Writ Law - Service Law - Kramonnati Scheme - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Entitlement to second time-bound promotion benefit - Petitioner appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1966 - Promoted to Upper Division Clerk in 1977 with higher pay scale - Subsequently promoted to Accountant in 1998 - Respondents withdrew second Kramonnati benefit on ground that petitioner received two promotions - Petitioner contended that 1998 promotion did not result in higher pay scale but only special pay of Rs. 250 under Rule 22-D of Fundamental Rules - High Court observed that the object of the 1999 Policy is to ensure employees receive at least two higher pay scales during their tenure - Court relied on Division Bench decision in Daulat Ram Rajak vs. State of M.P. - Held - Promotion to a higher post without the benefit of a higher pay scale is treated as stagnation on the same scale - Petitioner remained in the same pay scale from 1977 first promotion until 1998 second promotion - Entitled to benefit of second Kramonnati as per Policy dated 19.04.1999 - Impugned orders dated 08.11.2005 and 11.12.2014 quashed - [Paras 1-11].

Writ Law - Service Law - Pay Scale Revision - M.P. Revision of Pay Scale Rules 1998 - Distinction between revision and advancement - Respondents argued petitioner was not stagnated due to pay scale revisions - Court observed that mere revision of pay scale does not constitute advancement of pay scale - Held - Stagnation is determined by whether the employee moved to a higher pay scale than the one granted in the first promotion - Petitioner remained on the same scale of 4000-6000 despite 1998 promotion - Entitled to relief - [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Impugned orders quashed – Respondents directed to release recovered amounts with applicable bank interest within three months – Revised PPO to be issued within three months.

Writ Law - Recovery of Debt - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Installment Facility - Petitioner challenged coercive action for recovery of dues in KCC GECL and OD accounts - Petitioner requested opportunity to clear the entire outstanding and overdue amounts in installments - Respondent bank expressed no objection to the installment proposal as it was beneficial to the bank - Court observed total outstanding in KCC was Rs 812185 and total overdue in GECL and OD accounts was Rs 241002 - Held - Petitioner permitted to clear GECL and OD overdue in 2 equal monthly installments and KCC outstanding in 8 equal monthly installments - Coercive steps stayed subject to compliance with the payment schedule - [Paras 1-5].

Writ Law - SARFAESI Act 2002 - Default in Installments - Effect of Default - Petitioner granted breathing time to settle loan liabilities through monthly payments - Order specified that default in any single installment would entitle the bank to resume coercive recovery steps as per law - Held - Petition disposed of with specific directions on timeline and consequences of default - [Paras 5].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioner permitted to pay dues in installments – Coercive steps stayed on condition of regular payment.

Writ Law - Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 11 and 12 - Challenge to validity of award - Petitioners challenged the notification and final award for acquisition of land for the development of Maihar temple - Contended that they were not given a due hearing and that the land was situated far from the temple making acquisition unnecessary - Respondents argued that objections were decided as time-barred and the award had attained finality - Court observed that the necessity of land for public purpose is a disputed question of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction once the award is finalized and compensation deposited - Held - The award passed by the Collector under Section 12 is final and conclusive evidence between the parties - Challenge to the validity and legality of a final award cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of fraud or collusion - [Paras 1-21].

Civil Law - Special Statute vs General Law - Madhya Pradesh Maa Sharda Devi Mandir Adhiniyam 2002 - Section 33 - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Acquisition by agreement - Petitioners argued that under Section 33 of the Adhiniyam 2002 acquisition must first be attempted by way of agreement by the temple committee - Held - Section 33 provides for acquisition by agreement but if such efforts fail the matter is referred under the Land Acquisition Act - There is no absolute bar on the State to acquire land under the Act of 1894 for the temple purposes - [Paras 4-5].

Civil Law - Power of Review - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Sections 12 and 13-A - Finality of Award - Scope of correction - The Court examined whether an award once passed can be reviewed by the Collector - Held - There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for a review of the award once it attains finality - Section 13-A is restricted to the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes within six months from the date of the award - An authority cannot review an award to deduct compensation for structures on the ground of them being illegal as such an action exceeds the jurisdiction of clerical correction - [Paras 13-20].

Writ Law - Compensation for Unassessed Structures - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 11 - Direction for fresh survey - Petitioners pointed out a letter from the Land Acquisition Officer indicating that surveys for trees, bores, houses, and wells were not conducted prior to the award - Held - If assessment of compensation for houses, wells, trees, and bores has not been done the authorities are directed to conduct a due survey and compensate the petitioners suitably - Respondents directed to draw appropriate proceedings for acquisition if shops belonging to title holders are required but were not part of the initial acquisition - [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Petitions disposed of – Directions issued to the respondents to conduct a survey of structures and pay appropriate compensation if not already done.

Criminal Law - Discharge - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 250 - Computation of limitation for filing discharge application in cases of direct cognizance - Petitioners arraigned as accused in a case involving POCSO Act and BNS offences - Trial Court framed charges on the 17th day of their first appearance without affording an opportunity to file a discharge petition or conducting a mandatory hearing - BNSS Section 250(1) prescribes 60 days for filing discharge application from the date of committal - POCSO Act Section 33(1) allows direct cognizance by Special Courts without committal - Petitioners argued that they were deprived of their statutory right of hearing - Held - Legislative silence regarding the reference point for limitation in direct cognizance cases necessitates a purposive interpretation - The 60-day period for filing a discharge application under Section 250(1) of the BNSS in such cases shall be reckoned from the date on which the accused first appears before the Special Court after cognizance is taken - Statutory right of discharge is a substantive safeguard under Article 21 and not a mere formality - Order framing charges set aside - [Paras 1-72].

Criminal Law - Harmonious Construction - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 and POCSO Act 2012 - Interplay between procedural timelines - Conflict between Section 250 BNSS providing 60 days for discharge and Section 35(1) POCSO Act requiring recording of victim evidence within 30 days of cognizance - Trial Court proceeded with framing charges soon after cognizance to meet POCSO timelines - Held - Statutes must be read as a whole to avoid rendering any provision otiose - Doctrine of harmonious construction requires balancing the legislative mandate for expeditious trial under POCSO with the accused's right to seek discharge under BNSS - Procedural safeguards under the general law continue to apply unless expressly excluded by the special statute - Trial Court must record whether the accused intends to waive the right to seek discharge - If not waived charges can only be framed after considering the discharge plea - [Paras 20-61].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case disposed of – Order dated 08.05.2026 framing charges set aside – Petitioners directed to file discharge application within 15 days – Trial Court directed to dispose of the application within 2 weeks after hearing both sides.

Writ Law - Urban Land Ceiling - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 - Sections 2(o), 6(1), 6(2), 8(4), 9, 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 10(6) and 11 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 - Section 3 - Abatement of proceedings - Physical Possession - Delay and Laches - Petitioners sought to expunge revenue entries in favor of Urban Ceiling and Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) claiming they remained in possession of 1.004 hectares of land in Village Bara Sirohi - They contended no compensation was paid and no possession taken prior to the 1999 Repeal Act - State and KDA countered that land was declared surplus in 1997 and physical possession taken via Dakhalnama (possession memo) on 11.02.1999 under Section 10(6) - KDA further stated the land was developed into "Jawaharpuram" housing scheme and allotted to public - High Court observed that petitioners were aware of the 1998 mutation in favor of KDA but filed the writ petition after a delay of 12 years - Held - Perusal of Dakhalnama confirmed possession transfer to State prior to Repeal Act - Long lapse of time grants legitimacy to the possession - Writ petition filed after 11 years of possession transfer and 12 years of revenue entry is grossly time-barred - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-17, 25-26].

Writ Law - Statutory Notice - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 - Section 10(5) and 10(6) - Non-compliance - Impact of delay - Petitioners alleged that no notice under Section 10(5) was served before taking possession - Court relied on Supreme Court precedent in State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma holding that any grievance regarding non-compliance with Section 10(5) must be made within a reasonable time of dispossession - If actual physical possession was taken and the owner did not agitate for restoration within reasonable time such owner is deemed to have waived the right - Held - Belated challenge cannot be entertained solely because a Repeal Act was subsequently enacted - Fortuitous circumstances of a Repeal Act do not entitle litigants to rekindle a lapsed cause of action after 11 years - [Paras 19-22].

Writ Law - Extraordinary Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Delay and Laches - Equity - Discretionary powers - Petitioners approached the court nearly 12 years after revenue records were corrected - Court observed that delay defeats equity and writ courts should not indulge an indolent litigant who sleeps over their rights - While there is no fixed period of limitation for writ petitions they must be filed within a reasonable time - Held - The discretion to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction depends on facts and circumstances and a petition that does not explain inordinate delay must be dismissed on the ground of laches - [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Redemption of Mortgage - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Religious institution filed suit for redemption of usufructuary mortgage dated 02.09.1909 and recovery of possession - plaintiff pleaded discharge of mortgage amount under Section 5A of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 1978 as mortgagee remained in possession for over thirty years - Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed suit for redemption and recovery of possession - pending second appeal third defendant filed application stating he approached Executive Officer of temple for recognition as tenant - Executive Officer passed order dated 30.05.2024 recognizing appellant as statutory tenant and fixing monthly rent at Rs.31,920 - arrears of rent quantified at Rs.22,28,157 - parties sought dismissal of appeal based on modified relationship - Held - in view of the recognition of the appellant as a statutory tenant the Second Appeal is dismissed recording the settlement terms - [Paras 1-9].

Civil Law - Landlord and Tenant - Statutory Tenancy - Settlement during pendency of appeal - Appellant sought conversion of status from mortgagee in possession to tenant - Executive Officer of the respondent temple recognized tenancy and fixed fair rent - appellant agreed to clear outstanding arrears of Rs.22,28,157 within a period of eight weeks - Held - appellant granted eight weeks to clear arrears either in single payment or four installments - monthly liability of Rs.31,920 to continue - [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Appellant granted 8 weeks to clear arrears of Rs. 22,28,157 in single payment or four installments – Monthly rent of Rs. 31,920 to be paid regularly – Compliance report called for on 01.09.2026.

Writ Law - Emergency Parole - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner wife of life convict in SC No 322/2012 sought emergency parole for her husband to settle a loan with Madhava Vilasom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd - Arbitration proceedings initiated due to default created risk of property auction - Convict entered into a sale agreement with Mr Toby Martin and Mr Ajithkumar in the presence of the Jail Superintendent - Petitioner requested one week leave to clear title documents from the bank and execute the sale deed - Public Prosecutor confirmed the genuineness of the sale agreement - Court found that reasonable time was necessary to enable the convict to clear legal hurdles and execute the transaction - Held - Writ petition allowed granting four days emergency parole from 13.07.2026 to 16.07.2026 subject to conditions including a bond of Rs 100000 and restrictions on contacting the victim - [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Law - Parole for Civil Obligations - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Facilitation of property sale to prevent financial ruin of convict family - Ratio Decidendi - While convict is serving life imprisonment for serious offences the court may grant limited emergency parole to permit the convict to manage essential property matters that prevent the auction of family assets - Held - Emergency parole of four days granted to facilitate execution of sale deed and settlement of bank dues - [Paras 3-8].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Convict Sajeev Kumar V. granted emergency parole from 10.00 a.m. on 13.07.2026 until 5.00 p.m. on 16.07.2026 under specified conditions.

Writ Law - Jurisdiction of High Court - Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 - Sections 3(q) and 14 - Maintainability of writ petition as court of first instance - Petitioner challenged Para 17(vi) of the Central Administrative Tribunal order dated 11.11.2025 and sought various direct reliefs regarding disability status - promotional arrears - and damages of 75 lakhs - Court observed that Para 17(vi) of the Tribunal order merely permitted the respondents to revisit service benefits after providing notice and grounds to the petitioner thus complying with natural justice - Regarding other prayers for service benefits the Court held it was coram non judice - Court relied on the Seven Judge Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI to hold that the Tribunal remains the only court of first instance for service matters - High Court cannot bypass the statutory jurisdictional mandate even on sympathetic or humanitarian grounds - Grievances against fresh executive orders passed pursuant to liberty granted in a judicial decision constitute a new cause of action requiring initial adjudication by the Tribunal - Held - Prayer against Para 17(vi) rejected - Remaining service reliefs relegated to the Tribunal - [Paras 1-23].

Writ Law - Service Matters - Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 - Section 3(q) - Scope of service matters - Petitioner contended that reliefs concerning the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and human rights could be directly agitated before the High Court - Court held that the definition of service matters under Section 3(q) is exhaustive and covers all conditions of service including remuneration - seniority - and promotion - L. Chandra Kumar acts as an absolute bar to High Courts acting as courts of first instance for any matter amenable to the Tribunal under Section 14(1) - Held - Litigants cannot approach an incompetent forum and insist on a decision based on human rights claims - [Paras 8-15].

Writ Law - Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Sections 10 and 12 - Procedural requirement - Petitioner included prayers for initiation of contempt proceedings for alleged disobedience of earlier court orders within the main writ petition - Held - Contempt prayers must be separately agitated by filing a dedicated contempt petition - Liberty reserved to the petitioner to move an appropriate contempt petition if so advised - [Paras 2-3].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Prayer against Para 17(vi) of the CAT order rejected – Liberty granted to file separate contempt petition – Petitioner permitted to approach the Tribunal for remaining reliefs – Registry directed to transmit records to the Tribunal if requested – Tribunal requested to decide the matter within four months.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 7 - Petitioner a former Sub-Inspector sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs 10000 and demand of additional Rs 20000 during a criminal investigation - FIR registered in 2025 following a three-year delay attributed to departmental proceedings - Petitioner contended that delay was unexplained and CCTV footage lacked audio to prove demand - State opposed bail citing adverse departmental findings and necessity of custodial interrogation to trace money trail - Held - Corruption by law enforcement strikes at the very foundation of public administration and must be viewed with utmost seriousness - Parameters for anticipatory bail in serious offences like corruption require exceptional circumstances showing false enrolment or frivolous prosecution - Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented and necessary to ascertain complete details of the money trail - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-10].

Evidence Law - Departmental Inquiry vs Criminal Investigation - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 7 - Evidentiary value of inquiry reports - Petitioner relied on initial inquiry report by Assistant Commissioner of Police to claim innocence - Held - An inquiry report is merely an administrative assessment and cannot substitute a criminal investigation undertaken pursuant to an FIR - Although departmental findings are not conclusive proof of guilt in a criminal case they demonstrate that allegations were not baseless especially when proceedings resulted in major punishment - [Paras 4-8].

Criminal Law - Custodial Interrogation - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Judicial Discretion - Ratio in State v. Anil Sharma applied - Court required to equilibrate between individual rights and societal interests - Held - Effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring useful information and materials which would otherwise be concealed - Success in interrogation would elude if the suspected person is well-insulated by a pre-arrest bail order - Magnitude of the offence and role of the accused warrant denial of concession - [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No exceptional circumstances made out for grant of anticipatory bail.