Service Law – Age Relaxation – Recruitment to Post of Fireman and Fireman Driver – Petitioners challenged fixation of upper age limit at 25 years in Advertisement dated 29.08.2023 – Petitioners contended that the posts were lying vacant since 2015 and no recruitment held due to COVID-19 – Court noted that age limit was fixed under 2021 Rules framed under Section 26(2) of the Odisha Fire Service Act – However, Rule 30 vested State Government with power to relax rules in public interest – Held: Petitioners’ claim for age relaxation justified considering precedents and comparable cases – Directed State to relax upper age limit by 3 years for 7 qualified petitioners as a one-time special case [Paras 5.5, 7.6, 7.7]

Administrative Law – Discretionary Powers – Rule 30 of 2021 Rules – Power of State to relax age limit provisions – Court held that Rule 30 expressly authorized the Government to relax any rule for reasons to be recorded – Non-exercise of such discretion in appropriate circumstances would be arbitrary – State directed to consider age relaxation in spirit of earlier decision in Nagen Bhoi v. State of Odisha [Paras 5, 5.4, 5.5, 7.4, 7.6]

Constitutional Law – Article 14 and 16 – Equal Treatment – Petitioners sought parity with similarly situated candidates in other recruitments like Constables and ASIs where 3 to 4 years age relaxation was granted – Court found State had extended similar concessions in Nagen Bhoi case and Writ Appeal No. 3321 of 2024 – Held: Denial of similar relaxation would violate equality principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 – One-time age relaxation justified [Paras 4.10 to 4.14, 7.4 to 7.6]

Public Employment – Interim Participation in Selection – Petitioners allowed to participate in selection process under interim orders – Seven petitioners found qualified – Court clarified interim participation does not confer equity – However, upon subsequent relaxation, qualified candidates to be considered for appointment subject to eligibility within relaxed age criteria – State directed to complete appointment process within 2 months [Paras 4.1 to 4.4, 7.7]

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed in part – State directed to grant three years age relaxation as a one-time special measure to seven qualified petitioners – State to take steps for their appointment against existing vacancies if they fall within relaxed age limit – Exercise to be completed within two months – Order not to be treated as precedent.

Criminal Law – Assault – Section 325 IPC – Section 324 IPC – Appellant Lalit Mahto assaulted the victim on the head with a spade causing grievous injury – Appellant Titu Mahto hit the victim on his back with the blunt side of the spade causing simple injury – Conviction under Sections 325 and 324 IPC respectively held proper – Trial court rightly acquitted appellants of Section 302 IPC as prosecution failed to connect death with the injuries due to non-examination of post-mortem doctor and Investigating Officer [Paras 13–19]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Conviction – Scope of Interference – Appellants challenged conviction relying on sole eyewitness being interested witness – Court held that testimony of PW-1, nephew of deceased, was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Absence of other eyewitnesses or I.O. not fatal – Conviction sustained [Paras 9, 15, 18–19]

Evidence Act – Testimony of Interested Witness – Sole eyewitness was nephew of deceased – Court found testimony reliable and natural – No material elicited in cross-examination to discredit witness – Held: Relationship alone not sufficient ground to discard credible testimony [Para 15]

Sentencing – Modification – Leniency for Aged Accused – Appellant Lalit Mahto aged over 80 years, ailing, and faced trial for over 25 years – Court modified sentence under Section 325 IPC to period already undergone (5 months) – Appellant Titu Mahto’s sentence under Section 324 IPC (1 year RI) upheld – Directed to surrender within 45 days [Para 20–22]

Decision: Conviction of both appellants under Sections 325 and 324 IPC respectively affirmed – Sentence of appellant Lalit Mahto modified to period already undergone – Sentence of appellant Titu Mahto upheld – Appeal partly allowed.

Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Spurious Drug – Dealer Acquitted – Conviction set aside – Appellant, a licensed medical store owner, convicted for stocking and selling substandard chloroquine tablets – High Court held that appellant had discharged his burden under Section 19(3) by disclosing full chain of purchase from licensed dealer (M/s Bhuvan Pharma) and licensed manufacturer (Nectarine Pharmacy) – No evidence to show mens rea or knowledge on part of the appellant – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 20–22, 26, 29, 31]

Burden of Proof – Section 19(3) Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Compliance Proven – Appellant produced purchase bills showing medicine sourced from licensed wholesaler, who in turn purchased from the manufacturer – Wholesaler confirmed sale to appellant – Manufacturer confirmed sale to wholesaler – Held: Appellant had no reason to suspect drug quality and had met statutory compliance under Section 19(3) and Section 19-A (U.P. Amendment) [Paras 20, 22, 26, 29]

Drug Sample Analysis – Failure to Test Manufacturer's Control Sample – Benefit of Doubt – Though Drug Inspector seized 118 tablets from same batch at Nectarine Pharmacy, he failed to send those samples to Central Drug Laboratory – Reliance solely on manufacturer’s internal test report found insufficient – Held: No valid comparative basis to conclude drugs at appellant’s shop were not from same batch – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant [Paras 27–28, 30–31]

Prosecution Lapses – Absence of Independent Witnesses – Coercion Alleged – No independent witnesses present during seizure or sampling – Appellant claimed samples not prepared in his presence, and he was threatened with MISA detention during Emergency – Court found procedural irregularities and lack of transparency by Drug Inspectors – Prosecution’s case not free from doubt [Paras 16, 18, 24, 26]

Mens Rea – Not Attributable to Appellant – Manufacturer Liable – No evidence to show appellant knew the drugs were substandard – Held: Only manufacturer responsible for quality control – Dealer cannot be held liable where proper source of purchase is established and statutory burden is discharged [Paras 20–22, 31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and sentence dated 09.02.1984 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Section 27(a)(ii) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged [Paras 32–33]

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused – Dock Identification vs. TIP – Held: Dock identification of an accused, who is a stranger to the witness, without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP), is a weak piece of evidence. Where the complainant failed to identify the appellant in the TIP proceedings but identified him in Court after a gap of more than 3 years, such identification casts a shadow of doubt. The failure to identify in TIP and subsequent identification in Court renders the evidence unreliable. – [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law – Section 397 IPC – Proof of Use of Weapon – Specific Context: Allegation of using a knife during robbery – Held: The complainant’s testimony regarding the role of the appellant was inconsistent. While the complainant attributed the use of a knife to the appellant in Court, he had failed to identify him earlier. Furthermore, no recovery of the weapon or robbed articles was effected from the appellant. In the absence of reliable identification and corroborative recovery, the conviction under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained. – [Paras 12-14]

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistent Testimony – Held: The complainant made improvements in his testimony regarding the role of co-accused, leading to the co-accused's acquittal. Similar inconsistencies and the failure of identification in TIP regarding the appellant entitle him to the benefit of doubt. – [Paras 13-14]

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 15]

Civil Law – Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Non-consideration of Arguments – Context where the appellate court recorded submissions regarding the maintainability of a claim petition but failed to adjudicate them – Held: Non-consideration of arguments that are germane to the issue constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. If vital issues raised are not considered, it results in a miscarriage of justice, warranting review. [Paras 35, 37, 57].

Civil Procedure – Execution – Claim Petition – Wrong Provision of Law – Order 21 Rule 58 vs Rule 97/101 CPC – Context where the claim petition was dismissed for being filed under Rule 58 instead of Rule 97/101 – Held: The argument that quoting a wrong provision of law does not disentitle a party to relief if the court otherwise has jurisdiction was raised but not decided by the appellate court. This omission required correction via review. [Paras 45(vi), 49].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Review – "Any Other Sufficient Reason" – Held: The expression "any other sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court. Where the judgment under review suffers from non-consideration of material aspects raised to challenge the Executing Court's order, it falls within the scope of review. [Paras 30, 54].

Decision: Review Petition allowed. Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2022 in A.S. No. 59 of 2020 set aside. Appeal restored to original number for fresh decision on merits.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Dismissal of Husband’s Petition – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appellant/Husband filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Divorce Act – Alleged that wife refused to care for his parents, expressed dissatisfaction over financial issues, and deserted him – Family Court dismissed the petition – Held: Grounds of cruelty and desertion not established by the appellant [Paras 1–2, 4–9]

Desertion – Wife’s Departure for Delivery Not Voluntary Desertion – Wife returned from Dubai to parental home due to pregnancy-related complications – Appellant admitted this in cross-examination – Court held that such return for delivery is a common familial practice and cannot be construed as desertion – Filing for divorce before even the child’s birth showed absence of genuine effort to resolve issues – Divorce on ground of desertion rightly rejected [Paras 3–6, 8]

Cruelty – Allegations Found Baseless – Appellant failed to produce credible evidence of cruelty – Claims that wife quarrelled over financial matters and neglected his parents were not substantiated – Court found these to be routine marital disagreements – Trial court preferred testimony of wife over that of husband after observing demeanour – No perversity found in lower court's findings [Paras 4, 7–9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with Family Court’s decision – Divorce rightly denied as appellant failed to prove cruelty or desertion – [Para 9].

Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – High Court Order Declaring Acquisition Lapsed – Contempt Established – High Court in 2016 held that land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation – State's SLP dismissed in 2017 – Despite this, State failed to comply, prompting contempt – High Court held: refusal to comply based on subsequent overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation by Manoharlal does not absolve contempt – Final judgment inter partes remains binding despite change in precedent [Paras 5, 7, 35–37, 44]

Precedent – Overruling by Larger Bench – Effect on Final Judgments – Precedential Value vs. Binding Inter Partes – Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal overruled Pune Municipal Corporation – However, High Court held that such overruling only removes precedential value and does not nullify judgments already attained finality between parties – Contempt not avoidable on ground of changed law unless original order is set aside by appropriate legal remedy [Paras 33–34, 36]

Articles 141 & 144 – Scope and Misapplication in Contempt Defence – Opposite parties invoked Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution, claiming they were bound to follow Manoharlal and not the High Court’s earlier order – Held: erroneous interpretation – Article 141 deals with law declared by the Supreme Court as precedent, not its application to binding orders inter partes – Article 144 does not permit executive officers to disregard binding court orders citing later case law [Paras 36–37]

State Conduct – Abuse of Legal Process – Failure to Honour Court Assurances – Departmental Blame-Shifting – Despite assurance before Court that compliance would occur within a week (in May 2022), no steps were taken – State departments blamed each other for delay – High Court observed such conduct was high-handed and amounted to misuse of departmental structure to escape judicial directions [Paras 8–10, 38]

Implementation vs. Execution – Maintainability of Contempt Petition – State argued that contempt was not maintainable as petition sought execution – Rejected – Court held failure to implement a binding order amounts to contempt, and contempt jurisdiction remains available where there is willful disobedience [Para 39]

Decision: Contempt established – However, further one month’s time granted to Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretaries of Irrigation and Urban Development Departments, and District Magistrate, Prayagraj to comply – If not complied, they shall appear personally for framing of charges on 05.01.2026 [Paras 43–46]

Civil Law - Temple Property – Fraudulent Decree – Pujari’s Lack of Ownership – Decree dated 10.01.1997 obtained by suppression, forged will, and concealment of necessary parties – Fraud vitiates all judicial acts – Pujari only a manager, not owner – Deity is juristic person; property vests in deity with State as guardian – Res judicata not attracted – Trial Court justified in declaring earlier decree void ab initio – Appeal dismissed [Paras 35–45, 56–57].

Fraud on Court – Nullity of Decree – Principles – Held: Judgment and decree dated 10.01.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 42-A/1996 obtained by deliberate suppression of necessary facts, non-disclosure of earlier litigation, concealment of rejection of forged will, and non-joinder of deity and Aukaf Committee – Applying S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, A.V. Papayya Sastry, Smriti Madan Kansagra, Vishnu Vardhan, decree is void ab initio – Fraud unravels everything [Paras 35–41].

Temple/Deity Property – Juristic Ownership – Guardianship – Held: Murti Shri Ram Mandir is a juristic person and perpetual minor; property vests in deity; State acts as guardian for protection of endowed property – Suit correctly instituted through SDO as guardian – Valid in law [Paras 49–51].

Pujari – Status and Rights – Managerial but not Proprietary Rights – Held: Pujari is only a manager/custodian, not an owner; cannot acquire Bhumiswami rights; cannot claim through guru-chela lineage; revenue entries of possession do not confer title – Reliance placed on State of M.P. v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (2021) 10 SCC 222, Mst. Kanchaniya, Kal Bhairav Trust [Paras 52–54].

Will of Guru Narayandas – Found Forged – Handwriting expert report (Ex. P/14), complaint (Ex. P/12), and admission of DW-1 establish fabrication – Gokuldas’ claim of succession rejected; his appointment as Pujari earlier set aside by Commissioner – His assertion of ownership illegal [Paras 40–41].

Res Judicata – Not Applicable – Held: Principle inapplicable where earlier decree obtained by fraud – Order dated 30.11.2006 already held suit maintainable; attained finality – Fraud is an exception to res judicata; decree can be challenged at any stage [Paras 42–44].

Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC – No Bar – Earlier decree not a compromise decree; deity was not a party to earlier suit; therefore, bar under Rule 3-A does not apply [Para 43].

Revenue Records – Presumptive Value Only – Held: Revenue entries (Ex. D/1–D/68) show possession for management; cannot prove title – Property recorded as “Murti Shri Ram Mandir Mafi Okaf” (Ex. P/10) confirms ownership of deity – Follows Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269 [Paras 45–47].

Pujari’s Eligibility – Customary Tradition – Gokuldas’ two marriages violated celibate Nihang tradition of math; disqualified from claiming spiritual succession – No personal or hereditary right to property [Para 55].

Maintainability – Suit by Deity – Valid – Learned Trial Court correctly held suit maintainable and not hit by technical bars – State rightly represented deity as guardian [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007 affirming that decree dated 10.01.1997 was void ab initio upheld – Earlier decree obtained by fraud, concealment of essential facts, forged will, and non-joinder of necessary parties – Deity is owner of property; Pujari only a manager – Suit validly instituted through State as guardian – No error in Trial Court findings – No order as to costs – Pending IAs closed [Paras 56–57].

NDPS Act – Regular bail – Section 37 – Commercial quantity – Recovery of 710 kg poppy husk from vehicle – Petitioners Gurjeet Singh @ Bhura Fauji and Satguru Singh apprehended at spot – Co-accused Lali and Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh implicated through disclosure statements – Challan filed and trial underway – Only 2 out of 34 witnesses examined and 15 given up – Held – Alleged quantity being commercial – and in view of nature and seriousness of offence – petitioners must satisfy twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act – On material on record no reasonable ground made out to believe petitioners are not guilty – or that they are not likely to commit offence while on bail – Rigours of Section 37 not satisfied – Bail declined [Paras 3–6, 8–9, 9.3].

NDPS Act – Long incarceration – Article 21 – Regular bail on ground of custody length – Petitioners Gurjeet and Satguru in custody since 10.06.2024 – about 1½ years – Petitioners Lali and Jagtar in custody since March 2025 – about 8 months – Held – In view of recent Supreme Court decisions stressing gravity of organised drug trafficking and strict application of Section 37 NDPS Act – mere period of custody of 1½ years in case carrying punishment of 10–20 years cannot be termed unreasonably long – Long incarceration by itself not sufficient to dilute Section 37 requirements – especially where serious allegations and commercial quantity are involved [Paras 5–6, 8–9].

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure statements as sole basis for implication of some accused – Petitioners Lali and Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh implicated only on basis of disclosure of co-accused – Argument that such implication is weak and that mandatory provisions not complied with – Held – At bail stage – in prosecution involving commercial quantity – Court not to conduct mini-trial – When overall material including recovery of huge commercial quantity and allegations of organised activity exist – disclosure-based implication alone does not enable satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 – No case made out for regular bail [Paras 4–6, 8–9].

Drugs Menace – Policy concern – Public health crisis – Supreme Court guidance – Court places reliance on UOI v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade SLP (Crl.) No. 9792/2025 and UOI v. Vigin K. Varghese SLP (Crl.) No. 7768/2025 – noting Supreme Court’s emphasis that drug abuse is a pervasive global and national menace – destructive of youth and social fabric – and that Courts must be slow in granting bail in serious NDPS cases involving commercial quantity – unless statutory conditions are clearly met – Held – These principles weigh heavily against relaxation of Section 37 rigours in present case [Para 8(i)–(ii)].

Section 37 NDPS – Interpretation – High Court’s own precedent – Court reiterates principles laid down in Jaswinder Singh @ Kala v. State of Punjab CRM-M-33729-2025 = 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4537 – that (i) twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are cumulative and in addition to ordinary bail tests – (ii) long incarceration may relax rigours only where delay is not attributable to accused and custody is truly excessive – and (iii) Court must sift material to form prima facie view but not enter into full-scale appreciation of evidence – Held – Applying these postulates to facts – petitioners fail to cross Section 37 threshold [Para 8(iii)].

Medical grounds for bail – NDPS – Petitioner Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh – old fracture and chronic osteomyelitis – Medical board report indicates right tibia fracture operated 27 years back – implant in situ – fracture united – superficial chronic ulcer requiring regular dressing and antibiotics – ankle fixed in plantar flexion – walking with limp – no surgery required – Held – Condition neither serious nor life-threatening – treatment possible in jail – Medical ground insufficient to override rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Regular bail refused [Paras 5.1, 9.1–9.2].

Section 37 NDPS – Antecedents – Relevance – Custody certificates show petitioners Gurjeet and Satguru involved in other FIRs while Lali and Jagtar have no other FIRs – Held – Antecedents are relevant component of “likely to commit any offence while on bail” limb – prior involvement of some petitioners reinforces refusal of bail – For others with clean record – seriousness of role and commercial quantity still prevents satisfaction of first limb (reasonable grounds of non-guilt) – hence no bail to any petitioner [Paras 6, 9, 9.3].

Decision: Bail petitions dismissed – Petitions under Section 483 BNSS for regular bail in FIR No. 83 dated 10.06.2024 under Sections 15, 25 and 29 NDPS Act relating to recovery of 710 kg poppy husk rejected – Court holds that petitioners have failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – long custody and medical condition of one petitioner not sufficient to dilute statutory rigours in a commercial quantity case – Trial to proceed uninfluenced by any observations in order [Paras 9, 9.3, 10–11].