Writ Law - Passport Renewal - Passports Act 1967 - Sections 5, 6 and 22 - Petitioner facing criminal proceedings under PMLA before Special Judge - Trial Court permitted release of passport for renewal subject to furnishing indemnity bond and undertaking to surrender passport within five days of renewal and not to travel abroad without prior permission - Passport authority refused ten-year renewal and insisted on one-year validity under Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25th August 1993 on the ground that the trial court did not specify a travel period - High Court held that passport is a civil document enabling travel while actual departure is regulated by criminal courts - Held - once criminal court permits renewal without absolute travel restriction the passport authority cannot curtail validity to one year - Held - passport directed to be renewed for normal period of ten years subject to petitioner re-depositing the same before the trial court within five days - petition allowed - [Paras 1-38].

Constitutional Law - Right to Travel Abroad - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 21 - Right to hold a passport and travel abroad are facets of personal liberty - Any restriction must be fair, just, and reasonable - Held - indefinite denial or artificial curtailment of passport validity when criminal court has consciously permitted renewal is a disproportionate restriction on personal liberty - [Paras 20-22].

Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation - Passports Act 1967 - Section 22 - GSR 570(E) dated 25th August 1993 - Notification empowering exemption from Section 6(2)(f) bar subject to court orders specifying validity or defaulting to one year - Held - delegated legislation must conform to parent statute and cannot override primary law or impose positive obligations beyond the Act - Held - administrative instructions cannot override statutory duration rules under Rule 12 of Passports Rules 1980 when criminal court imposes no travel bar - [Paras 26-31].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent passport authorities directed to renew the petitioner's passport for a normal period of ten years from the date of issue within three weeks – Petitioner directed to strictly comply with the trial court orders by surrendering the passport within five days of its renewal.

Writ Law - Municipal Administration - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner dealer challenged seizure notice and sealing of retail fuel outlet premises by municipal authority for alleged unauthorised construction - Municipality claimed no building permission application was received and classified commercial land use incorrectly as residential - High Court held that municipality acted arbitrarily without jurisdiction and passed contradictory orders without considering petitioner representations - Held - writ petition allowed and respondents directed to de-seal premises and process building permission application - [Paras 1-21].

Writ Law - Seizure and Sealing - Municipal Administration - Unauthorised Construction - Municipal authority sealed business premises and issued seizure notice without statutory backing or jurisdiction - Power to seize retail outlets for malpractice vests with oil corporation and safety non-compliance vests with district authorities - Held - municipal seizure action is completely without jurisdiction - [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Seizure notice and consequential orders set aside – Respondent municipality directed to forthwith de-seal the petitioner premises and grant portal access to the licensed technical person for processing the building permission application.

Writ Law - Right to Information - Right to Information Act 2005 - Petitioner-in-person filing numerous vague applications under the RTI Act seeking internal administrative files server logs and court proceedings details - State Information Commission dismissing appeal on grounds that requisite information regarding police helpline and cyber cell queries had already been provided by registered post - Petitioner refusing to appear physically despite court orders and insisting on virtual hearings as a fundamental right - High Court holding that video conferencing is a mode of convenience and a matter of court discretion not a fundamental right - High Court ruling that petitioner misused the RTI Act to cause hindrance in administration of justice and dismissing the writ petition with composite costs - Held - impugned order of the Information Commission upheld and writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs 670000 in total - [Paras 1-26].

Constitutional Law - Video Conferencing - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Right to virtual hearing - Petitioner appearing through video conferencing in violation of direct physical appearance orders and claiming an absolute fundamental right to virtual hearings - Held - video conferencing is only to facilitate a litigant or an advocate to expedite adjudication and cannot be claimed as a matter of right - discretion vests solely in the Court - [Paras 2, 11-12, 16].

Civil Law - Abuse of Process - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Section 151 - Frivolous applications and heavy costs - Petitioner filing multiple applications to punish respondents for non-filing of counter affidavits despite records showing counter affidavits were already served and filing numerous vexatious RTI applications regarding judicial administration - Held - habitual filing of vague applications and misuse of statutory provisions warrants imposition of exemplary costs to protect administration of justice - [Paras 5, 10, 13-14, 18, 25-26].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Impugned order of the State Information Commission affirmed – Petitioner directed to deposit total costs of Rs 670000 in the Bank Account of High Court Legal Service Committee within four weeks failing which Registrar General to take appropriate steps.

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 33 and 34 - Appellants filed petition under Section 34 challenging arbitral award and order rejecting Section 33 application - District Court dismissed petition holding award was not vitiated by patent illegality - Appellants contended delay in filing Section 33 application ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act - High Court held that the thirty-day time period under Section 33 of the Act is inflexible and cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Held - appeal dismissed as barred by limitation and devoid of merit - [Paras 1-51].

Civil Law - Limitation - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 33 - Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act - Whether delay in filing application for correction or clarification of arbitral award can be condoned - Held - statutory scheme of Section 33 prescribes strict limitation without provision for condonation of delay beyond the stipulated period - application filed beyond thirty days cannot revive limitation for challenging the award under Section 34 - [Paras 21-30].

Limitation Law - Special Enactments - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 29(2) - Exclusion of Limitation Act provisions - Statutory arbitrations under the National Highways Act 1956 - Held - nature of the subject matter and statutory scheme exclude the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for applications under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - [Paras 31-49].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order and arbitral award affirmed – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Petitioner challenged an Order-In-Original imposing tax and penalty under CGST Act and Rules, alleging violation of natural justice on ground of non-supply of seized documents during adjudication proceedings - Petitioner contended documents including books of accounts and electronic devices were seized without inventory and not provided for reply to Show Cause Notice - Respondent raised preliminary objection on maintainability of writ petition due to availability of efficacious appellate remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act - Respondent asserted that Show Cause Notice and relied upon documents were forwarded to Petitioner's registered email IDs on two occasions - High Court found that the Impugned Order specifically recorded that documents were supplied via email and Petitioner's pleadings lacked specifics about which documents were not provided or prejudice caused - High Court observed a growing tendency to bypass statutory appellate remedy and reiterated that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances - No such exceptional case was made out to deviate from the normal practice of exhausting alternative remedies - Held - Writ Petition not maintainable - Liberty granted to Petitioner to prefer statutory appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act within four weeks subject to compliance with pre-deposit and other statutory requirements - [Paras 1, 3-6, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20].

Writ Law - Natural Justice - Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 - Sections 16 and 67 - Central Goods and Service Tax Rules 2017 - Rule 100(1), 100(2), 100(3) and 142(5) - Violation of natural justice - Non-supply of documents - Petitioner alleged that the Order-In-Original was passed in contravention of natural justice due to non-supply of seized documents for preparing a reply to the Show Cause Notice - Respondent submitted that the relied upon documents were duly forwarded to the Petitioner's registered email addresses multiple times - High Court examined the Impugned Order and found specific findings that the documents were supplied - Petitioner's assertions regarding non-supply were found to be bald and devoid of specific details or demonstration of prejudice - Held - Petitioner failed to establish a violation of principles of natural justice to warrant interference - [Paras 4-6, 8, 11-12, 15].

Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Exhaustion of alternative remedy - Exceptions - Supreme Court and High Court precedents emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when efficacious alternative statutory remedies are available, particularly for appealable orders - Exceptions require making out an exceptional case supported by proper pleadings and material - The Court noted a trend of bypassing statutory appeals, possibly to avoid mandatory pre-deposit - Held - Mere allegations of natural justice violation without specific proof or exceptional circumstances do not justify bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 107 of the CGST Act - [Paras 3, 10, 14, 16, 18-19].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – No costs – Liberty granted to Petitioner to file appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within four weeks from the date of uploading of this order, subject to compliance with all statutory requirements including the mandate of pre-deposit.

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors Act 2011 - Section 6 - Petitioners seeking bail in connection with large-scale financial fraud and illegal deposit collection by companies floated by principal accused - Investigation revealing principal accused misappropriated massive public funds while co-accused female relatives were shareholders and directors with company funds credited to personal accounts - Supreme Court setting aside earlier rejection and remanding matter for fresh consideration - High Court evaluating gravity of offences and individual roles - Held - principal accused facing grave allegations of masterminding financial fraud not entitled to bail - female co-accused having no role in alluring investors being women and entitled to statutory benefit under first proviso to Section 480 BNSS granted bail with strict conditions - appeal disposed of - [Paras 1-8].

Decision: Bail applications of petitioners Tandra Bhanjo and Dwipika Bhanjo allowed on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 500000 each with two solvent sureties subject to conditions – Bail application of petitioner Tusar Bhanjo rejected.

Criminal Law - Recalling Witness - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Production of Wrong Case Property - Petitioner filed FIR for demolition of wall and theft of brickbats involving injuries caused by knives and brickbats - PW-7 ASI Mukhtiar Singh produced bricks and brickbats having mark M instead of actually recovered bricks bearing mark 666 - Application under Section 311 CrPC to recall the IO was dismissed by JMIC and Sessions Judge on the ground that it amounted to filling up lacunae - High Court held that allowing the witness to correct the case property mark would amount to filling up lacunae by the prosecution as the witness had categorically stated that the produced bricks were used in the crime - Held - no illegality or perversity in orders of courts below - petition dismissed - [Paras 1-8].

Decision: Petition dismissed - trial court directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest - [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 138 and 397 - Petitioner-complainant filed a complaint alleging dishonour of cheque issued by the respondent-accused for repayment of a friendly loan - Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for referring the cheque to a forensic expert to determine the age of ink - Revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by the accused and directed him to furnish particulars of the Forensic Laboratory - High Court held that an order rejecting a request for forensic testing is purely interlocutory in nature and therefore a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC is not maintainable against it - Held - Revisional Court erred in entertaining the revision petition and interfering with the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court - petition allowed and Revisional Court order set aside - [Paras 1-17].

Criminal Law - Maintainability of Revision - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 397 - Interlocutory orders - Order rejecting an application to send a cheque for forensic examination is interlocutory in nature and a revision petition against such an order is barred under Section 397(2) CrPC - Held - Revisional Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision - [Paras 8, 12-13, 16].

Evidence Law - Expert Opinion - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 45 and 58 - Age of ink - Application filed at the belated stage of final arguments after completion of trial solely to protract proceedings - Signature on the cheque admitted - Held - application was a dilatory tactic and the trial court was justified in dismissing it - [Paras 4-7, 14-15].

Decision: Petition allowed - Order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P. No. 10/2021 set aside.

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 2015 - Section 12 and Section 102 - Bail to Child in Conflict with Law - Revision petitioner sought bail after lower courts rejected his application arising out of offences under BNS and POCSO Act - High Court noted that bail is the rule and detention in observation home is an exception - Materials on record failed to disclose grounds for refusing bail under Section 12 - Victim and petitioner had intimate friendship and petitioner had no criminal antecedents - Held - impugned orders set aside and petitioner admitted to bail with specific conditions - [Paras 1-4].

Criminal Law - Statutory Bail Grounds - Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 2015 - Section 12 - Refusal of bail - Grounds requiring reasonable belief that release would bring juvenile into association with known criminals or expose them to moral physical or psychological danger or defeat ends of justice - Held - absence of such negative factors coupled with detention since 06.03.2026 warrants release - [Paras 3-4].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned appellate order and Juvenile Justice Board order set aside – Petitioner directed to be released on bail subject to stringent terms and conditions ensuring non-contact with the victim and witnesses.