a subsequent change of name – The Registrar was correct in rejecting the request under Section 15, which only allows corrections in case of errors, fraudulent, or improper entries – However, in the absence of specific legal provisions, a procedure must be devised to allow such changes through an affidavit process [Paras 10-14, 19-22].

Legislative Anomaly – Need for Amendment – Law Commission of Karnataka’s 24th Report – Held: The current law does not account for practical scenarios where individuals seek to change names – The Karnataka Law Commission recommended amendments in its 24th Report to facilitate name changes under specified conditions such as personal choice, marriage, adoption, religious conversion, or nationality change – Legislature urged to amend the law to avoid unnecessary hardships [Paras 23-24].

Procedure for Name Change – Judicial Directions – Held: Until legislative amendments are made, authorities must adopt a procedure allowing name changes upon submission of an affidavit by parents or the individual – Registrar to verify identity, enter the new name alongside the original, and endorse the change in the Birth Certificate – Ensures both authenticity and prevention of misuse [Paras 27-32].

Decision – Endorsement Quashed – Name Change Allowed – Held: The impugned endorsement rejecting the request is quashed – Registrar directed to change the petitioner’s name from "Adhrith Bhat" to "Shrijith Bhat" in the Birth Register – Birth Certificate to be reissued with an endorsement reflecting both original and changed names [Paras 35-37].
 

Service Law – Reservation for BC Category – Requirement of Fresh BC Certificate – Validity of Certificates – Rejection of Candidature Arbitrary – Candidates applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) under BC-A/BC-B category – Their candidature was rejected on the ground that caste certificates were issued before 01.04.2023 – Held: No specific cut-off date was prescribed in the advertisement for BC certificate submission – As per Haryana Government instructions, caste certificates remain valid for a lifetime, but certificates including income details (creamy layer status) are valid only till the end of the financial year – The requirement of a "fresh latest certificate" does not imply that a certificate issued before 01.04.2023 becomes invalid – Rejection of candidates based solely on an administrative cut-off date was arbitrary and unjustified – Rejection order quashed – Authorities directed to consider petitioners under the BC category based on Parivar Pehchan Patra verification [Paras 10-12].

Recruitment Process – Change of Rules Midway – CET Qualified Candidates – Violation of Established Selection Norms – Candidates were initially shortlisted based on Common Eligibility Test (CET) results under the BC category – The rejection at a later stage on technical grounds regarding the date of caste certificate amounts to a change in the "rules of the game" after the selection process began – Held: Once a candidate was categorized as BC at the CET stage, authorities could not impose fresh conditions regarding caste certificate submission unless specifically mentioned in the advertisement – Rejection order quashed – Petitioners entitled to be considered under BC category as per CET selection [Paras 20-22].

Use of Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP) – Verification of Caste Status – Government Bound to Use Official Verification System – The Government had introduced PPP-linked certificates for ease of verification – Advertisement clause 6.5 provided that in the absence of a fresh BC certificate, caste status would be determined from PPP – Held: Since the authorities had access to PPP data, they could verify the caste status of candidates, and rejecting candidates for not submitting a fresh BC certificate was unjustified – The authorities were bound to verify caste details from the official portal if the certificate was not submitted – Respondents directed to verify caste status from PPP and not reject candidates solely for not submitting a fresh certificate [Paras 21-23].

Administrative Discretion – Principles of Reasonableness – Violation of Fair Selection Process – The principle that "rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process starts" was reiterated – Authorities cannot introduce new conditions after the recruitment process has begun, which were not specified in the initial advertisement – Directions issued to reconsider the petitioners' candidature in the reserved category based on PPP verification – Any rejection must be based on a valid reason, not an arbitrary administrative cut-off date [Paras 24-26].

Decision: The rejection of the petitioners’ candidature based on the non-submission of a fresh BC certificate issued after 01.04.2023 was quashed. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners under the BC-A/BC-B category based on their verified caste details in the Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP). The authorities were further instructed to avoid arbitrary cut-off dates and ensure fairness in the selection process by adhering to established verification mechanisms.

Civil Law - Cancellation of Sale Deed – Non-Payment of Full Consideration – Effect of Registered Document – Appeal Dismissed – The plaintiff sought cancellation of the sale deed alleging that the defendant failed to pay the entire consideration as per an agreement to sell – The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court upheld the dismissal – Held: Even if the full consideration was not paid, the sale deed cannot be invalidated solely on this ground – A registered sale deed acknowledging receipt of consideration raises a presumption of valid execution, and oral evidence contradicting the terms of a written, registered document is inadmissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act – The plaintiff may have other legal remedies for recovering unpaid consideration but cannot seek cancellation of the sale deed – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 24-35].

Transfer of Property – Effect of a Registered Sale Deed – Presumption of Validity – Appeal Dismissed – The plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in favor of the defendant but later alleged non-payment of full sale consideration – Held: A registered sale deed creates a presumption of valid execution – As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a sale is complete even if consideration is "paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised" – Once title has passed, the sale cannot be invalidated merely due to non-payment of full consideration – The plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of valid execution – No substantial question of law involved – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 32-35].

Admissibility of Oral Evidence – Section 92, Indian Evidence Act – Contradiction of Registered Document Not Permitted – The plaintiff attempted to introduce oral evidence contradicting the terms of the registered sale deed to assert that consideration was unpaid – Held: As per Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, once a written contract is executed, no oral evidence can be admitted to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from its terms – The courts below correctly refused to entertain such claims – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 24-28].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limited Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The trial court and first appellate court found that the sale deed was duly executed and contained an acknowledgment of consideration – Held: The High Court will not interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse or violate legal principles – No substantial question of law was involved in the second appeal – Mere non-payment of consideration does not render a registered sale deed void – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 36-39].
 

Reassessment Proceedings – Applicability of First Proviso to Section 147 – Extended Time Limit Under TOLA – The petitioner argued that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued beyond four years without any failure on his part to disclose material facts fully and truly, and hence, was barred by the first proviso to Section 147 – The Revenue contended that the extended time limit under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2022 (TOLA) applied – Held: The applicability of TOLA was not raised before the Assessing Officer, and such an objection cannot be raised for the first time in a writ petition – The petitioner is free to raise this contention in appeal [Paras 15-16].

Change of Opinion – Whether Reassessment is Permissible When Issues Were Examined During Original Assessment – The petitioner claimed that the deduction under Section 54F and income from house property were already examined during scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), and thus, reassessment amounted to a change of opinion – The Court noted that the original assessment record did not reflect any specific query raised on these issues – Held: Since there was no explicit examination of these issues, the reassessment does not amount to a mere change of opinion – The petitioner can, however, challenge this aspect before the Appellate Authority [Paras 16-17].

Reassessment Based on Audit Objections – Validity of Reopening Proceedings – The petitioner contended that reassessment was initiated at the behest of the audit party, which amounts to "borrowed satisfaction" – The Court observed that if reassessment is based solely on factual errors pointed out by the audit party, it is invalid, but if it raises a question of law, it is permissible – Held: The reasons recorded for reopening did not refer to audit objections, and the petitioner had not demonstrated how internal audit documents were accessed – This contention requires factual examination, which is beyond the writ jurisdiction [Paras 18-19].

Alternate and Efficacious Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition Under Article 226 – The Revenue argued that an alternate remedy of statutory appeal under Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act was available, making the writ petition not maintainable – The Court held that the availability of appeal, without the requirement of pre-deposit, made it a more appropriate remedy – Held: Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy – The petitioner is granted four weeks to file an appeal, with the Appellate Authority directed to adjudicate without objections on limitation [Paras 13-14, 23].

Interim Relief – Extension of Stay Period – Since the Court had granted ad-interim relief on 20/09/2022, it was extended for four weeks to allow the petitioner to seek a stay before the appropriate authority – The Appellate Authority must decide the stay application on its own merits, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner granted four weeks to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority – Ad-interim relief extended for four weeks – The Court held that all issues, including jurisdiction under Section 147, validity of reassessment, and alleged audit-based reopening, can be raised before the Appellate Authority – No findings were given on the merits of the reassessment [Paras 23-27].

Criminal Writ - Criminal Investigation – Direction for Crime Branch Investigation – Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India – Investigation Ordered – The petitioner alleged fraud and coercion by police officials, stating that despite multiple complaints, no action was taken – The petitioner and his wife were allegedly abducted and subjected to harassment – The Court examined the sequence of events, including alleged police misconduct and threats – Held: Considering the severity of the allegations and the failure of the local police to act, the case was referred to the Crime Branch for investigation [Paras 2-5].

Police Misconduct – Non-Registration of FIR – Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Violation of Legal Procedure – The petitioner had repeatedly approached law enforcement agencies, but the FIR was not registered – The lower court directed registration under BNSS, 2023, but police failed to act – Held: Non-compliance with judicial orders and failure to register FIR constitutes willful disobedience and dereliction of duty by police officers – The matter was directed for departmental inquiry against responsible officers [Paras 6-8].

Fundamental Rights – Illegal Detention and Harassment – Articles 226 & 227 – Compensation Ordered – The petitioner and his wife were allegedly detained and harassed by police under instructions from senior officials – The Court considered the impact of police excesses on the petitioner’s family, including medical complications faced by their minor daughter – Held: State directed to pay interim compensation to the petitioner and ensure psychological counseling for affected family members [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Intervention – High Court’s Power Under Article 226 – Scope and Limitations – The petitioner sought direct intervention by the High Court for relief – The Court reiterated that while the High Court does not interfere in every criminal case, exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention – Held: Given the abuse of power and lack of police action, the High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure justice [Paras 12-14].

Order of Lower Court – Non-Compliance by Police – Contempt Proceedings Initiated – Despite judicial directions, the police failed to act on the order of the JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, under Section 175(3) BNSS, 2023 – Held: This amounts to contempt of court – Show-cause notice issued to responsible officers, and matter referred to the State’s Home Department for necessary action [Paras 15-17].
 

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing - Second FIR – Maintainability – Violation of Article 20(2) – FIR Quashed – The petitioner challenged the second FIR filed under the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act, arguing that it was based on the same set of allegations as an earlier FIR registered under IPC – The Court held that the registration of a second FIR for the same incident is impermissible and violates Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits double jeopardy – Held: The second FIR is not maintainable and is quashed [Paras 8.1-8.2].

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Land Grabbing Act Cannot Override IPC Proceedings – The respondents argued that the Land Grabbing Act provided a special mechanism and thus warranted a separate FIR – The Court noted that while the Act creates a special court, it does not override the jurisdiction of regular criminal courts for IPC offenses – Held: The existence of special legislation does not justify multiple prosecutions for the same act under different statutes [Paras 10.1-10.2].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Trials Not Justified – The Court observed that a civil suit and tenancy proceedings regarding the disputed land were already pending – It held that initiating criminal prosecution under the Land Grabbing Act while civil disputes were sub judice would amount to abuse of process – Held: When civil remedies are available, criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment [Paras 8.3].

Legal Precedents – Clubbing of FIRs Mandated – The Court relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348, to reaffirm that successive FIRs for the same offense are impermissible – Held: The remedy lies in treating the second FIR as a supplementary complaint rather than a new criminal case [Paras 18].

FIR Quashed – No Further Prosecution – The Court quashed the FIR under the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act and directed that all criminal proceedings based on it be dropped – The petitioner was allowed to raise his defense in the pending civil cases – Held: Criminal proceedings under the second FIR quashed; civil disputes to be decided separately [Paras 22].