Criminal Proceedings – Mischaracterization of Civil Dispute – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Cognizance Quashed – The petitioners challenged criminal proceedings initiated against them for alleged forgery and fraud in a property sale involving Waqf land – The respondents alleged the sale deed was based on a forged Waqf Board authorization letter – The petitioners argued that the funds were credited to the Waqf account and the dispute was purely civil – Held: As civil suits on the property and alleged forgery were pending, the criminal case was deemed premature and an abuse of process – Criminal proceedings quashed, with liberty to revive criminal remedies upon resolution of civil suits [Paras 18-22].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 17A – Validity of Approval – Writ Dismissed – The petitioners challenged the government’s approval for inquiry under Section 17A of the P.C. Act, contending lack of incriminating evidence, malafides, and violation of procedural safeguards – Held: The approval complied with statutory requirements, was based on preliminary material, and was not vitiated by non-application of mind – Judicial review limited to ensuring legality of approval, not probing merits of allegations – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 11-21, 25-31].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Role of Section 17A – Compliance Affirmed – Petitioners argued that approval under Section 17A cannot substitute procedural requirements for registering FIRs and conducting investigation – Held: Section 17A protects bona fide decisions by public servants but does not bar investigation where cognizable offences are disclosed – Material supported initiation of proceedings against petitioners as public servants during tenure at Corporation [Paras 14-20, 33].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – No Interference – Petitioners alleged selective targeting by authorities – Held: Allegations of selective action do not invalidate the legality of approvals; approval orders were detailed and reflected application of mind – Court refrained from substituting its judgment for that of the executive [Paras 28-32].

Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed. The court upheld the approvals granted under Section 17A of the P.C. Act for initiating inquiry and investigation into allegations of corruption and mismanagement during the petitioners’ tenure at the Karnataka Bhovi Development Corporation.
 

Employment Law – Submission of Qualification Proof – Subsequent Submission Permissible – Petitioner’s candidature for Anganwadi Assistant was rejected due to the absence of her Class Vth mark sheet with the initial application – Court held that the mark sheet submitted during objections to the provisional merit list should have been considered as per precedents – Authorities’ refusal to do so violated principles of fairness in administrative decisions [Paras 10-16].
Merit Calculation – Improper Deduction of Marks – Recalculation Ordered – Authorities awarded the petitioner only 30 marks for her Class Vth qualification presuming minimum passing marks – Court found she had scored 66% and was entitled to 43 marks as per the ICDS guidelines – Recalculation placed the petitioner at the top of the merit list [Paras 16-19].
Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Established Principles – Petition Allowed – Following Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779, and Smt. Mamta Shrivastava v. Women & Child Development Department, W.A. No. 387 of 2020, Court affirmed that subsequent submission of qualification proof is permissible if it precedes the finalization of the merit list [Paras 14-16].
Administrative Guidelines – Non-Binding Nature – Circular Rejected – Respondents relied on a non-binding administrative guideline that prohibited considering documents submitted after initial application – Court found this guideline inconsistent with legal principles and overruled its application [Paras 16-19].
Decision – Appointment Ordered – Relief Granted – Court quashed the rejection orders and directed the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Assistant within two months – Respondent No. 4’s appointment was set aside [Para 20].
 

Execution of Will – Proof and Attestation – Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act – Will Upheld – The appellant challenged the Will (Ext.B2), alleging irregularities and suspicious circumstances – Held: The Will’s execution and attestation were duly proved by the attestor, satisfying legal requirements – The registration of the Will lends credence, though not conclusive proof – No material discrediting the attestor’s testimony was presented [Paras 9-14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Genuineness Established – The appellant argued that the Will excluded certain heirs without justifiable reasons and was fabricated – Held: Evidence confirmed the testator’s sound mind and deliberate exclusion of certain branches due to proximity and care received from other heirs – Appellant failed to substantiate claims of fabrication or undue influence [Paras 12-15].

Handwriting Expert and Fingerprint Analysis – Limited Weight – The appellant relied on expert opinions to dispute the testator’s signature – Held: Variations in signature over decades are natural and not conclusive; contemporaneous evidence was lacking – Fingerprint analysis affirmed the authenticity of the Will, bolstering its validity [Paras 16-17].

Exclusion of Heirs – Testamentary Intent – Not Suspicious – The exclusion of the appellant and her branch was contested as unjustifiable – Held: A Will’s purpose is to alter natural succession; exclusion of certain heirs, when supported by credible reasons, does not make the Will suspicious [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s decision upholding the validity of the Will (Ext.B2) and dismissing the partition suit was affirmed.

Rowdy History Sheet – Personal Liberty – Deletion Ordered – The petitioner sought removal of his name from the rowdy history sheet, arguing harassment and absence of convictions in 20 out of 21 cases – Held: Retaining the petitioner’s name without any conviction amounts to infringement of liberty; inclusion prejudices reputation and liberty, contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution – Directed deletion of petitioner’s name from the rowdy history sheet [Paras 20-24, 28-31].

KAAPA and Kerala Police Manual – Maintenance of Rowdy Sheets – Procedural Compliance – The Court emphasized procedural safeguards under Clause 259(8) of the Kerala Police Manual, allowing closure of rowdy sheets upon proper recommendations – Directed respondents to comply with procedural mechanisms in similar cases [Paras 22, 30-33].

Judicial Review – Police Actions – Vengeance Alleged – Observations noted systemic issues of arbitrary inclusion in rowdy sheets, indicating possible vendetta by the police – Directed authorities to ensure lawful application of provisions, avoiding misuse against citizens [Paras 25-27].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to delete the petitioner’s name from the rowdy history sheet within four weeks. Claims for compensation and departmental action against police officers were rejected.
 

Labour Law – ESI Act – Principal Employer Liability for Contract Workers – Petitioner contended that contract workers, engaged via petty contractors with no direct supervisory control by KSEB, should not be covered under the ESI Act – The Court highlighted that under Section 2(12), establishments employing more than 10 workers are covered, and principal employers bear responsibility for ensuring ESI contributions – Held: KSEB’s liability as principal employer includes contract workers engaged indirectly through contractors [Paras 14-20].

ESI Contribution Demands – Exemption for High Earners and Contract Workers – The petitioner argued exemption for employees earning above ₹21,000/month and claimed that ESI demands were incorrectly calculated based on exaggerated worker numbers – Held: Court found that ESI dues assessment must consider eligible employees and should re-evaluate worker count and wages under Section 45A; erroneous assessments warrant reconsideration [Paras 21-25].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Hearing and Fair Assessment – Noting discrepancies in assessments and lack of consultation, Court ordered a fresh determination of ESI liabilities after a hearing – Held: Demand notices quashed; respondents directed to reassess KSEB’s contributions following fair procedure [Paras 26-30].

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed in part. Demand notices (Exts.P4, P7, P9, and P10) are quashed. Respondents are directed to conduct a reassessment after giving the petitioner an opportunity for hearing.

Right to Information Act – Disclosure of Candidate Marks – Petitioner, a candidate for Junior Clerk post, was denied information regarding marks obtained by other candidates on grounds of confidentiality under Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, and under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of RTI Act – Petitioner contended that public interest and transparency required disclosure of all candidates' marks – Held: Disclosure of marks obtained in a public recruitment process does not constitute an "unwarranted invasion of privacy" as it is related to a public activity – Disclosure justified by larger public interest, promoting transparency and accountability in recruitment process [Paras 5-7, 24-29, 35-38, 50-52, 54].

Confidentiality and Public Interest – Applicability of Rule 13(e) of Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules – Rule 13(e) exempts information affecting examination confidentiality – Court clarified that once an exam concludes, disclosure of marks does not affect confidentiality but rather enhances transparency – Prior disclosure by another district court (Wardha) found relevant though not binding, affirming transparency practices in public recruitment [Paras 43-46, 51-52].

Privacy Concerns – Section 8(1)(j) and Privacy – Marks in public exams not deemed personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) – Court distinguished between genuinely private information and information relevant to public recruitment – Found that disclosure serves public interest by ensuring recruitment fairness and transparency, which outweighs privacy concerns of individual candidates [Paras 25-28, 30-34].

Precedent Analysis – Supreme Court Precedent in Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal – Petitioner relied on Supreme Court’s clarification that disclosure of information related to public functions and transparency aligns with RTI Act objectives – Rationale of public interest and accountability reinforced need for disclosure in cases involving public selection process [Paras 31-37].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Orders denying petitioner access to other candidates' marks set aside – Direction issued to furnish marks obtained by candidates from serial nos. 1 to 363 in written/screening test, Marathi and English typing test, and interview within six weeks upon payment of prescribed costs – Promotes public confidence in recruitment process and aligns with RTI's goal of transparency [Paras 54-56].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Breach of Trust – Prima Facie Case for Summons – Petitioner challenged the order setting aside summons issued against Educomp and associates for alleged fraud and misrepresentation in a joint venture – Court found that allegations involved a contractual dispute lacking evidence of fraudulent intent at inception, dismissing claims under Sections 420, 406 IPC – Held: Mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless deceitful intent exists from the start, as required for offenses under Section 420 IPC [Paras 8-12, 24-28].

Civil vs. Criminal Liability – Contractual Disputes and Penal Provisions – The Court emphasized that allegations arising solely from contract performance disputes should proceed through civil channels, with criminal liability reserved for clear deceit or misrepresentation – Relying on precedents, the Court stressed that invoking criminal process to resolve civil disputes constitutes abuse of law – Held: Civil remedies sufficient; penal proceedings inappropriate for the presented allegations [Paras 30-33].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The Court upheld the Sessions Court’s order quashing the summoning order, concluding the dispute was civil and did not justify criminal proceedings.

Judicial Immunity – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – The petitioner argued that actions performed under Section 165 of the Land Revenue Code were judicial in nature, entitling him to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act – The Court noted that Additional Collectors are empowered to perform judicial functions per Section 17 of the Code – Held: Petitioner’s quasi-judicial actions fall within the ambit of “judge” under the Act, granting immunity from disciplinary proceedings based on such actions [Paras 5-12, 30-36].

Administrative Law – Competence of Additional Collector – The Court reviewed the petitioner’s authority to grant permissions under the work distribution order and found his exercise of powers as Additional Collector lawful – Prior High Court rulings confirmed that work distribution does not limit judicial functions to the Collector exclusively – Held: Petitioner’s authority under the work distribution order was valid, making the disciplinary action baseless [Paras 18-23].

Malafide Disciplinary Action – Impact on Career Advancement – The Court observed that initiating disciplinary proceedings after a prolonged delay, without findings of personal gain or misconduct, suggests malicious intent to impede petitioner’s promotion to IAS cadre – Held: Chargesheet quashed; proceedings deemed punitive and lacking in legal grounds [Paras 38-42].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The chargesheet dated 29.04.2019 and subsequent inquiry orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to IAS cadre, if otherwise eligible.