Writ of Mandamus – Permission for Preparatory Arrangements for Public Festivities – The petitioners, devotees and members of Navajagran Public Durga Puja Samithi, sought permission to enter Bannappa Park Playground for preparatory work ahead of Durga Puja, scheduled from 09.10.2024 to 13.10.2024 – Held: The respondents had already granted permission for the Puja, and it was deemed essential for the petitioners to undertake necessary preparations such as erecting pandals, building a stage, and ensuring public safety prior to the event – The Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to perform preparatory work from 06.10.2024 onwards, while adhering to legal norms [Paras 6-12]​.

Public Interest – Religious Festivities and Civic Permissions – The Court emphasized the need for balancing public interest in religious festivities with civic responsibilities. Since the BBMP had no objections to the preparatory works, the petition was disposed of with appropriate directions [Paras 10-12]​.

Decision – Petition allowed – Respondents directed to permit the petitioners to carry out preparatory works for the Durga Puja from 06.10.2024 to 08.10.2024​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Illegal Extraction of Minerals – The petitioner was charged under Sections 379, 411, and 414 of the IPC and under the Mines and Minerals Act for alleged illegal extraction of brick earth – Held: The FIR and the subsequent proceedings were quashed as the petitioner had paid all dues for royalty, land revenue, and cess as demanded by the authorities – The issuance of a ‘No Due Certificate’ demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements, rendering the charges baseless [Paras 7-12]​.

Abuse of Process of Law – Absence of Essential Ingredients for Theft – The Court found no prima facie case for theft or illegal extraction of minerals as there was no seizure of brick earth or minerals from the petitioner’s premises – The seizure of empty trucks and earth removers did not constitute evidence of theft or illegal mining – The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 13-18]​.

Inherent Powers of Court – Quashing of Proceedings – The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, citing the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal to quash the proceedings – The criminal case was instituted with a mala fide intent, and the ingredients of the offences were not made out [Paras 20-22]​.

Decision – Petition allowed – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – Case disposed of​.

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR Registration – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after being accused of theft under Section 380 IPC. The Court observed that there was an inordinate delay in registering the FIR, which was explained by the de-facto complainant on the grounds that the petitioner’s mother had promised to return the stolen ATM card and money – Held: The delay did not affect the credibility of the FIR as the explanation was prima facie satisfactory [Paras 6-7]​.

Pre-Arrest Bail – Exceptional Circumstances Required – Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only in exceptional cases where the applicant demonstrates clear misuse of the process of law – The petitioner’s custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for recovering the stolen items, and thus, anticipatory bail was denied [Paras 10-12]​.

Decision – Bail application dismissed – Custodial interrogation and recovery needed for proper investigation​.

Contempt of Court – Non-compliance with Court Orders – The petitioners were denied marks for their National Trade Certificates despite a clear High Court order directing the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to consider these certificates for recruitment as Shramiks – Held: APSRTC's failure to comply with the Court’s order constituted contempt – The respondent's reasons for rejecting the marks were unfounded and contrary to the Court’s directives – A fine of ₹2000 was imposed on the second respondent, with a default sentence of two weeks' simple imprisonment [Paras 7-12]​.

Employment Law – Recruitment Criteria – Awarding of Marks – The Court clarified that the awarding of 30 marks for National Trade Certificates was mandated by the Court’s previous order, and APSRTC had no discretion to deviate from this directive – The contention that additional marks should be awarded for both National Trade and National Apprenticeship Certificates was rejected as unjustified and speculative [Paras 8-9]​.

Decision – Contempt petition allowed – Fine of ₹2000 imposed on the second respondent, with a default sentence of two weeks' simple imprisonment [Para 12]​.

Civil Law – Res Judicata – Consolidated Suits and Appeals – Appeal dismissed due to res judicata – The appellant challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court in two consolidated suits concerning property rights and easementary claims. The Court held that, due to the dismissal of a related appeal (RSA No. 278 of 1995) for default, the principle of res judicata applied, preventing further adjudication on the same issues in the current appeal – Held: The present appeal is dismissed as barred by res judicata [Paras 42, 47].

Civil Procedure – Applicability of Res Judicata to Dismissed Appeals – Court refers to the principle that once an appeal is dismissed in default, the findings of the lower courts become final and are not open to challenge in another appeal on the same matter – Non-filing or dismissal of an appeal results in finality to the judgment in the earlier case [Para 42].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

Landlord-Tenant Law – Bonafide Requirement – Availability of Alternative Premises – The appellant challenged the eviction decree passed on the ground of bonafide requirement, asserting that the landlord’s daughter-in-law could conduct her business from another available room (Room No. 3) with commercial electricity, negating the need for eviction – Held: The plaintiff failed to prove bonafide requirement as the alternative premises were available and had been used for business earlier – The admission that refusal of eviction would not cause hardship further weakened the plaintiff’s case – The decree was set aside [Paras 12-25]​.

Comparative Hardship – Tenant’s Business and Hardship – The tenant proved that after the original tenant's death, the son continued to operate his laundry business from the suit premises – The Court found that the plaintiff’s claim of comparative hardship was baseless, particularly when the daughter-in-law had no significant difficulty in continuing her consultancy business from the existing premises [Paras 26-27]​.

Decision – Civil Revision Application allowed – Eviction decree set aside – No order as to costs​.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Anticipatory Bail – Disclosure Statements – The applicants, husband and wife, were implicated through the disclosure statement of a co-accused from whom 73.80 grams of smack was recovered. The Court held that although such statements are not solely reliable for conviction, they could be considered at the anticipatory bail stage – The applicants’ non-cooperation and absconding warranted refusal of anticipatory bail [Paras 33-36]​.

Pre-Arrest Bail – Scope and Considerations – The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and should not be granted as a matter of course. Despite joining the investigation intermittently, the applicants failed to cooperate fully, evaded arrest, and absconded – Held: The applicants did not make a case for pre-arrest bail due to their conduct and the gravity of the allegations [Paras 37-40]​.

Decision – Bail applications dismissed

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Enhancement – Age Determination – The claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of the deceased, aged 36, in a motor accident, challenging the Tribunal's findings regarding age, deductions for personal expenses, and the exclusion of future prospects – Held: The Tribunal wrongly drew an adverse inference regarding the deceased’s age as 40, ignoring the postmortem report which recorded the age as 36 – The correct multiplier for 36 years is 15, and personal expenses should have been deducted at 1/4th instead of 1/3rd – Future prospects at 50% of the income were awarded as per Pranay Sethi [Paras 25-32, 36-40]​.

Income Calculation and Future Prospects – The gross salary of the deceased was ₹23,403, and the deduction for professional tax was only ₹200 – Based on this, the total annual income was ₹2,78,436 – Future prospects were computed at 50% of the income, following National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [Paras 28-31]​.

Interest Rate Enhancement – The interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% per annum was increased to 9% per annum in line with recent Supreme Court judgments – Held: Compensation awarded was enhanced to ₹49,76,907 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition until the date of deposit [Paras 54-56]​.

Decision – Appeal by the claimants allowed, compensation enhanced – Appeal by the employer dismissed – Compensation awarded at ₹49,76,907 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition​.

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Against Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) – Availability of Statutory Remedies – The petitioner filed a writ petition against the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the expiration of the 30-day statutory period for raising objections before the Adjudicating Authority – Held: The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, which provide adequate safeguards and opportunities to challenge the attachment – Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to approach the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 1.1, 3.1, 3.6].

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA – Judicial Review – The petitioner’s challenge to the PAO, asserting a lack of connection with the proceeds of crime, was found unsustainable – The PAO is subject to review and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days as per Section 5(5) of the PMLA – The court found that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasize procedural safeguards provided under the Act [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedies – When Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked – The petitioner failed to establish that the PAO was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or amounted to an abuse of process, which are the grounds for bypassing statutory remedies – Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the limited exceptions to the rule of exhausting remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 3.2, 3.6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedy by approaching the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA – No observation on the merits of the case made – The Adjudicating Authority is directed to expedite the matter [Paras 4.1-4.2].