Challenge to the selection process - Fair Price Shop - Re-enquiry of Godown Suitability – Lack of Authority under Clause 20(iv) of WBPDS – District Level Fair Price Shop Selection Committee (DLFPSSC) directed re-enquiry into the private respondent’s godown suitability after awarding marks in the original enquiry – Held: DLFPSSC had no authority under Clause 20(iv) of WBPDS Order, 2013, or the notification dated 17th August 2021, to order re-enquiry post-assessment – Re-enquiry process held illegal and void [Paras 30-33] – Decision: The FPS license granted to the private respondent was quashed.

Bias in Selection Process – Article 14 Violation – Petitioner alleged bias in selection favoring the private respondent despite unsuitable godown conditions – Court observed the re-enquiry lacked justification and was conducted in disregard of the petitioner’s better suitability – Held: State action violated Article 14 principles of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness [Paras 25-27] – Decision: Selection process invalidated, and petitioner recognized as eligible for FPS license if meeting statutory conditions.

Judicial Review in Administrative Actions – Limited Scope – Reaffirmed that High Courts cannot substitute administrative decisions but can intervene when the decision-making process is arbitrary, biased, or contrary to statutory provisions – Decision: Intervention justified due to procedural violations and mala fide selection process [Paras 40-42].

Relief Granted to Petitioner – Issuance of FPS License – Court directed respondent authorities to issue the FPS license to the petitioner within six weeks if found eligible as per law – Held: The private respondent’s license was quashed, and further directions issued to rectify procedural lapses [Para 45].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Compensation Claim – Settlement Between Parties – FIR Quashed – Compensation Denied – Petitioner sought increased compensation after settlement and quashing of FIR – Court held that the quashing of FIR nullifies the legal basis for compensation – Petition dismissed [Paras 12–14].

*Compensation Mechanism – Linked to Prosecution – Victim's Settlement with Accused – Held: Compensation under SC/ST Act is contingent on prosecution and victim’s active participation – Settlement negates victimization under the Act, making full compensation unjustified – Reliance placed on Jhabbu Dubey Alias Pradeep Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. [Paras 12–13].

Principle of Restitution – Prevention of Unjust Enrichment – State funds to support victims should not be misused – Victims must return compensation if legal proceedings are discontinued due to a settlement – Observations emphasized the intent of the Act to deter atrocities through prosecution [Paras 13–14].

Procedural Context – Rule 12 of SC/ST Rules – Partial Compensation Provided – Respondents adhered to procedure by awarding compensation under section with lowest stipulated relief – Held: Decision not contrary to law [Paras 7, 10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No additional compensation awarded – Quashing of FIR post-settlement negates claim for further relief – Observations underscore intent and spirit of SC/ST Act and Rules [Paras 13–14].
 

Civil Writ - Caste Certificate Validation – Pre-constitutional Record Evaluation – Principle of Preponderance of Probabilities – Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe Validated - The petitioner contested the caste scrutiny committee’s rejection of his ‘Tokre Koli’ certificate, asserting that entries in pre-constitutional records describing his ancestors as ‘Koli Dhor’ should be accepted as consistent with the claim – The court noted substantial evidence, including historical and documentary records, establishing equivalence between ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ as both fall under the same entry in the Scheduled Tribes list – Held: The committee’s approach of treating ‘Koli Dhor’ entries as contrary to the claim was arbitrary and perverse – The petitioner’s claim was substantiated on the balance of probabilities, emphasizing that no additional advantage accrues by the interchangeable use of ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ [Paras 19-22].

Jurisprudential Consistency – Relevance of Supreme Court Decisions – Distinguishable Contexts Applied - Referring to the precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) and other cases, the court clarified that the principle disallowing reclassification of tribes by High Courts did not apply as both ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ are explicitly listed under the same entry – The committee’s refusal to validate based on pre-constitutional ‘Koli Dhor’ records was inconsistent with established principles [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Tribe Validity Certificate Directed - The High Court quashed the committee's decision and directed immediate issuance of a tribe validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to the ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe [Paras 27-30].

Criminal Law – Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC – Obligation of Husband – Petitioner sought maintenance for herself and her minor daughter, claiming marital relationship with Opposite Party No. 2 – Trial Court awarded ₹2,000 per month to both; Sessions Court denied maintenance to Petitioner but enhanced child’s maintenance to ₹3,000 – Held: Maintenance is a social obligation to prevent vagrancy and destitution – Maintenance granted to the wife and minor child upheld, recognizing her prima facie marital status and the legitimacy of the child [Paras 17-21, 23].

Marital Status – Prima Facie Proof of Marriage Sufficient – Strict proof of marriage not mandatory in Section 125 CrPC proceedings – A long period of cohabitation as husband and wife establishes a presumption of marriage – Declared by Civil Court that Petitioner is the lawful wife and the child is legitimate – Entitlement to maintenance confirmed unless stayed by appellate court [Paras 19-20].

Maintenance for Minor Child – Enhancement Valid – Sessions Judge enhanced maintenance for the child from ₹2,000 to ₹3,000 per month – No objections raised by either party – Enhancement affirmed, ensuring the child’s welfare [Para 21].

Execution of Maintenance – Non-Payment Consequences – Non-payment of maintenance makes Opposite Party liable to execution proceedings under CrPC – Petitioner permitted to execute defaulted payments as per law [Para 23].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order denying maintenance to Petitioner set aside – Opposite Party No. 2 directed to pay ₹2,000 per month to Petitioner and ₹3,000 per month to the child as maintenance – Orders of Trial Court and enhancement by Sessions Court affirmed [Para 23].
 

Bank Guarantee – Separate Contract – Rights of Legal Heirs – Petitioner, as the sole legal heir of her late father, contested the invocation of a bank guarantee furnished on her father's margin money – Held: Bank guarantees operate as independent contracts – Petitioner's claims regarding fraud and ownership of margin money must be pursued separately – No right exists to intervene in the DRT proceedings involving the borrowers and the bank [Paras 2-4].

Jurisdiction of DRT – No Interference with Bank's Actions – DRT appropriately dismissed the petitioner's objections, as they were unrelated to the recovery proceedings between the bank and borrowers – High Court found no infirmity in the DRT order – Petition dismissed, leaving remedies open for the petitioner to claim dues through other legal avenues [Para 4].

Principle of Independence in Bank Guarantees – Bank guarantees are autonomous and unlinked to underlying transactions – Court reiterated the principle that disputes related to the margin money or collateral cannot bar invocation of the guarantee if terms are fulfilled [Paras 3-4].

Decision: OP (DRT) dismissed – Petitioner directed to pursue remedies for recovery of dues against respondents 2 to 4 through appropriate legal channels [Para 4].
 

Amendment of Recruitment Rules – Validity of Preliminary Notifications – Section 35 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 – Prescribed Qualifications for Appointments – Amended Rules Not Finalized – Petitioners Not Entitled to Relief – The Court held that a preliminary notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board in 2008 to amend recruitment qualifications for the posts of Thakil, Nadaswaram, and Panchavadyam was not followed by a final notification as required under Section 35 of the Act – In the absence of a final notification, the qualifications prescribed in the final notification of 2001 prevailed, which required completion of Class VIII and experience, and did not mandate certification from Kshethra Kalapeedom – Petitioners, relying on subsequent certificate verification lists, could not insist on appointments, as the certificate qualification was not legally enforceable [Paras 11-13, 15] – Decision: Relief denied.

Appointment Based on Lists – Legal Validity – Mandamus Cannot Be Issued Contrary to Law – Non-Prescribed Qualifications Cannot Confer a Legal Right to Appointment – The Court ruled that no mandamus could be issued to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to appoint petitioners based on their placement in the certificate verification lists when the prescribed qualifications under law did not include certification from Kshethra Kalapeedom – Petitioners lacked a legal right to insist on appointments contrary to rules – Such directions would violate statutory provisions [Paras 15-16, 31] – Decision: Appointments rejected.

Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 – Effect of Recruitment Centralization – Post-2015 Appointments Governed by Recruitment Board – Board Alone Competent to Conduct Recruitment – After the enactment of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015, which came into force on 01/04/2014, the Devaswom Recruitment Board became the sole authority for recruitment to non-hereditary posts – The Travancore Devaswom Board lacked authority to appoint candidates directly based on its earlier lists – Petitioners’ reliance on pre-2014 processes was misplaced, and appointments could only occur through procedures prescribed by the Recruitment Board [Paras 20-22, 25] – Decision: Petition dismissed.

Age Relaxation – No Entitlement in Recruitment Process for Candidates Relied on Outdated Rules – Amendments in 2021 Apply Prospectively – The Court rejected petitioners’ plea for age relaxation in the recruitment process, holding that engagement on daily wages under interim orders conferred no vested right to appointment – Appointments to posts of Nadaswaram-cum-Watcher, Thakil-cum-Watcher, and similar roles would be governed by the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers' and Servants Rules, 2021 – Petitioners, being overaged, were not entitled to special consideration under the amended rules [Paras 29, 33] – Decision: No relief granted.

Judicial Precedents – Applicability of Old Rules to Prior Vacancies – Overruled Principle in Rajkumar Case (2023) – The Court held that the principle that vacancies arising prior to rule amendments must be governed by old rules (Y.V. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao) stood overruled by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajkumar (2023) – Petitioners’ reliance on old rules to claim appointments was untenable, especially when no finalized amendments supported their qualifications [Paras 26-27] – Decision: Reliance on outdated rules rejected.
 

Labour Law – Accident Compensation Employer-Employee Relationship – Determination by Commissioner – The Court upheld the finding of the Employees' Compensation Commissioner regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the first opposite party. Evidence such as receipts, accommodation bills, and cheques provided sufficient basis for this conclusion – Held: Employer-employee relationship established [Paras 7-9].

Validity of Insurance Cover Note – Extent of Liability – The insurance company contested its liability, arguing that the cover note lacked essential details such as engine and chassis numbers and had expired before the accident. The Court rejected this argument, holding that under Section 145(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a duly issued cover note is equivalent to a certificate of insurance. The appellant failed to notify the authorities about non-issuance of a policy post cover note issuance, as mandated by Section 147(5) – Held: Cover note deemed valid; insurer liable [Paras 10-14].

Burden of Proof – Responsibilities of Insurer – The Court clarified that the insurer bears the burden of proving cancellation of the cover note and refund of premiums if the policy is not issued. Failure to produce such evidence rendered the cover note enforceable – Held: Appellant's failure to discharge its burden confirms liability [Para 14].

Interest on Compensation – Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 – Compensation of Rs. 2,74,938/- with 12% annual interest and Rs. 2,500/- as funeral expenses, as ordered by the Commissioner, was upheld by the Court.

Decision: The appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed. The Court directed the appellant to pay the compensation awarded by the Employees' Compensation Commissioner to the respondents promptly.
 

Limitation - Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay – Application Rejected - The appellant sought condonation of a 4486-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to alleged professional misconduct by previous counsel and subsequent pursuit of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court held that the appellant, a corporate entity, failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay or take action against the counsel for alleged misconduct. The explanation was found unsatisfactory, especially as the appellant neglected its duty of diligence in monitoring litigation – Held: Delay not condoned; application dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Section 14 Limitation Act – Lack of Good Faith – Benefit Denied - The appellant claimed exclusion of time spent in pursuing proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court observed that the judgment under challenge was not ex parte, rendering the application misconceived. Further, the appellant failed to act with due diligence or in good faith, as required under Section 14 – Held: Time not excluded; appeal barred by limitation [Paras 9-10].

Professional Misconduct – No Action Taken – Explanation Unacceptable - The appellant alleged professional misconduct by its previous counsel but admitted to taking no action against the counsel. The Court noted that condoning the delay based on unsubstantiated allegations would unjustly condemn the counsel unheard, violating principles of justice – Held: Allegation rejected; delay not condoned [Paras 3-6].

Purpose of Limitation Law – Public Policy and Judicial Discipline – Court Reiterates Standards - The Court reiterated that laws of limitation are grounded in public policy, ensuring legal certainty and diligence. Unexplained delays and negligence undermine judicial discipline and fairness – Held: No interference with accrued rights of the respondents due to appellant’s inaction [Paras 7-8].

Decision: The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal (RFA 797/2024) and accompanying applications are dismissed as barred by limitation.
 

Bail in Money Laundering Cases – Section 45 of PMLA – Twin Conditions Evaluated - The Court considered whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for bail, including whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence if released. The petitioner was not arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence, raising questions about the prosecution’s case – Held: Petitioner satisfies the twin conditions; bail granted [Paras 14-15, 18-19].

Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - The petitioner has been in custody since 10th March 2023, and the trial involves voluminous evidence with no likelihood of early conclusion. The Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Held: Continued detention amounts to pre-trial punishment; bail granted [Paras 22-28].

Restrictive Bail Provisions and Article 21 – Constitutional Balance - The Court observed that restrictive bail conditions under the PMLA cannot override the sacrosanct right to life and liberty under Article 21. A balance must be maintained between statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees – Held: Bail granted with stringent conditions to address apprehensions of witness tampering and flight risk [Paras 23-25].

Decision: The bail application is allowed.