Senior Citizens’ Rights – Eviction of Permissive Occupants – Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Son-in-law of the deceased daughter sought to claim residence in the house owned by his father-in-law – Contended that he contributed towards construction and had adverse possession – Held: The appellant was a permissive occupant with no legal right over the property – Senior citizens have the right to reclaim possession for their welfare [Paras 2-6].

Interpretation of "Children" and "Relative" Under the Act of 2007 – Appellant argued that he should not be covered under the definition of "Children" or "Relative" under Sections 2(a) and 2(g) – High Court held that the definitions are not exhaustive and if the house was given to the deceased daughter and the appellant was living there by virtue of marriage, he could be considered under the broader meaning of the term – Held: The appellant had a moral duty to maintain the senior citizen but no legal right to occupy the property [Paras 7-9].

No Adverse Possession Established – Bank Transactions Do Not Confer Ownership Rights – Appellant claimed to have transferred ₹1,00,000 to respondent No.3’s account as proof of investment in the property – Court held that mere bank transactions do not establish ownership or adverse possession – No agreement or title document submitted to prove that the property was purchased on his behalf [Paras 6-8].

Power of Tribunal to Order Eviction Under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 – The Tribunal can declare property transfers void if they adversely affect the senior citizen – Court relied on Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2 and held that the Tribunal has the power to order eviction if it ensures the protection and welfare of the senior citizen – Held: Retired senior citizens without regular pension must be allowed to reclaim possession for financial security and peaceful living [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Appellant relied on Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684, arguing that absence of a condition for maintenance in a transfer deed prevents cancellation – Held: The reliance was misplaced as no transfer deed existed in the present case – Tribunal’s eviction order upheld [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Eviction order upheld – Appellant directed to vacate the premises within 30 days, failing which the SHO concerned is directed to enforce eviction and hand over possession to respondent No.3.
 

Criminal Procedure – Maintainability of Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for Registration of FIR – Petitioner sought registration of an FIR against judicial officers and advocates, alleging public property grabbing and corruption – Held: High Court should not entertain such petitions when alternate statutory remedies are available – The petitioner must first approach the police authorities under Sections 154(3) and 36 Cr.P.C. and if unsatisfied, can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Direct invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is impermissible [Paras 6-8].

Contempt of Court – Baseless Allegations Against Judicial Officers – Petitioner made scandalous and unfounded allegations against judicial officers, claiming cases were decided in favor of certain parties due to corruption – Court held that no litigant can be allowed to browbeat the judiciary – Making such reckless allegations undermines judicial integrity and amounts to contempt – Held: Petitioner warned against filing such petitions in the future [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Discipline – Role of High Court in Protecting Judicial Officers from Baseless Attacks – Court cited Ajay Kumar Pandey v. Unknown, (1998) AIR SC 3299 – Held that judiciary must be protected from frivolous attacks to maintain public trust in the rule of law – Threats or false complaints against judges in response to unfavorable orders amount to interference in the administration of justice [Paras 9-10].

Abuse of Process of Law – Frivolous and Sensational Allegations Without Evidence – Petitioner alleged that advocates and judicial officers colluded to grab land and manipulate cases, but failed to provide any specific details or evidence – Court held that such sensationalized accusations were aimed at scandalizing the judiciary – Imposed costs of ₹25,000/- as a deterrent against misuse of judicial process [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Suo Motu Contempt Powers of the High Court – Petitioner’s conduct warranted contempt proceedings, but the Court exercised judicial restraint – Held: Petitioner warned to conduct himself as a responsible legal professional – Future violations may lead to contempt action [Para 10].

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/- – Costs to be deposited in PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh within two months – Failure to deposit may lead to recovery as arrears of land revenue – Court warned petitioner against filing frivolous petitions in the future.
 

Civil Writ - Village Panchayats – No-Confidence Motion – Protection Under Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) – Whether Applicable to Sarpanch as a Post or to an Individual – Petitioner challenged the no-confidence motion initiated within two years of her election as Sarpanch, arguing that the statutory protection is personal and applies to all Sarpanches irrespective of their sequence in office – Respondents argued that immunity applies to the post and not the individual, and the term "date of election" refers to the election of the first Sarpanch of the term – Held: The immunity provided under Proviso (4) is specific to the individual Sarpanch elected during the tenure of the Village Panchayat and not limited to the first Sarpanch – Motion quashed [Paras 7-16].

Statutory Interpretation – Literal Rule vs. Purposive Interpretation – Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act – Court relied on the literal and plain meaning of Proviso (4) to Section 35(2), emphasizing that the phrase "date of election of Sarpanch" applies to each elected Sarpanch and not exclusively to the first Sarpanch of the Panchayat term – Held: Literal interpretation aligns with the statute’s objective of ensuring stable governance and smooth functioning of Village Panchayats – Judgment in Charushila Bira Shriram disapproved [Paras 8-16].

Governance and Stability – Protection from No-Confidence Motions – Purpose of the two-year protection under Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) is to ensure administrative stability and effective governance – Recognizing the immunity as person-specific reinforces this objective and avoids disrupting governance due to frequent changes in leadership – Court affirmed this reasoning to quash the impugned notice [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 11/12/2024 convening the no-confidence motion was quashed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs [Paras 17-19].

Employment Law - Caste Certificate Cancellation – Scope of State Level Scrutiny Committee – Rules Applicable – Petition Allowed – Order Quashed - The petitioner was issued a Scheduled Tribe (Kandha Christian) caste certificate under the Orissa Caste Certificate Rules, 1980. Based on an inquiry report, the State Level Scrutiny Committee canceled the certificate under the framework laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner (1995). Relying on the Supreme Court’s later judgment in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham (2012) and the Orissa High Court’s decision in Sridhar Kumar Dalai v. State of Odisha (2023), the Court held that the Madhuri Patil directions were inapplicable where specific state rules, such as the 1980 Rules, prevail. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration under the new 2023 Rules [Paras 2.7, 2.9, 4.2-4.4].

Change in Legal Framework – Impact of New Rules – Remand Ordered – The Court noted that the Orissa Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023, superseded the 1980 Rules and granted the State Level Scrutiny Committee the authority to address the petitioner’s caste certificate issue. The Court remanded the matter to the Committee for adjudication under the 2023 Rules, emphasizing the need for due process and a fresh inquiry [Paras 3.3, 4.3-4.4].

Participation in Proceedings – Waiver of Objection – Not Absolute – The petitioner’s participation in the Scrutiny Committee proceedings, including submission of a reply to the show cause notice, did not preclude him from challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated under Madhuri Patil. The Court clarified that a procedural defect cannot be cured merely by the petitioner’s participation in the inquiry [Para 3.1].

Quashing of Proceedings – Impact on Criminal Cases and Service Termination – The Court noted that the impugned order had resulted in the initiation of criminal proceedings and the petitioner’s termination from service. These actions were stayed by an interim order. With the quashing of the impugned order, the Committee must reevaluate the matter, and no coercive action can be taken until such determination [Paras 2.6, 4.3-4.4].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 29.03.2016 quashed. Matter remanded to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration under the Orissa Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023. Petitioner directed to appear before the Committee on 07/02/2025. Proceedings to be concluded within four months [Paras 4.4-4.5].

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Subsequent Application in the Same Proceedings – Bar under General Principles – Respondents filed a second application for issuance of a commission under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC after an earlier application on similar grounds had been rejected by the trial court – Held: The principle of res judicata applies to interlocutory orders at different stages of the same proceeding – Trial court, having rejected the earlier application with specific findings, was precluded from allowing the subsequent application – Impugned order quashed [Paras 7-9, 26-27].

Handwriting Expert – When Necessary – Role of Direct Witnesses – The trial court erred in issuing a commission to examine disputed signatures despite earlier rejecting a similar application on the ground that direct witnesses to the agreement to sell were available – Held: As attesting witnesses and the scribe of the agreement were available and already examined, referring the document for scientific investigation was unnecessary – Trial court's earlier rejection attained finality and could not be revisited [Paras 14-15, 23-26].

Finality of Orders – Binding Effect on Trial Court – Reiteration of Supreme Court Principles – Trial court violated established principles of finality by entertaining a second application seeking identical relief – Held: An earlier interlocutory order, not challenged or appealed, operates as res judicata and prevents re-litigation of the same issue – Reliance placed on Barkat Ali v. Badri Narain, 2008 SC 168, and Satyadhyan Ghoshal v. Deorjin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941 [Paras 17-19, 26].

Judicial Duty – Necessity of Analyzing Citations and Evidence – Trial court failed to consider relevant precedents cited by the petitioner, which demonstrated that the second application was barred by res judicata – Held: A trial court must analyze citations relied upon by parties and apply them to the facts of the case – Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable [Paras 20, 26].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 26/08/2024 quashed and set aside – Second application for issuance of a commission under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC barred by res judicata – No costs [Paras 26-27].
 

Criminal Procedure - Protest Petition Against Final Report – Magistrate’s Discretion – Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. – No Error in Accepting Closure Report – A magistrate has four options when considering a final report: (i) accept and drop proceedings, (ii) take cognizance and issue process, (iii) order further investigation, or (iv) treat the protest petition as a complaint – Here, the magistrate exercised discretion in accepting the closure report based on the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, where she exonerated the accused – No illegality found in the decision [Paras 14-15].

Evidentiary Value of Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement – Higher Weight than Section 161 Cr.P.C. – A victim’s judicial statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. carries more evidentiary weight than her police-recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement – The magistrate correctly placed reliance on the Section 164 statement, which was voluntarily recorded and corroborated by affidavits from the victim’s father and uncle – Subsequent protest petition claiming coercion in the Section 164 statement lacks credibility [Paras 17-18].

Rejection of Protest Petition – Change in Victim’s Stand – No Presumption Against Judicial Statement – The victim initially alleged abduction and rape in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement but later, in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, stated that she had left home voluntarily – The magistrate was correct in not presuming that the judicial statement was given under coercion – Her refusal to undergo medical examination further weakened her claims – Held, the protest petition was rightly dismissed [Paras 19-20].

Final Report Acceptance – Remedy for Complainant – Filing of Private Complaint Not Barred – Even after acceptance of a final report, the complainant retains the right to file a private criminal complaint under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. – This ruling does not preclude such a course of action [Para 22].

Decision: The criminal revision is dismissed. The trial court’s order accepting the police’s closure report and rejecting the protest petition is upheld. The magistrate acted within legal bounds in relying on the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and supporting affidavits. However, the complainant retains the right to file a private complaint under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. before the competent court if so advised.
 

Taxation Law - Goods Seizure and Tax Evasion – Applicability of Section 130 TNGST Act – Prima Facie Case Against Petitioner – The petitioner challenged the confiscation of gold ornaments under Section 130 of the TNGST Act, arguing that the goods were transported solely for exhibition purposes and not for sale – The respondent alleged that the petitioner attempted to evade tax by misusing provisions allowing goods movement without invoices – The Court found multiple discrepancies in the petitioner’s documentation, including the absence of receiver signatures, incorrect weight records, and lack of evidence proving the goods were exclusively for exhibition – Held: The authorities had a prima facie case for invoking Section 130, and the confiscation notice was justified [Paras 8-12].

E-Way Bill and Delivery Challan Compliance – Procedural Irregularities – The petitioner contended that Rule 138(4) of the CGST Rules exempted the requirement of an e-way bill for exhibition-related transport – The respondent countered that the delivery challans lacked proper descriptions, including itemized details of the gold ornaments – The Court observed that mismatches in recorded weights and unverified recipient details indicated potential tax evasion – Held: Absence of critical documentation created suspicion, warranting confiscation proceedings [Paras 10-13].

Mala Fide Allegation Against Authorities – No Evidence to Substantiate – The petitioner argued that the tax authorities acted with mala fide intent in seizing the goods – The Court held that procedural lapses on the petitioner’s part, including unexplained route diversions and missing documentation, weakened its claim – Held: No evidence of mala fide action by authorities; case must proceed based on material evidence [Paras 14-16].

Interplay Between Sections 129 and 130 of the TNGST Act – Independent Operation – The petitioner argued that Section 129, dealing with seizure and detention, should override Section 130, which deals with confiscation – The Court clarified that Section 129 applies to temporary detention, whereas Section 130 is an independent provision that can be invoked where evasion is suspected – Held: The authorities correctly invoked Section 130, and the petitioner must respond to the show cause notice [Paras 18-19].

Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner Directed to File Reply – The Court refused to interfere at the pre-adjudication stage and directed the petitioner to submit a detailed reply to the tax authorities – Held: Petitioner must present its defense through due process; writ petition dismissed [Paras 20-21].
 

Service Law - Juvenile Justice Act – Applicability to Recruitment – Suppression of Criminal Case – Petitioner, a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, did not disclose a pending criminal case in his attestation form when joining SSB – Termination of service on this basis held unsustainable – Juveniles are protected from disqualification under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Omission to disclose such information runs contrary to the spirit and intent of the JJ Act – Held: Petitioner’s termination violated statutory safeguards provided to juveniles, and such termination is unsustainable [Paras 30-38].

Verification of Antecedents – Employment in Disciplined Force – While antecedent verification is important for employment in armed forces, employers must consider legal safeguards for juveniles – Police disclosure of information related to a juvenile's case violates confidentiality under the JJ Act – Such disclosures cannot form the basis for termination of service [Paras 32-39].

Juvenile Justice Act – No Stigma or Disqualification for Juvenile Offenders – Sections 19 and 21 of the JJ Act, 2000 ensure that juveniles in conflict with law are not subjected to stigma or disqualification even after conviction – The petitioner, as a juvenile, was not obligated to disclose pending proceedings – Employer’s action disregarded the protective legislative intent of the JJ Act [Paras 34-38].

Termination of Service – False Information in Attestation Form – The petitioner’s omission to disclose pending criminal proceedings due to his juvenile status does not amount to suppression or false declaration – Reliance on Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar and Mukesh Yadav vs. Union of India underscores the principle that minor indiscretions of youth or omissions should not result in disqualification or stigma for life – Held: Termination unjustified [Paras 40-43].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned orders dated 27/09/2017 and 15/12/2014 terminating the petitioner’s service were quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner within 12 weeks, with all consequential benefits except back wages. [Paras 45-46]
 

Criminal Writ – Maintainability of Writ for Registration of FIR – Availability of Alternative Remedies – Petitioner sought directions for registering an FIR against judicial officers and advocates, alleging collusion in land grabbing – Held: Writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 CrPC for FIR registration should not be entertained when statutory remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 200 CrPC are available – High Court referred to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) AIR SC 907, reiterating that alternative remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 5-6].

Scandalous Allegations Against Judicial Officers – Contemptuous Conduct – Warning Issued – Petitioner made unsubstantiated allegations against judicial officers, Bar Council members, and private respondents, claiming corruption and judicial bias – Held: Vague and baseless allegations against judicial officers undermine public trust in the judiciary and amount to an attempt to intimidate judges – While the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings, the petitioner was warned against filing frivolous petitions in the future [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Independence vs. Litigant's Right to Fair Trial – Protection of Judicial Officers from Malicious Accusations – Court observed that an increasing trend of disgruntled litigants leveling false allegations against judges threatens judicial independence – Held: No litigant can be permitted to browbeat the Court or tarnish the reputation of judicial officers merely because they failed to secure a favorable order – Dignity of the Court must be upheld [Paras 11-12].

Petition Dismissed with Costs – Fine Imposed – Court dismissed the petition as frivolous and motivated, imposing ₹25,000/- as costs to be deposited in PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh – Failure to pay the fine within two months would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue [Paras 13-14].