Caste Claim – Rejection for Lack of Evidence – Validity Upheld – Petitioner’s claim for belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe was rejected due to discrepancies in ancestral records – Vigilance Cell report found tampered documents wherein "Mani" was altered to "Mana" – Court upheld Committee’s rejection, emphasizing the probative value of pre-Constitutional records over recent documents [Paras 18-20].

Probative Value of Historical Documents – Section 8 of Act of 2000 – Documents from 1918-1944 revealed caste entries as "Mani/Mane/Malgujar" for the petitioner’s ancestors – Court observed these older documents hold higher probative value than subsequent manipulated documents – Petitioner failed to rebut these findings satisfactorily [Paras 21-23].

Precedent – Scope of Entry No. 18 in Presidential (ST) Order 1950 – Citing Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad v. Deputy Director (2023), Court held "Mana" Scheduled Tribe must be read strictly and does not encompass sub-tribes like "Mani" or "Mane" – Petitioner’s reliance on Priya Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra rejected as factual context differed significantly [Paras 24-27].

Validity Certificates of Relatives – Lack of Evidentiary Weight – Petitioner relied on 12 caste validity certificates issued to relatives – Court noted these were obtained through fabricated or incomplete documentation and lacked affidavits establishing blood relations – Committee was justified in discarding them [Paras 28-29].

Decision:  The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the findings of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner failed to demonstrate belonging to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. It directed that the fabricated caste validity certificates issued to the petitioner’s relatives be reviewed afresh.
 

Jurisdiction – Show Cause Notice – Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act – Quashed – Appeal against the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 41-A by the District Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapuram, demanding deficit stamp duty – High Court held that Section 41-A applies only to registered instruments and cannot be invoked for unregistered documents – As the document in question was unregistered, the show-cause notice was found to be without jurisdiction – Notice quashed [Paras 14-15, 21].

Stamp Duty – Secondary Evidence – No Validation Allowed – The impugned notice demanded stamp duty on copies of documents seized by the Vigilance Department – Court held that the Indian Stamp Act applies only to original instruments, and copies cannot be impounded or subjected to deficit stamp duty – Held: Copies of documents are not instruments under the Indian Stamp Act and cannot be used for imposing stamp duty [Paras 21-22].

Role of Vigilance Department – Lack of Authority – Ultra Vires Action – The Vigilance and Enforcement Department directed the District Registrar to collect deficit stamp duty – Court held that such executive actions without statutory authority contravene the Indian Stamp Act – Vigilance Department lacks jurisdiction to act as a statutory authority under the Act [Para 14].

Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act – Applicability Limited to Original Instruments – The District Registrar relied on Section 33 to justify the demand – Court held that Section 33 empowers impounding of only original instruments voluntarily produced before the authority – Seized or secondary documents do not fall within its purview – Held: Section 33 does not apply in the present case [Para 22].

Writ Petition – Maintainability Against Show Cause Notice – Whirlpool Corporation Principle – Dismissing the writ petition as premature, the Single Judge failed to consider the lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice – High Court relied on Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks to hold that writ jurisdiction is maintainable when a notice is issued without jurisdiction – Appeal allowed [Paras 11-13].

Decision:  The writ appeal was allowed, and the impugned show-cause notice dated 05/06/2015 was quashed for being issued without jurisdiction. The High Court ruled that Section 41-A does not apply to unregistered documents and that copies of documents cannot be impounded for the purpose of collecting deficit stamp duty. The role of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department in initiating proceedings was also found to be without legal authority.

No costs were awarded, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
 

Writ Jurisdiction – Judicial Orders of Civil Courts – Scope Under Articles 226 and 227 Distinguished – Petitioners challenged rejection of an amendment application by a civil court under Article 226 – Court clarified that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 but can be reviewed under Article 227, as reiterated in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath – Held: Petitioners to convert writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 [Paras 2, 10-18].

Rejection of Amendment Application – No Interference Without Manifest Injustice – The Trial Court rejected an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, citing lack of diligence and potential prejudice to the respondents – Court observed that amendment applications in pending suits require strict scrutiny to prevent procedural abuse – Held: Trial Court’s rejection did not disclose any patent error or perversity warranting interference [Para 19].

Procedural Reforms – High Court Rules Amended Post Supreme Court’s Clarification – Court noted amendments to Patna High Court rules aligning with Supreme Court decisions, directing petitions challenging civil court orders to be filed under Article 227 as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions – Registry directed to facilitate conversion and prioritization of the case [Paras 20-22].

Judicial Discipline – Avoidance of Overreach in Writ Jurisdiction – Citing Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the Court underscored that routine interference in property disputes through writ jurisdiction undermines the administration of justice – Held: High Courts must exercise restraint in such cases unless significant statutory violations are evident [Paras 17-18].

Decision: The Court granted the petitioners four weeks to convert the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227. The registry was directed to prioritize the listing of the case, considering its pendency for over ten years.
 

Criminal Law - Robbery – Identification Without TIP – Conviction Upheld – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted and that the complainant identified them in court for the first time – Court noted the complainant’s testimony was consistent and trustworthy, and TIP is not mandatory where the court finds the witness’s testimony reliable – Held: Conviction under Section 397 IPC upheld [Paras 11-15, 20].

Use of Deadly Weapon – Non-Recovery Not Fatal to Prosecution – Appellants contended non-recovery of knives rendered the prosecution’s case weak – Court observed that recovery of the weapon is not mandatory for a conviction under Section 397 IPC if the use of the weapon is proven through credible testimony – Cited Aas Mohd. @ Ashu v. State (2021 DHC 4339) as precedent [Paras 18-19].

Contradictions in Testimony – Minor and Non-Material – Court addressed alleged contradictions in the complainant’s account regarding the seating arrangement of accused persons in the TSR and the location of his discovery post-robbery – Held: Minor contradictions do not undermine the overall credibility of testimony [Paras 16-17].

Procedural Deficiencies – No Prejudice Found – Alleged lapses, including discrepancies in the presence of members in the raiding party, were held immaterial as recovery of the stolen TSR and personal belongings was adequately proven by corroborative evidence [Para 21].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of appellant Manish Kumar under Section 397 IPC was upheld. His bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to serve the remaining sentence. The appeal of co-convict Rajeev @ Sonu was declared abated due to his demise during the proceedings.

Sexual Assault – Bail Refused – Prima Facie Case Established - The appellant, a police officer, was accused of aggravated sexual assault on a minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste, during an SPC (Student Police Cadet) training program – Court examined the case diary and charge sheet, concluding that the evidence prima facie supported the prosecution’s case – Held: Considering the gravity and heinous nature of the offense, bail denied [Paras 2-6, 14].

Factors for Granting Bail – Guiding Principles – Applied to Deny Relief - Court reiterated established principles for bail decisions: nature and severity of accusations, potential witness tampering, risk of flight, and broader public interest – Held: The gravity of the offense outweighed the appellant’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, necessitating continued custody [Paras 7-9].

Heinous Nature of Offense – Public Confidence Considered – Bail Denied - Offense involving sexual exploitation of a minor by a public official warranted stricter scrutiny – Court emphasized the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system when dealing with heinous crimes [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Bail denied, with liberty to reapply upon changed circumstances [Para 15].
 

Land Acquisition – Suppression of Material Facts – Writ Dismissed - Petitioners alleged non-service of requisition notice and sought release of land acquired under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 – Court found that the petitioners suppressed material facts, including prior writ petitions and orders passed in compliance – Held: Petitioners, having misled the court, are disentitled to relief under Article 226 [Paras 10-18].

Delay and Laches – Challenge After 30 Years – Claim Barred - Acquisition proceedings initiated between 1976-1992 and awards issued by 1997 – Petition filed in 2010, with no explanation for the delay – Court ruled that the challenge was barred due to inordinate delay and laches [Paras 19-24].

Joint Awards Without Apportionment – Not Grounds for Relief Without Challenge - Petitioners contended that joint awards without apportionment were invalid – Court held that petitioners failed to challenge awards made in 2007 or during earlier proceedings, rendering claims untenable [Paras 25-28].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed for suppression of material facts, inordinate delay, and lack of merit. No costs awarded [Paras 29-31].
 

Civil Law - Recovery of Dues – Burden of Proof – Absence of Proof of Service – Invoice Terms Prevail – Payment Liability Affirmed - The appellant argued non-delivery of courier consignments and failure to provide proof of delivery absolved payment obligations – Respondent claimed proof was to be provided only upon request per invoice terms, which was never sought – Courts held the respondent discharged the initial burden by producing invoices and other evidence, while appellant failed to prove service deficiency or request for proof – Liability affirmed for unpaid invoices with interest [Paras 1-8, 17-19, 28-30].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Scope of Section 100 CPC - Appellant sought interference with concurrent factual findings citing procedural and evidentiary flaws – Held: High Court interference under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law; no perversity or material irregularity in findings demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-25, 36-37].

Electronic Evidence – Section 65B of Evidence Act – Compliance Essential – Documents Excluded - Appellant produced an email alleging undelivered packages but failed to comply with Section 65B certification requirements – Trial Court rightfully excluded the email, and appellant could not rely on it to prove claims [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Trial Court and First Appellate Court decrees affirmed. Appellant directed to pay the outstanding amount of ₹1,76,128/- with interest at 12% per annum from the invoice date until realization, along with suit costs [Para 38].

Parole – Premature Release Pending Governor’s Decision – Granted – Petitioner, serving life imprisonment, sought release on parole pending the Governor’s decision on premature release – Court relied on Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where premature release policies were deemed applicable without arbitrary delays – Held: Parole granted for 90 days to prevent undue incarceration during pendency of the Governor’s decision [Paras 10-15].

Premature Release Policies – Timely Processing by Committees Mandated – Advisory Committee recommended premature release, yet the final decision was delayed – Court directed the Life Convicts Release Committee to meet bi-monthly to expedite pending applications, following Rashidul Jafar principles – Held: Delay in convening meetings cannot deny eligible convicts their rights under remission policies [Paras 12-13].

Parole Conditions – Accountability and Conduct – Court imposed conditions for parole: no involvement in criminal activities and liberty to seek extension if required – Directed jail authorities to communicate compliance via electronic means [Para 18].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The petitioner was granted parole for 90 days, with liberty to seek an extension. The court directed the respondents to ensure the parole conditions were complied with and ordered the Registry to communicate the decision electronically to the jail authorities.

Service Law – Deployment Order – Validity Upheld – Petition challenged a deployment order transferring the petitioner to the Belagavi Bench, contending lack of jurisdiction by the Chairman of the Tribunal – Court held that Section 13(1A) of the Administrative Tribunals Act grants wide superintendence powers to the Chairman, including issuing deployment orders – Deployment upheld [Paras 10-13].
Employee Conduct – Insubordination and Disobedience – Charges Proven – Petitioner failed to report for duty at the assigned Bench, signed attendance at the Bengaluru Bench after being relieved, and used inappropriate language with the Chairman – Court observed such behavior constitutes serious misconduct – Held: Punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect was lenient and proportionate [Paras 14-16].
Suspension During Disciplinary Enquiry – Justified – Suspension was challenged as arbitrary – Court noted suspension is a permissible administrative measure during disciplinary proceedings, especially given the gravity of charges – Held: No illegality in suspension or subsequent enquiry [Para 18].
Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Punishment Decisions – Court reiterated that disciplinary authority holds exclusive jurisdiction to decide on penalties unless manifestly disproportionate or contrary to law – Punishment of withholding increments upheld as reasonable [Para 20].
Costs Imposed – Frivolous Petition – Petitioner’s claims were deemed devoid of merit and indicative of misuse of judicial process – Cost of ₹10,000 imposed, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within six weeks, with a penalty of ₹100 per day for delay [Para 22].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the disciplinary action, including the withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, was upheld. Costs of ₹10,000 were imposed on the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within six weeks. Any delay in payment would attract an additional levy of ₹100 per day.