Administrative Law – Policy Decision on FASTag – No Judicial Interference – PIL Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the government’s circulars mandating FASTag for toll payments and imposing double charges for non-FASTag users – Held: The decision to implement FASTag is a policy measure aimed at seamless traffic flow and cannot be interfered with unless it is arbitrary or unconstitutional – The petition lacked merit as the policy was introduced in phases, with adequate time given for compliance – PIL dismissed [Paras 10-15].

Motor Vehicles and Highways Law – FASTag Implementation – Not a Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petitioner argued that compulsory FASTag use violated citizens’ rights by restricting cash payments – Held: There is no prohibition on cash payments; however, users without FASTag must use a designated lane and pay double toll as per Rule 6(3) of the 2008 Rules – The measure is regulatory and not punitive – No fundamental right is violated [Paras 16-18].

Judicial Review – Courts Cannot Interfere in Economic and Infrastructure Policy – The petitioner argued that the FASTag system lacked proper technological infrastructure and caused inconvenience – Held: Courts should not interfere in policy decisions unless there is clear evidence of irrationality or unreasonableness – Policy decisions on transport infrastructure fall within the executive’s domain – Precedents support limited judicial review of economic policies [Paras 14, 19].

Final Decision – PIL Dismissed – FASTag Policy Upheld – High Court held that FASTag regulations were legally valid and not unconstitutional – Petition dismissed with no costs – Interim application also disposed of [Paras 19-20].
 

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Legality of Adoption – Rejection of Adoption Based on Registration Date Held Invalid – The respondent sought compassionate appointment on the demise of her adoptive father, a Railway employee – The Railways rejected her claim, arguing that the adoption deed was registered on 02.06.2017 when she was above 20 years old – Held: As per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, once an adoption deed is registered, a presumption of valid adoption arises – The adoption was performed through customary methods in 2010, and delay in registration does not invalidate it – Rejection of the claim was arbitrary and against settled legal principles – Tribunal's order upheld [Paras 6-7].

Adoption Law – Validity of Adoption – Presumption Under Section 16 of HAMA – Adoption Relates Back to the Date of Ceremony – The Railways contended that the adoption deed was not valid as it was executed after the respondent turned 20 years old – Held: Adoption under HAMA does not require registration, and once a deed is registered, it raises a presumption of validity – Adoption ceremonies were performed in 2010, and the registration in 2017 only formalized the earlier act – Adoption was legally valid, and the rejection of compassionate appointment was unjustified [Paras 6-8].

Compassionate Appointment – Documentary Evidence – School Certificate Not Decisive for Determining Adoption – The Railways argued that the respondent’s school records did not mention her adoptive father’s name, proving that adoption was not recognized – Held: School records typically reflect biological parents, and non-mention of the adoptive father does not invalidate a legally recognized adoption – Compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely on this ground [Para 7].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court Ruling on Adoption Relating Back to Ceremony Date – Adoption Cannot Be Invalidated Due to Delay in Registration – The High Court relied on a recent Supreme Court ruling in Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others (SLP No. 14886 of 2024, decided on 29.01.2025), which held that an adoption deed, even if registered later, relates back to the date of adoption ceremonies – Following this principle, the rejection of respondent’s adoption was erroneous, and she was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment [Paras 9-10].

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT’s order directing the Railways to consider the respondent’s case for compassionate appointment within three months. The rejection of her claim based on a delayed adoption deed was found to be erroneous and arbitrary.
 

Statutory Bail – Cancellation – Submission of Chargesheet After Court Hours – Legal Validity of Bail – Appellants were granted statutory bail as the chargesheet was not filed within 90 days from their arrest – Chargesheet was filed at the end of the 90th day but after court hours – The NIA Court later cancelled bail without an application for cancellation – Held: The statutory bail granted cannot be questioned as the chargesheet was filed after the official court hours on the 90th day – Statutory bail, once granted, cannot be arbitrarily revoked unless conditions for cancellation are met – Reliance placed on State through CBI v. T Gangi Reddy (2023) 4 SCC 253 [Paras 9-10].

Bail Cancellation – Addition of Graver Offences – Absence of Misuse of Bail – The NIA, upon taking over the investigation, added charges under the SC/ST Act and Explosive Substances Act – The appellants were not informed about the addition of graver charges – No allegations of bail conditions being violated – Held: Mere addition of graver charges does not automatically justify bail cancellation – No evidence of tampering with witnesses or non-cooperation with the investigation – Default bail cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that a chargesheet has later been filed – Reliance placed on Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 17 SCC 326 [Paras 16-18].

Jurisdiction of NIA Court – Concurrent Powers of Special Court – Improper Exercise of Jurisdiction – The Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta acted as an appellate forum over the Special Court, Tamluk, despite both courts having concurrent jurisdiction – Held: The NIA Court erred in reassessing the validity of statutory bail granted by a coordinate court – Absence of a prosecution plea for bail cancellation further weakens the NIA Court’s reasoning – Non-application of judicial mind evident in the order [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Restored – The High Court set aside the order dated 21.08.2024 cancelling the appellants' bail – Appellants directed to furnish fresh bail bonds of ₹50,000/- each with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each, subject to conditions – Appellants to report weekly to Moyna Police Station and not leave the jurisdiction except for court proceedings – Any violation of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 19-20].
 

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony – Appellants, a mother and son, were convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly murdering the deceased over a property dispute – The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the deceased’s son (PW2), who claimed to be an eyewitness – Held: PW2’s testimony was inconsistent, unnatural, and contradicted by other evidence – Discrepancies in the timeline of events and the conduct of PW2 raised serious doubts about his credibility – Conviction based solely on an unreliable eyewitness is unsustainable [Paras 14-17].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in FIR Registration – Effect on Investigation – FIR registered at 10:30 PM despite police reaching the crime scene at 7:30 PM – Statement given at the scene was suppressed, and a fresh FIR was recorded later – Held: The unexplained delay in FIR registration and suppression of initial statements taint the prosecution’s case – Deliberate manipulation of records raises doubts on the entire investigation, leading to acquittal [Paras 15-16].

Evidence Law – Recovery of Weapon – Admissibility – Prosecution relied on the recovery of MO2 (chopper) based on the confession of the first accused – Independent witness (PW3) stated that the weapon was handed over by a third party, not the accused – Held: Recovery evidence is inadmissible as it does not establish a clear link between the accused and the offence – Recovery cannot form the basis of conviction in absence of other reliable evidence [Paras 18].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – Conviction in criminal cases must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt – Any serious doubt in the prosecution's case must lead to acquittal – Held: Inconsistencies in witness statements, procedural irregularities in the investigation, and lack of substantive evidence create a reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt – Benefit of doubt granted, leading to acquittal [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 21].
 

Passports Act – Renewal of Passport – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner, an Indian citizen residing in the USA, sought renewal of his passport bearing No. M5407876, which was due to expire on 08.09.2025 – Renewal was denied by the Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru (Respondent No.2) due to pending criminal proceedings under Sections 354A, 354D, 504, and 420 IPC – Held: Mere pendency of a criminal complaint under investigation does not attract the bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 – The embargo applies only when cognizance has been taken by the Court – Reliance placed on Sharath Chandrasekhar v. Union of India (WP No. 18066/2023, decided on 14.02.2024) – Writ of Mandamus issued directing respondents to consider the reissuance of the passport if all other conditions are satisfied [Paras 3-5].

Legal Precedent – Applicability of Prior Rulings – Karnataka High Court had previously held that the refusal of a passport renewal is not justified solely on the ground of a pending investigation – Official Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and Notification dated 25.08.1993 considered – Held: Unless cognizance of the offence has been taken by a competent Court, the denial of passport renewal is not legally tenable [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to process the reissuance of the petitioner’s passport, subject to all other conditions being met – Compliance to be ensured within one week from the receipt of the Court’s order [Paras 5].
 

Criminal Law - Murder Trial – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence – Guilt Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Acquittal Ordered – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on a dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate – The prosecution alleged that the appellant poured kerosene oil on the deceased and set her on fire – The High Court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including the lack of direct evidence, contradictory witness testimonies, and an unexplained delay in recording the dying declaration – The defense witnesses, including the couple’s minor daughter, supported the theory of self-immolation – Held: The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the sole inference of guilt – Benefit of the doubt granted, and conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside [Paras 21-22, 42].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Reliability – Expectation of Death as a Factor – Prosecution Case Not Free from Doubt – The prosecution relied on the dying declaration of the victim to convict the appellant – High Court held that a dying declaration must be made under an expectation of imminent death – In this case, the victim survived for nearly 49 days after the incident, was discharged from the hospital, and later succumbed to septicemia – Medical evidence showed that patients with 35-40% burns often survive – The delay in recording the statement and the absence of corroboration from neighbors weakened the prosecution’s case – Held: The dying declaration lacked credibility and could not be the sole basis for conviction [Paras 24-27, 31-33].

Medical Evidence – Septicemia as Cause of Death – Causation Not Directly Established – The victim suffered 35-40% burns and later died of septicemia – Medical evidence confirmed that burns of this degree are often survivable and that septicemia is a delayed cause of death – The prosecution failed to establish that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – In the absence of a direct nexus between the burn injuries and death, conviction under Section 302 IPC was held unsustainable – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt, conviction set aside [Paras 25-27, 29-30].

Deficiencies in Investigation – Failure to Record Statements of Key Witnesses – Impact on Case – The investigating officer failed to record statements of crucial witnesses, including neighbors and the appellant’s minor daughter – The site plan did not support the prosecution’s claim that the appellant fled through a rear exit – No forensic evidence established that the appellant handled the kerosene bottles – The prosecution’s case was marred by lapses in investigation, creating substantial doubt about the appellant’s guilt – Held: The failure to conduct a fair and complete investigation further weakened the case against the accused [Paras 36-41].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant to Be Released – High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – The defense established a plausible alternative hypothesis that the deceased committed self-immolation – No direct evidence linked the appellant to the act of setting the victim on fire – Held: The appellant is acquitted, and his conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside – He shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 42-43].
 

Criminal Writ - Preventive Detention – Detention of Person Already in Custody – Validity of Detention Order – Petitioner challenged the preventive detention order under the PITNDPS Act, arguing that he was already in judicial custody and there was no compelling necessity for preventive detention – The Court held that detention orders can be issued even for persons in custody if there is a real possibility of release and likelihood of continued criminal activity – The detaining authority had considered the petitioner’s past conduct, repeated bail applications, and the magnitude of the offenses before issuing the detention order – Held: The detention order was valid and justified [Paras 7-9, 20].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Judicial Review – The petitioner argued that the detention order was passed mechanically without application of mind – The Court reiterated that judicial review in preventive detention matters is limited to assessing whether the detaining authority applied its mind and had relevant material to justify the detention – Held: The detaining authority’s satisfaction was based on cogent material, and no interference was warranted [Paras 10-12].

Preventive Detention – Bail Applications and Likelihood of Release – Justification for Detention – The petitioner had filed multiple bail applications in pending NDPS cases, with the last one dismissed just three days before the detention order – The Court observed that the detaining authority had rightly apprehended the likelihood of release and potential recurrence of illicit drug activities – Held: The petitioner’s past criminal record and repeated attempts to secure bail justified the issuance of the detention order [Paras 13-14].

Delay in Passing Detention Order – Live and Proximate Link with Past Conduct – The petitioner contended that the detention order was based on stale incidents and lacked proximity to any present or future threat – The Court rejected this argument, holding that the petitioner’s continuous engagement in illicit drug trafficking and the repeated filing of bail applications established a live and proximate link – Held: The detention order was not vitiated by delay [Paras 17-18].

Non-Supply of Material Documents – Impact on Detention Order – Petitioner alleged that he was not provided material relied upon in the detention order, including previous criminal records – The Court held that only documents forming the basis of the detention must be supplied, and past criminal records cited in the counter affidavit do not affect the validity of the detention order – Held: The non-supply of additional material did not vitiate the detention order [Paras 15-16].

Writ Petition Dismissed – No Infirmity in Detention Order – High Court upheld the detention order, holding that the detaining authority had complied with statutory safeguards, assessed relevant material, and applied its mind before issuing the order – Held: No ground for interference—Writ petition dismissed [Paras 20-21].
 

SARFAESI Act – Possession without Proper Delegation – Violation of Section 14(1-A) – Possession by Additional Commissioner of Police without being an officer subordinate to the District Magistrate (ADM) – ADM's order delegating powers found beyond statutory limit – Held: Possession taken contrary to the SARFAESI Act and violative of Article 300A – Illegal possession set aside [Paras 18-22].

Movable Property Seizure – Absence of Notice – Deprivation without Due Process – Petitioners dispossessed of movable assets without notice or proper proceedings – Failure to comply with express directions of DRT and ADM to serve notice on all guarantors – Held: Violation of mandatory requirement of law and breach of Article 300A rights [Paras 21-22].

Writ Maintainability – Alternative Remedy Not a Bar – Availability of remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI Act does not preclude writ when possession is taken illegally – State machinery and police involved in deprivation without lawful authority – Held: Writ petition maintainable in the facts of the case [Paras 15, 20, 23].

Police Involvement – Unauthorized Assistance to Recovery Agents – Police acted without proper delegation under Section 14 – Possession proceedings conducted solely by recovery agents with police aid – No ADM or properly delegated officer present during possession – Held: Process vitiated for want of lawful authority – Supreme Court ruling in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur applied [Paras 11-13, 24].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Possession proceedings quashed – Liberty granted to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in compliance with Section 14(1-A) of SARFAESI Act – ADM directed to oversee future compliance – Petition disposed of accordingly [Para 25].

Land Use Conversion – School to Nursing Home – Statutory Breach – Conversion Set Aside – Court held that the impugned layout plan dated 25.10.2021 violated the procedure under Section 79(3) of the HSVP Act and 
Sections 4 & 5 of the 1963 Act – No public objections were invited – Authorities acted ultra vires – Layout plan quashed [Paras 6–9, 14–17]. 
Natural Justice – Absence of Public Notice – Fatal to Layout Change – Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of prior publication and opportunity for objections before amending layout or development plans – Conversion without this process deemed illegal and arbitrary [Paras 7–8, 14]. 
Promissory Estoppel – Deviation from Original Layout – Held Arbitrary – Petitioners were allottees relying on educational land use – Reversing that without process violated legitimate expectations – Change deemed unjustified in absence of public interest [Paras 3, 6, 9]. 
Healthcare Justification – Urban Demand Not Sufficient – No Override of Legal Process – State's reasoning of increasing healthcare density held insufficient to bypass due process – Administrative efficiency cannot trump legal mandates [Paras 9, 16–17]. 
 Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned revised layout plan dated 25.10.2021 quashed – State restrained from acting upon it or conducting e-auction of converted sites – Directed to follow statutory procedure before any future changes [Paras 18–20].