Motor Accident Claim – Proof of Negligence – Dismissal of Claim – Appellant claimed injuries caused by rash and negligent driving of an HRTC bus, resulting in permanent disability (15% of the right limb) – Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellant failed to prove negligence by the driver or conductor of the bus – Appeal dismissed by the High Court, reaffirming that negligence on the part of the driver is a sine qua non for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act – No cogent evidence provided by the appellant to establish negligence [Paras 1-40].

Evidentiary Issues – Failure to Produce Material Evidence – Appellant did not produce any medical records from CHC Kumarsain or MGMSC Khaneri, nor did he examine any passengers of the bus – The petitioner’s evidence, including the police record (DD Entry No. 12A), did not support claims of negligence by the bus driver or conductor – Tribunal and High Court found no error in dismissing the claim due to lack of sufficient evidence [Paras 25-35].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error found in the Tribunal’s decision – Negligence not proven by the appellant, and thus no compensation awarded

Civil Procedure – Section 100 of CPC, 1908 – Second Appeal – Title dispute over land – Reversal of lower appellate court’s judgment by the High Court – Lower appellate court held that a mere suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable without a declaration of title, where the title was disputed – High Court held that the title of the plaintiff was sufficiently clear and not clouded by the defendant's claims, thus allowing the suit for injunction simpliciter and demarcation – Judgment of the trial court restored. [Paras 1-12]

Revenue Law – Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules – Tahasildar’s jurisdiction – High Court held that the Tahasildar could not correct the Record of Rights (ROR) after its publication based on facts that existed prior to the publication – The defendant’s challenge to the ROR correction was rejected as the proceedings were initiated long after the ROR’s publication, without involvement of necessary parties – Findings of the trial court on the invalidity of the mutation proceedings upheld. [Paras 10-14]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the first appellate court set aside – High Court restored the trial court’s judgment, allowing the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction and demarcation – Held that there was no cloud over the plaintiff's title to necessitate a declaration of title. [Para 15-16]
 

Criminal Law – Successive Bail Application – Rejection of Bail Based on Lack of Change in Circumstances – The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, after the rejection of the earlier bail application by the High Court and its dismissal by the Supreme Court. The case involved charges under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506(2), and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued for bail on grounds of parity and delay in the trial. However, the court rejected the application, citing the absence of significant changes in circumstances and the seriousness of the economic offences involved [Paras 1-23]. 

Economic Offences – Higher Scrutiny in Bail Matters – The court reiterated the principle that economic offences, due to their grave impact on the economy and public interest, require a stricter approach when considering bail applications. The applicant was accused of defrauding multiple victims of over ₹5 crore by using a fraudulent business scheme. The court stressed that economic offences pose a threat to the financial health of the country and warrant denial of bail where serious allegations are supported by substantial evidence [Paras 14, 17-22]. 

Successive Bail Applications – Requirements for Changed Circumstances – The court emphasized that successive bail applications are permissible only when there is a substantial change in circumstances that impacts the earlier decision. Cosmetic changes or repeated arguments without new grounds do not justify the granting of bail. The court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any such change, leading to the rejection of the application [Paras 12-15, 23]. 

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Held, the successive bail application was dismissed due to the lack of significant new circumstances and the severity of the charges. The court noted that there was a strong apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence and that the trial was already in progress. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings [Para 23]. 

Service Law – Recruitment – Seniority – Claim for Appointment and Seniority from 2007 Notification – The petitioner, Vijay Kaushik, applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police under the 2007 recruitment notification but was not selected as he scored 127 marks, one mark below the cut-off of 128. After being appointed under the 2009 recruitment process, he sought seniority from 2007, arguing that unfilled vacancies should have been filled from eligible candidates like himself​.

Unfilled Vacancies and Waiting List – Right to Appointment – The petitioner argued that vacancies left unfilled in 2007 should have been filled from a waiting list. However, the Court held that merely participating in the recruitment process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the respondent is not obligated to fill all vacancies unless a waitlist exists​.

Departmental Candidates – Parity in Appointments – The petitioner also sought parity with departmental candidates who were appointed against unfilled vacancies. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the departmental candidates were appointed under different circumstances, and their vacancies could not be claimed by the petitioner​​.

Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the CAT’s decision, stating that the petitioner, having been appointed in 2009, could not claim seniority from 2007. His claims were found to be without merit​.

Maintenance – Limitation on Arrears – The petitioner challenged the order directing him to pay ₹1,20,000 in maintenance arrears, arguing that the claim was time-barred under Section 125(3) CrPC, which limits recovery of maintenance arrears to one year – The Court agreed, holding that the learned Magistrate had erred by ignoring the earlier order recognizing the time limitation – Warrant for recovery of maintenance exceeding one year quashed​.

One-Year Limitation – Section 125(3) CrPC – The Court reiterated that an application for recovery of maintenance must be made within one year from when the amount became due, and the Magistrate cannot issue a warrant for more than one year's arrears​.

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 25.12.2023 set aside – Petition filed by the respondent for maintenance arrears beyond one year dismissed​.

Indian Forest Act – Illegal Transportation of Guchhi – The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, who was apprehended while transporting 13.7 kg of Guchhi without a valid permit. The trial court acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the forest produce was being transported on behalf of a third party with a valid permit – The Court upheld the acquittal, observing that the trial court's view was reasonable and based on evidence​.

Expert Testimony – Forest Produce – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the botanical classification of Guchhi as required under the applicable rules – The forest guard’s testimony lacked the necessary scientific data, making the prosecution's case weak​.

Non-Cognizable Offence – Lack of Police Jurisdiction – It was further held that the police could not have investigated the case without a magistrate’s permission since the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act are non-cognizable​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld​.

Service Law - Civil Law – Reservation in Promotion – Cadre of Head Teachers – Petition filed challenging the benefit of reservation to scheduled caste candidates beyond their entitled quota in promotions to Head Teachers – Petitioners contended that 20% quota for reserved category candidates had been exhausted – High Court directed the State to ensure that reservation did not exceed the prescribed quota as per R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab – Held: The State must ascertain the exact number of scheduled caste candidates promoted through reservation and adjust promotions accordingly to maintain parity with the 20% quota [Paras 1-10].

Reservation Quota – Calculation and Application – Petitioners argued that the reserved category candidates were being granted promotions to Head Teacher posts even after exhausting the 20% quota – Respondents countered that the promotions would be made in accordance with the total number of posts, ensuring the 20% reservation was respected – Court observed that promotions beyond 20% quota would not be allowed once all cadre posts had been filled under the roster [Paras 2-8].

Promotion Roster – Operation and Cessation – Court emphasized that once all 319 posts in the promotion quota were filled, the roster system for reservation would stop operating – Further promotions would be made only from the source that vacated the post, ensuring the reserved category did not exceed the mandated percentage [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition allowed – The State directed to conduct a review to ascertain the correct number of promotions granted under the reserved category and adjust future promotions accordingly – Promotions exceeding the 20% quota to be discontinued unless a new vacancy arises within the quota [Paras 9-10].

Grant-in-Aid – Reduction of Aid Without Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – The petitioners, government-aided educational institutions, challenged the reduction of their grant-in-aid from 90% to 80% without providing any notice or reasons for the change – Held: The court found that the reduction of grant-in-aid was carried out in violation of the principles of natural justice as no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners nor were any reasons provided for the change in category – The impugned order and minutes of the meeting were quashed as they failed to comply with Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 [Paras 5-8].

Power to Stop or Reduce Grant-in-Aid – Section 7 of the Act – The respondents argued that under Section 7(6) of the Act, the sanctioning authority is empowered to reduce, stop, or suspend grant-in-aid – Held: While the sanctioning authority has the power to reduce grant-in-aid, it must follow the prescribed procedure and provide an opportunity to the institution to show cause – The provision does not allow arbitrary reduction of aid without due process, especially when it has civil consequences affecting the education of students [Paras 6-7].

Requirement of Reasons and Adverse Material – The court emphasized the requirement to provide reasons for administrative actions that have civil consequences – It was noted that the reduction of grant-in-aid and change of category must be supported by adverse material or inspection reports – In this case, the respondents did not present any such evidence, and the impugned action was taken without proper justification [Para 9].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the order reducing the grant-in-aid – The respondents were granted liberty to proceed in accordance with the law if they so choose, provided they follow the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Gang Rape Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 376D, 458, and 352 of IPC for gang rape and trespass – Trial court sentenced each appellant to 27 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376D, 10 years under Section 458, and 3 months under Section 352, IPC – On appeal, Gauhati High Court finds prosecution’s case riddled with inconsistencies, lack of medical corroboration, and unreliable witness testimonies – Medical examination report showed no signs of injury or recent intercourse – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 27, 28, 29, 41].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Prosecutrix – Court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from medical evidence or independent witnesses – The prosecutrix’s version of how the accused entered her house varied between the complaint, her statement under Section 164, CrPC, and her deposition – Court also noted contradictions in the testimonies of related witnesses (P.W.5, P.W.6, and P.W.7), raising doubts about their credibility [Paras 26, 32, 33].

Circumstantial Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Medical report did not support claims of forceful sexual intercourse – Despite the alleged duration of the assault, there were no injuries or signs of struggle on the prosecutrix’s body – Children present at the scene were not examined as witnesses, which further weakened the prosecution’s case – The investigating officer (P.W.8) failed to recover any forensic evidence, such as the kerosene lamp, which the prosecutrix claimed was lit during the incident [Paras 28, 29, 34, 35, 40].

Delay in Lodging FIR – The complaint was lodged four days after the incident – Though the court accepted that the delay might be due to the absence of the prosecutrix’s husband, it observed that the reasons for the delay were not fully explained and might have prejudiced the case against the accused [Paras 25, 38, 39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 376D, 458, and 352 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Appellants to be released from custody if not required in any other case [Paras 42, 43].