Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Effect on Disciplinary Action – Constable dismissed from service on charges of misconduct arising out of alleged involvement in narcotic trafficking under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act – Criminal court acquitted the respondent recording categorical finding that prosecution failed to establish his involvement and that plea of alibi stood proved by cogent documentary and oral evidence – Disciplinary authority proceeded to dismiss despite acquittal, relying on same set of witnesses whose testimony was discarded by the criminal court – Single Judge set aside dismissal and directed reinstatement – Held: Where the foundation of the departmental proceedings rests on the same factual matrix as the criminal case and the same witnesses whose evidence was rejected by the criminal court form the basis of the inquiry, the departmental proceedings are based on "no evidence" and are unsustainable – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 3–21].

Plea of Alibi – Established by Cogent Evidence – Effect on Departmental Proceedings – Respondent established during criminal trial that on the date of alleged offence he was undergoing official training at Phulbani from 25.05.2015 to 30.05.2015 – Training records and testimony of D.W.1 accepted by the trial court – Criminal court recorded that respondent was not even present at the spot – Inquiry officer relied on the very same witnesses whose statements before the criminal court were rejected – Held: Once the plea of alibi is judicially accepted and attains finality, the entire genesis of the departmental charge stands washed away on facts – Departmental findings based on no evidence [Paras 17–20].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Matters – Perversity of Findings – Appellants contended that the Single Judge exceeded permissible limits of judicial review by re-appreciating evidence – Held: High Court's interference was not by way of appellate re-appreciation but on the ground that the findings of the disciplinary authority were based on no evidence, being premised entirely on witnesses whose version stood judicially discredited – Interference was warranted and cannot be faulted on law or facts [Paras 13–14, 20].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge setting aside dismissal and directing reinstatement with all consequential service and financial benefits upheld.

UAPA – Section 43-D(5) – Bail – Prima Facie Standard – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 – Appellants arrested between 21-22.10.2021 and in custody for over four years – Charged as OGWs and hybrid cadres for TRF, alleged to have shared extremist content, propagated IS ideology and attended radicalising lectures – Trial Court rejected bail in March 2023 – Charges framed in July 2024 under Sections 120B, 121A IPC and Section 18 UAPA; discharged of Sections 20, 38, 39 and 40 UAPA – Prosecution proposes to examine 359 witnesses, only 12 examined – Trial likely to take decades at present pace – Held: Appellants have met the test for bail as laid down in Gulfisha Fatima – Role attributed predominantly digital and non-violent – No allegation of creating groups or independently sharing content – Key prosecution witness X-8 failed to identify accused no. 14 before Trial Court – Continued detention disproportionate given the limited role attributed – Appeals allowed – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 49-59].

Section 43-D(5) UAPA – Scope of Inquiry – Structured Test – The expression "prima facie true" mandates a threshold judicial inquiry, neither perfunctory nor adjudicatory – Inquiry is accused-specific and directed to individual role and attribution – Bail stage is not a forum for evaluating defences or conducting a mini-trial – Court must examine: (i) whether prosecution material discloses a prima facie case satisfying statutory ingredients; (ii) whether role attributed reflects a real and meaningful nexus to unlawful/terrorist activity as distinct from mere association or peripheral presence; and (iii) whether the statutory threshold is crossed qua the individual accused – Where requirements are not met, the embargo on bail stands lifted [Para 45].

Article 21 – Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – Differentiated Inquiry – All accused cannot be treated identically irrespective of their roles – Conspiracy law explaining joint liability does not answer the separate question of how long each individual's liberty may be restrained before guilt is proved – Bail adjudication requires consideration of what is attributed to each accused, how that fits within statutory ingredients, and whether continued detention serves a legitimate purpose – Differentiation is not an exception to conspiracy law but a constitutional discipline imposed upon bail jurisdiction – Where prolonged custody disproportionately burdens those with limited roles, the balance between individual liberty and collective security may call for conditional release [Para 47].

Terrorist Activity – Ideological Alignment vs. Operational Participation – Possession of Extremist Digital Content – Sympathy for a cause or possession of literature and digital content associated with a banned organisation does not by itself constitute membership of such organisation or active participation in its terrorist activities, absent a demonstrated nexus to actual terrorist acts – Distinction between ideological alignment and operational participation is constitutionally significant – Material found on digital devices propagating anti-national content may not justify continuation of prolonged detention at trial stage where appellants are not alleged to be creators of such content or to have independently disseminated it [Para 53].

Bail Conditions – UAPA Matters – Bail granted subject to: personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; no travel abroad without permission; surrender of passports; weekly attendance before SHO; no contact with witnesses; no joining of social media groups circulating anti-national material; no dissemination of such material; full cooperation with trial; no media comments – Health condition of appellant Haris Nisar Langoo (cervical spondylosis) noted as additional relevant factor though not independently decisive [Paras 56, 60].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned order of Special Court (NIA) dated 03.03.2023 set aside – Appellants directed to be released on bail subject to conditions specified – Observations not to be construed as expression on merits of the case [Paras 59-64].

Tenancy Law – Statutory Extinction of Tenancy – Section 2(g), West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Eviction – Judgment on Admission – Original tenant Suresh Chawla died in 2004 – His widow inherited tenancy and died in 2021 – Respondent-son continued in possession without paying rent since January 2010 – No fresh or independent tenancy created in favour of respondent – Five-year statutory protection under Section 2(g) expired in November 2009 – Respondent's admission in a prior suit that upon his father's death he and his mother jointly inherited the tenancy triggers Section 2(g) automatically – Held: All ingredients of Section 2(g) stand fulfilled; no further evidence required; Trial Court's order dismissing application for judgment on admission is erroneous – Revision allowed; decree for khas possession directed [Paras 12–17].

Judgment on Admissions – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – Scope and Object – Provision is enabling, discretionary and permissive – Object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of admission without awaiting full trial – Court may act on constructive admissions or admissions which follow as natural corollary from facts and circumstances – Respondent's unconditional admission in prior litigation that tenancy was inherited upon father's death constitutes a clear admission activating statutory provisions – Held: Unnecessary procrastination of suit would cause travesty of justice particularly where respondent has not paid a single penny as rent or occupational charges since 2010 – Decree on admission directed [Paras 9–11, 15, 17].

Adverse Possession – Plea Contradictory to Tenancy – Respondent raised counter-claim of adverse possession simultaneously with claim of tenancy – Held: Plea of adverse possession is irreconcilable and contradictory with the admitted position of tenancy and is consequently rejected [Para 13].

Prior Litigation – No Estoppel – Finding in prior suit that respondent was a tenant and not a licensee does not operate as an embargo in the present suit which is founded on a distinct cause of action, namely extinction of statutory tenancy by operation of law under Section 2(g) – Prior finding is not germane to the present proceedings [Para 12].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order set aside – Trial Court directed to draw decree for khas and peaceful possession – Remaining reliefs of mesne profits and costs to be adjudicated by Trial Court in accordance with law.

Election Law – Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC – Rejection of Election Petition – Cause of Action – Scope – Application for rejection of election petition filed by returned candidate on the ground that the petition discloses no cause of action – Held: For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC, the court must examine the averments in the plaint read in conjunction with documents relied upon, taken as a whole without addition or subtraction, without going into the defence of the defendant – Pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement or in the application for rejection are wholly irrelevant at this stage – If allegations in the petition prima facie show cause of action, court cannot embark upon an inquiry whether the allegations are true – Power under Order 7 Rule 11(a) is drastic and conditions must be strictly adhered to [Paras 20-23].

Non-Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents – Form 26 – Nomination Paper – Returned candidate mentioned "Not Applicable" in paragraphs relating to criminal antecedents despite nine criminal cases having been registered against him in the past – Petitioner obtained list of criminal cases under RTI and filed the same along with petition – Respondent's claim of acquittal in all nine cases is a matter of defence to be tested at trial – Document in the form of RTI information fortifies the allegation and prima facie discloses cause of action – Voters have a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to know the antecedents of the candidate [Paras 25-30].

Suppression of Financial Liability – ICICI Bank Loan – Bank issued copy of loan account statement showing Mr. Abhay Mishra as borrower with outstanding amount of Rs. 50,87,672/- – Respondent's defence that loan was obtained by partnership firm and that he retired from the firm in 2008 constitutes a triable issue – Defence of the respondent cannot be considered at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11(a) – Prima facie allegation of suppression constitutes cause of action [Para 30].

Non-Disclosure of Source of Income – Disqualification – Returned candidate disclosed salary from Private Limited Companies as source of income but did not disclose names of such companies – Allegation of disqualification on account of subsisting contract with PWD/Road Development Corporation also raised – Respondent's defence of resignation from Directorship constitutes a matter for trial – Prima facie disclosures prima facie disclose triable issues and cause of action [Paras 31-33].

Material Facts – Section 83(1)(a) RP Act – Election petition contains concise statement of material facts regarding suppression of criminal antecedents, financial liability and sources of income, supported by affidavit in Form 25 under Rule 94(A) of Rules 1961 – Petition is not vexatious and discloses cause of action – Not a fit case for exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC [Para 32-33].

Decision: I.A. No. 22204/2024 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC for rejection of election petition dismissed – Election petition found to disclose cause of action – Respondent granted four weeks to file written statement [Paras 33-35].

Recruitment – DSSSB – Rejection of candidature – Non-submission of e-dossier – Effective communication – Requirement of SMS/email along with website notice – Mere uploading on website not sufficient where scheme mandates dual communication – burden on authority to prove intimation – failure vitiates rejection [Paras 21–29, 33–37]

Legitimate Expectation – Recruitment process – Assurance of communication through SMS/email – Candidates entitled to rely on such representation – authority cannot rely solely on website notice – violation renders action arbitrary [Paras 31–34]

Public Employment – Procedural timelines – Balance with fairness – Strict adherence to cut-off dates subject to effective communication – rejection at final stage must satisfy fairness test – Courts to balance administrative efficiency with equity [Paras 38–41]

Proof of Communication – Electronic records – OARS portal showing dispatch of SMS/email – where contact details undisputed, presumption of due service arises – rejection upheld in such cases [Paras 43–46]

Delayed Intimation – Truncated opportunity – Late communication reducing available time – unequal treatment vis-à-vis other candidates – rejection unsustainable [Paras 47–48, 68–70]

Defective Communication – Erroneous result notice / lack of clarity on timing – benefit of doubt to candidate – candidature cannot be cancelled where confusion attributable to authority [Paras 49–51, 55–56]

No Proof of Intimation – Absence of documentary evidence of SMS/email – adverse inference against recruiting authority – rejection invalid [Paras 57–62, 64–66, 71–74]

Equitable Considerations – Special circumstances such as disability, pregnancy, higher merit – leniency justified where communication deficient – procedural lapses not to defeat substantive rights [Paras 6, 8, 73]

Change in Procedure – Shift from offline submission to e-dossier – obligation to clearly notify candidates – failure to communicate procedural change invalidates strict enforcement [Paras 23–26]

Decision: W.P.(C) 938/2026, W.P.(C) 14309/2025, W.P.(C) 506/2023 and W.P.(C) 12996/2024 allowed – remaining connected petitions dismissed – Tribunal orders partly upheld and partly set aside depending on proof of effective communication – pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Oral Partition – Burden of Proof – Revenue Record – Plaintiffs claimed oral family partition of June 1968 between Bhagat Singh and Tehal Singh in presence of village respectables, allotting 25 Kanal 19 Marla Barani and 17 Kanal 5 Marla Chahi land to Bhagat Singh, and 45 Kanal 6 Marla Barani land to Tehal Singh – Said partition never reflected in revenue record – Suit for declaration and possession dismissed by Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently – Held: Oral partition is legally permissible and non-entry in revenue record is not conclusive, but burden to prove such partition lies squarely on the party asserting it – Plaintiffs failed to discharge this burden – Oral evidence found unreliable and witnesses introduced inconsistencies regarding nature of partition – Non-entry in revenue record, when coupled with absence of reliable evidence and inconsistent conduct of parties, is a relevant circumstance – Concurrent findings based on holistic appreciation of entire evidence, not merely on absence of revenue entries [Paras 11-14].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Notice of Unrecorded Arrangement – Defendant No. 1 Harnam Singh purchased half share of suit land from Darshan Singh, a recorded co-sharer, vide sale deed dated 22.12.1980 – He was duly entered as co-sharer in revenue record and obtained possession through partition proceedings conducted by competent authority – Plaintiff's assertion that defendant had prior knowledge of oral partition by virtue of residing in same village, held unsubstantiated – Mere residence in same village cannot lead to inference of notice of a private and unrecorded arrangement – Defendant No. 1 rightly held to be bona fide purchaser [Para 15].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated in present case – Findings of Courts below well reasoned and supported by evidence – Once plea of oral partition fails, entire foundation of plaintiffs' case collapses and challenge to sale deed executed by co-sharer cannot be sustained [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Substantial questions of law answered against appellants – Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 18].

SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 — Section 15A(3) — Mandatory Notice to Victim or Dependent — Bail Proceedings — Non-Compliance Renders Order Non-Est — Eight accused granted regular bail by Special Court after 25 to 43 days of custody in a case of mob lynching resulting in death of a Scheduled Caste member — Special Judge held that Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act would not attract as accused had no prior knowledge of victim's caste identity, and consequently dispensed with notice to victim's dependent — Held: When offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act are involved, even the question whether such offences attract or not cannot be decided unilaterally without issuing notice and hearing the victim or his dependent; issuance of notice under Section 15A(3) is mandatory in all proceedings under the Act including bail proceedings — Common order passed without hearing dependent of deceased is non-est in law and liable to be set aside [Paras 11–15].

BNS, 2023 — Section 103(2) — Mob Lynching — Graver Offence — New Provision — Section 103(2) of BNS, 2023 is a new provision introduced to address the menace of mob lynching; where murder is committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on grounds of race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language or personal belief, each member is liable to death or imprisonment for life — Legislature intended this offence to be treated as more serious than ordinary murder under Section 103(1) [Para 16].

Bail Cancellation — Premature Grant — Habitual Offenders — Mechanical Approach of Special Judge — Prima facie case of mob lynching at a primitive stage of investigation — Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 are habitual offenders with multiple criminal antecedents — Special Judge granted bail mechanically without considering: (i) availability of police custody during initial 60 days under Section 187 BNSS; (ii) statutory presumption of knowledge of caste identity under Section 8(c) of SC/ST (POA) Act; and (iii) adverse impact of premature bail on investigation — Held: Grant of bail was unsustainable; cancellation warranted [Para 17].

Mob Lynching — Constitutional Values — Rule of Law — Apex Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla observed that lynching is an affront to the rule of law and constitutional values; vigilantism undermines State institutions and, unless controlled, may lead to anarchy — State has a sacrosanct duty to protect citizens and curb such incidents — Hate crimes born of intolerance and prejudice cannot be tolerated [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Common order granting bail to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 set aside — Bail bonds cancelled — Respondents directed to surrender before jurisdictional court within three days — On failure to surrender, Investigating Officer at liberty to arrest — Respondents at liberty to file fresh bail applications; Special Court to adjudicate after providing notice and hearing to dependent of victim in compliance with Section 15A(3) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.

Bail — PMLA — Violent Obstruction of Official Search — Influential Accused — Threat to Witnesses — Petitioner Sk. Sahajhan, alleged mastermind, prima facie found to have mobilised a violent mob of 800–1000 persons through 30 calls made between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. to obstruct ED search operations at his premises; mob attacked ED and CRPF officials with weapons, damaged government vehicles, and robbed personal belongings causing grievous injuries — Petitioner Sk. Alomgir, brother of first petitioner, allegedly involved in mobilising the crowd and keeping unlicensed firearms at an associate's house — Both petitioners in custody for a considerable period — Held: Sufficient incriminating material prima facie establishes leading role of both petitioners; they are extremely influential and dreaded persons; possibility of tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses cannot be ruled out at the current stage of investigation — Bail rejected [Paras 18–23].

Bail — Prolonged Incarceration — Not a Sufficient Ground Where Investigation Ongoing — Petitioners contended that custody of approximately two years without conclusion of trial amounts to punitive detention — 88 witnesses to be examined, 61 documents and 26 material exhibits relied upon; supplementary charge sheet yet to be filed; further investigation pending — Held: Though courts have frowned upon prolonged detention turning punitive, bail applications must be decided on the facts of each case; where substantial incriminating material exists and witness intimidation is a real threat, prolonged custody alone is not a sufficient ground for bail [Paras 21–23].

Witness Statements — Delayed Recording — Credibility — Statements of witnesses recorded by CBI after the case was made over, i.e., more than three months after the incident — Petitioners contended statements are the product of tutoring and afterthought — Held: Whether delay strikes at the credibility of statements is a matter to be dealt with at the appropriate stage of trial; observation in bail proceedings cannot be construed as an expression of opinion on merits [Para 20].

Co-Accused on Bail — Not Similarly Circumstanced — Petitioners argued that co-accused who led the mob have been granted bail — Held: Co-accused granted bail are not similarly circumstanced with the petitioners who are the principal accused; bail granted to one co-accused was on account of severe illness of his minor daughter; CBI has taken steps for cancellation of even that bail — Parity argument not available [Para 20].

Decision: Bail applications of both Sk. Sahajhan @ Sahajhan Sekh (CRM (DB) 554/2025) and Sk. Alomgir (CRM (DB) 650/2025) rejected — Observations limited to bail consideration and not to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case.

Public Procurement – Tender Conditions – Geographical Restriction – RBSN Food Items Supply – Petitioners challenged Clause A(1) requiring bidders to own manufacturing unit in Uttar Pradesh prior to tender floating date as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution – Respondents justified condition on grounds of timely supply, quality control, supervision, prevention of pilferage of subsidised raw materials (wheat and rice allocated by Government of India), short shelf life of three months, and compliance with Allahabad High Court directions in Shipra Devi case – Raw materials provided at subsidised rates on ex-godown basis from FCI depots in Uttar Pradesh – Held: Condition reasonable and not arbitrary – Formulation of tender conditions is prerogative of State – Courts interfere only if policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide – Physical supervision and inspection feasible when units located within State – Condition ensures permanency, timely delivery within 15 days of award, and uninterrupted supply to 16 million beneficiaries under National Food Security Act, 2013 [Paras 62-72]

Tender Conditions – Annual Turnover Requirement – Clause A(2) requiring minimum annual turnover of Rs.75 crores from THR supplies for each of last three financial years challenged as arbitrary – Total tender value approximately Rs.2,768 crores – State divided into 9 clusters with potential award of two clusters per bidder totaling approximately Rs.600 crores – Held: Turnover requirement rational and proportionate to ensure bidder possesses experience and financial capacity for large-scale uninterrupted supply – Not arbitrary or tailored to favour certain suppliers [Para 74]

Eligibility Criteria – Pending Litigation Disqualification – Clause A(12) disqualifying bidders with pending legal/criminal cases or disputes associated with THR supplies challenged as arbitrary and violating constitutional right to legal remedies – Petitioners had pending arbitration proceedings and recovery disputes with State of Uttar Pradesh – One petitioner had award in its favour with State having filed Section 34 petition – No blacklisting or debarment of petitioners – No adjudicated finding of deficiency against petitioners – Court observed prima facie merit in petitioners' submission that disqualification based solely on pendency without adjudicated findings of guilt or deficiency appears unjust – However issue became academic as petitioners failed to comply with mandatory Clause A(1) regarding manufacturing unit location [Paras 76-82]

Judicial Review – Tender Conditions – Scope of Interference – Courts cannot substitute their view for that of employer on what tender conditions should be – Courts interfere only if policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias – Tendering authority entitled to pragmatic adjustments based on particular circumstances – Greater latitude to be conceded to State authorities in formulating conditions for ensuring public welfare schemes – Public interest in timely fulfillment and quality of work must be safeguarded – Technical evaluation by courts impermissible – Principle of restraint to be followed when decision consonant with tender document purpose [Paras 71, 83]

General Financial Rules – Compliance – Petitioners challenged non-compliance with Rules 159, 160 and 161 of GFR 2017 regarding mandatory e-publishing on Central Public Procurement Portal and Government e-Marketplace – Court did not specifically adjudicate this challenge given dismissal on other grounds [Paras 19-21]

Decision: All three writ petitions dismissed – Tender conditions upheld as reasonable and not arbitrary – Pending applications also dismissed.