Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Died in Harness — Age Determination — Ossification Test — Petitioner provisionally appointed on compassionate ground following death of his father in harness — Provisional appointment terminated on grounds of overage (age assessed between 33–38 years at Initial Medical Examination) and low vision — Apex Medical Board subsequently found petitioner's age between 35–40 years and vision normal — Court directed ossification test by SSKM hospital board, which assessed age within 30–40 years, giving mean age of 35 years, i.e., the prescribed upper limit — Held: As ossification test was conducted in 2024 and petitioner was provisionally appointed in 2021, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner was under 35 years of age at the time of appointment — Termination order set aside — Reinstatement directed within four weeks [Paras 14–25].

Compassionate Appointment — Back Wages — Not Granted — Authorities could not have engaged petitioner based on age assessed by their own medical boards, which placed him above the prescribed limit — Provisional appointment letter was subject to compliance of rules including medical check-up — Delay in age ascertainment not attributable to respondent authorities — Held: No direction for back wages [Para 26].

Ossification Test — Bracket of Age — Direction for Fresh Test Refused — Respondents sought fresh ossification test before AIIMS, Kalyani, with age bracket limited to five years, relying on Division Bench ruling in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Sujala Ankure — Held: Facts of the cited case are distinguishable — There, age was found improper due to concurrent consideration of the age of the female's child — No such doubt arises in the present case as assessments by different boards do not differ substantially — Direction for fresh test would cause further delay and severe prejudice to petitioner — Further test refused — Order of Division Bench dismissing appeal against ossification test direction is final and binding [Paras 18, 22–24].

Compassionate Appointment — Urgency — Delay Deprecated — Appointment on compassionate ground is warranted only when the family of the deceased employee faces acute financial crisis — Such appointment ought not to be kept pending indefinitely — Petitioner lost his father in 2021 and has been litigating since 2022 — Delay of nearly five years causes injustice and severe prejudice [Para 21].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of — Impugned order of termination of provisional appointment set aside — Respondents directed to reinstate petitioner in service within four weeks from communication of order — Back wages declined — No costs.

Non-Banking Financial Companies — Loan Recovery — Forcible Repossession of Vehicle — Writ Jurisdiction — Maintainability — Petitioner in WP 2032/2023 was owner of a goods vehicle financed by respondent NBFC for Rs.31,40,848/- repayable in 66 EMIs — Having paid Rs.14,66,850/-, petitioner alleged only Rs.1,84,030/- remained due when the NBFC's recovery agents forcibly intercepted the vehicle on 25.06.2023, removed the driver and repossessed it without notice or due process — Petitioner in WP 2500/2023 similarly alleged forcible repossession of his vehicle financed for Rs.15,00,000/- despite having paid Rs.18,64,891/- (more than the principal) — Respondent NBFC contended that writ petitions were not maintainable as the dispute was purely contractual, that petitioners had defaulted and that the NBFC was entitled to repossess under the terms of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement — Held: Writ petitions maintainable — Disputes which prima facie involve violation of statutory/regulatory norms, arbitrary and high-handed action, or infringement of fundamental rights assume a public law character and are amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction notwithstanding their contractual origin — Vehicles being the primary means of livelihood of petitioners, coercive deprivation directly impinges upon Articles 21 and 19(1)(g) — Preliminary objection rejected [Paras 10–11].

NBFC — Forcible Repossession — RBI Guidelines — Constitutional Safeguards — NBFCs operating under RBI regulatory control are bound by RBI guidelines on recovery practices — Such guidelines are not merely advisory but are binding in nature and intended to secure fairness, transparency and dignity of borrowers — Self-help measures involving force, intimidation or coercion are wholly impermissible — Existence of a repossession clause in the loan agreement does not authorise the NBFC to take law into its own hands — Contractual terms cannot override constitutional guarantees or statutory protections — Enforcement of contractual rights must conform to the requirement of legality and due process — No prior notice of repossession, opportunity of hearing, or resort to lawful proceedings before a competent forum was shown — Bald denials without cogent material insufficient to rebut specific allegations of coercive repossession — Held: Action of respondent-NBFC in repossessing/attempting to repossess vehicles through coercive means declared illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution [Paras 11–14].

Right to Livelihood — Article 21 — Deprivation of Essential Assets Without Due Process — Petitioners are transporters for whom the financed vehicles constitute their primary and sole source of income — Arbitrary deprivation of such essential assets without adherence to due process results in serious civil consequences and direct infringement of the right to livelihood as an integral component of Article 21 — Socioeconomic realities of borrowers cannot be overlooked when assessing constitutional validity of recovery action [Para 13].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed — Repossession declared illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution — Respondent NBFC directed to forthwith release and restore vehicles to respective petitioners in roadworthy condition — Respondent and its agents restrained from interfering with peaceful possession except through due process of law — Petitioners at liberty to seek compensation before competent forum for any damage during repossession — Liberty reserved to respondent to recover legitimate dues strictly through lawful proceedings and competent forums — Respondent directed to comply scrupulously with RBI recovery guidelines; future deviation to invite legal consequences.

Consolidation Proceedings – Adverse Possession – Adhivasi and Sirdar Rights – Revisional Jurisdiction – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioner's predecessors were recorded as tenure holders of plot nos. 1100, 4643, 1072, 3275 and 883 in basic year – Contesting respondent claimed adhivasi and sirdar rights on the basis of revenue entries in 1356-F, 1358-F, 1359-F, 1361-F and 1362-F – Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation concurrently found entries to be in the nature of 'sikmi tenant' with a note of Batai Nisfi, and that no entry existed in favour of contesting respondent for more than 10 years prior to consolidation – D.D.C. in revisional jurisdiction partly allowed the revisions and declared contesting respondent sirdar over three plots – Held: D.D.C. interfered with concurrent findings in a cursory manner without proper consideration of the nature and legality of entries; revisional interference legally unsustainable; orders of C.O. and S.O.C. restored [Paras 16–28].

Adverse Possession – Essential Ingredients – Nec Vi, Nec Clam, Nec Precario – Continuity of Possession – Entries recorded as 'sikmi tenant' with Batai Nisfi notation constitute permissive possession and not adverse possession – Contesting respondent's name was absent from revenue records for more than 10 years before consolidation commenced – Basic ingredient of continuous hostile possession for 12 years not made out – D.D.C. failed to consider that entries in 1365-F were either absent or struck off – Held: Plea of adverse possession not legally established; entries of 1356-F, 1359-F and 1362-F insufficient to declare adhivasi or sirdar rights [Paras 17–21].

Revenue Entries – Genuineness of Khasra Entries – Adhivasi Rights – Non-Genuine or Fictitious Entries Cannot Confer Rights – Entries recorded in remark column of khasra and subsequently struck off or discontinued cannot be treated as genuine entries under the provisions of law – D.D.C. proceeded on assumption regarding 'partition' or 'contract' without any basis on record to treat sikmi entries as legal – Held: Entries which are not genuine or are incorrectly introduced by reason of ill-will or hostility cannot confer adhivasi rights under Section 20 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.10.1971 and order dated 17.09.1982 set aside – Judgments of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation upheld.

Public Procurement – Tender – CMMI Certification – Eligibility Condition – Judicial Restraint – Petitioner, an incumbent SMS gateway service provider, challenged the Letter of Empanelment awarded to L1 bidder (Respondent No. 2/Onextel) on the ground that its CMMI Maturity Level 5 certificate was issued by UKCert, an entity not recognised as an authorized partner of ISACA – RFE Corrigendum No. VI required a valid CMMI Level 3 or above certificate but did not specify that it must be issued exclusively by ISACA or its approved partners – NICSI's Technical Evaluation Committee accepted UKCert certificates for multiple bidders – NICSI constituted a committee which concluded on 11.03.2026 that the UKCert certificate was valid – NICSI also accepted non-ISACA partner certificates for other bidders including Pinnacle (L4) and Petitioner's sister concern in 2023 – Held: The question of whether ISACA and its partners have exclusive proprietary rights to issue CMMI certifications is a disputed question of fact not amenable to determination in writ jurisdiction on the basis of website declarations and e-mails alone – Tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements and interpretation of tender conditions – No illegality, mala fides, or perversity demonstrated in the decision-making process of NICSI – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 8–30].

Delay and Laches – Unsuccessful Bidder – Challenge after Financial Bid – Petitioner had knowledge of UKCert certificate submitted by Respondent No. 2 since 30.10.2025 when technical bid documents were disclosed on the portal – No objection raised during the period between technical qualification and opening of financial bids on 26.12.2025 – Inquiry into authority of UKCert commenced only in January 2026, after the LoE was awarded and Petitioner was declared L3 – Held: Belated challenge triggered by adverse outcome of financial bid is contrary to settled principles governing public procurement – Entertaining the petition at the stage of contract implementation would be against public interest and judicial restraint – Challenge liable to be rejected on this ground alone [Paras 31–35].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Absence of Specific Prescription – Where the tender document does not specify that a certificate must originate from a particular authority, a bidder cannot be disqualified for submitting a certificate issued by an otherwise competent entity – Reading in a requirement of certification exclusively from ISACA or its partners would amount to importing a condition not contemplated by the tendering authority – Held: No such exclusive prescription existed in the RFE; NICSI's interpretation cannot be faulted [Paras 22–29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs – NICSI advised to clarify in future tenders its stance on the certificate issuing entity for CMMI certification to avoid similar controversies.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Sections 302 and 34 IPC – Appellants A1 (wife of the deceased) and A2 (alleged paramour) were convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased at Marina Beach on 30.09.2014 – A1 sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC; A2 sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and five years RI under Section 506(ii) IPC – On appeal, High Court finds multiple infirmities in the prosecution case including unreliable eyewitness testimony, absence of Test Identification Parade, suppression of call detail records, doubtful arrest and recovery, and tampering with hospital records – Held: It would be highly unsafe to convict the appellants on the basis of such evidence – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted [Paras 14, 15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Identification at Police Station – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Credibility – Prosecution examined three eyewitnesses PW3, PW4 and PW6 – PW6's deposition that the occurrence took place at 3.00 p.m. is contrary to the prosecution case and of no avail – PW3 and PW4, both strangers to the accused, identified the accused at the police station four to five days after the occurrence without any Test Identification Parade – Held: Where witnesses have identified accused at the police station and no Test Identification Parade has been conducted, dock identification in court is meaningless – Further, PW4 repeatedly stated the date of occurrence as 30.10.2014 instead of 30.09.2014, a contradiction that cannot be brushed aside – PW3 was unable to specify the exact date of occurrence at all [Paras 9(ii)–9(vii)].

Investigation – Delayed Despatch of Witness Statements – Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. – Statements of witnesses recorded by PW24 during investigation were sent to the Magistrate six months after the occurrence – Held: It is imperative that documents of special importance, including statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., are despatched to the Magistrate without delay to guard against subsequent fabrication – Failure to do so raises a serious doubt on the evidence of the eyewitnesses [Para 9(viii)].

Suppression of Evidence – Call Detail Records – Adverse Inference – PW24, the Investigating Officer, admitted in cross-examination that he had collected the call detail records of A1, A2 and the deceased but deliberately did not produce them before the court as they would go against the prosecution case – Held: Suppression of material evidence by the prosecution is a serious infirmity that undermines the entire prosecution case [Para 13].

Tampering with Records – Accident Register – Prosecution Case Doubtful as to Origin – The Accident Register [Ex.P13] recorded the deceased as "unknown" when brought to the hospital at 10.25 p.m. on 30.09.2014 – The word "unknown" was subsequently circled and the name and address of the deceased were added on 12.02.2015 – PW20 denied making this alteration; PW24 confirmed the entries were made subsequently – This is inconsistent with the prosecution case that the parents identified the deceased at the beach at 9.15 p.m. before the body was taken to the hospital – Held: The prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence, and where the genesis and origin are in doubt, the entire prosecution case must be viewed with suspicion [Para 10].

Arrest and Seizure – Doubtful – PW7 deposed that he handed over his vehicle to A2 at 7.00 p.m. at Padi Kuppam, which is far from the scene of occurrence, casting doubt on A2's alleged presence at Marina Beach at 7.15 p.m. – Further, PW7 appears to have seen A2 at the police station on 02.10.2014, whereas the prosecution case is that A2 was arrested only on 04.10.2014 – If the arrest is doubtful, the seizure pursuant to A1's confession also cannot be believed [Paras 11, 12].

Motive – Not Established – Though A1 and A2 were shown to have lived together in a rented house (PW11, PW12, PW13), establishing an extra-marital affair alone does not prove motive to commit murder – Nothing on record to indicate what proximate act provoked A1 and A2 to cause the death of the deceased – Held: Motive for the occurrence has not been established [Para 8].

Decision: Both criminal appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence of A1 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and of A2 under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC, imposed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai vide judgment dated 26.08.2019 in S.C. No. 171 of 2015, set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds, if any, discharged.

Criminal Law – Anti-Corruption – Charge Framing – Revenue Record Tampering – Further Investigation – Petitioner was posted as Naib Tehsildar, General Record Room, Jammu from 2009 to 2012 – FIR alleged that the petitioner connived with co-accused Patwari Riaz Ahmed to insert a fictitious khasra number in original revenue records to confer undue benefit upon co-accused Vijay Kumar – Trial court, finding the initial investigation inadequate as to the personal custody of the record, directed further investigation vide order dated 19.01.2019 – Investigating agency recorded statements of two more witnesses and filed a report – On the basis thereof, trial court framed charges against the petitioner vide order dated 01.06.2019 – Held: The further investigation conducted was half-baked and did not address the critical question of the approximate period when the tampering in the revenue record took place, which was essential to verify the petitioner's defence – Charge framing order set aside [Paras 25, 26, 28, 29, 30].

Criminal Procedure – Power to Direct Further Investigation – Post-Cognizance Stage – Section 173(8) read with Section 156(3) CrPC – Held: A direction for further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the court – Where defective investigation comes to light during proceedings, the Magistrate or Special Court may direct further investigation at any stage before the trial actually commences – This power is traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 173(8) CrPC and is mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution, which demands a fair and just investigation – Order dated 19.01.2019 directing further investigation upheld [Paras 14, 15, 16, 19, 20].

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation Report – Prescribed Format – Section 173(2) CrPC – Dablu Kujur – The investigating agency, instead of filing a supplementary chargesheet in the prescribed form under Section 173(2) CrPC, submitted the further investigation material in the form of a report – Held: This is not in accordance with law as mandated by the Supreme Court in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand – However, the defect is curable in nature and the investigating agency must be directed to file the further investigation report in the prescribed format [Paras 21, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Bias – Trial Court Order – Allegation of Pre-meditation – Holistic Reading of Order – Petitioner alleged that the trial court's use of the expression "to bring something on record enabling the court to infer the existence of conspiracy" in order dated 19.01.2019 showed bias and pre-meditated intent to implicate him – Held: When the order is read holistically and not hair-split, it is clear that the trial court made a dispassionate analysis of the material and identified deficiencies in investigation – Had there been bias, the court would have framed charges straightaway on the ground that the petitioner was incharge of the Record Room – Allegation of bias wholly misconceived [Paras 10, 12, 13].

Duty of Investigation – Verification of Defence – Fair Investigation – Article 21 – The investigating agency is duty bound to ascertain the veracity of the defence projected by the accused/suspect during investigation – The petitioner had specifically stated that the record was in the lock and key of the Junior Assistant and that tampering may have occurred before his joining – With modern FSL technology, it is possible to determine the approximate age of insertions in a revenue record – The investigating agency failed to pursue this vital line of inquiry and instead recorded statements of witnesses, one of whom may have been interested in saving his own skin – Such an approach defeats the purpose of investigation, which is to unearth the truth and not to implicate [Paras 24, 25, 26].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Order dated 19.01.2019 upheld – Orders dated 01.06.2019 and 08.06.2019 (charge framing and memo of charges) quashed to the extent of the petitioner – Investigating agency directed to conduct fresh further investigation expeditiously, addressing the period of tampering and the petitioner's defence, and to file a final report in the prescribed form under Section 173(2) CrPC – Trial court to consider framing of charges afresh on the basis of the entire material so brought on record.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Removal from Service – Excess Loading of Fuel Tanker – Petitioner, an Executive Operations Officer and Gantry Officer at HPCL's Visakhapatnam Terminal, was suspended on 10.09.2007 and issued a charge memo dated 26.11.2007 alleging that he instructed the crew of tanker No. AP31U2529 to load fuel in excess – Disciplinary authority held the charges proved and ordered removal from service vide proceedings dated 29.12.2009 – Appellate authority affirmed the order on 24.06.2011 – Petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution – Held: No grounds for interference made out – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1, 11, 15–16].

Departmental Enquiry – Participation – Refusal to Cross-Examine Witnesses – Petitioner declined to cross-examine management witnesses MW.2, MW.3 and MW.4 on the ground that his defence assistant sought permission to visit the site and inspect the tanker – Court held that such request ought to have been made after fully participating in the enquiry and demonstrating necessity during cross-examination – By evading cross-examination, petitioner disentitled himself from claiming absence of evidence or lack of quality evidence [Paras 7, 12, 14].

Judicial Review – Scope – Disciplinary Proceedings – Constitutional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate authority over disciplinary authorities – Interference permissible only where punishment is shockingly disproportionate or there is a complete absence of evidence – On facts, disciplinary authority considered available material and returned a finding of guilt – No case of no evidence or perversity made out – Court declined to interfere [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No costs – Miscellaneous petitions pending stand closed.

Specific Performance – Agreement for Sale – Readiness and Willingness – Illegality of Termination Notice – Both Appeals Disposed of – Plaintiff entered into agreement for sale dated 9.1.1977 with Defendant No. 1 for purchase of flat at Rs. 26,000/- and paid Rs. 10,500/- as advance – Defendant No. 1 unilaterally terminated the agreement vide notice dated 30.9.1981 without first issuing a notice making time the essence of the contract – Flat was subsequently sold to Defendant No. 3 and then to Defendant No. 4 during pendency of the suit – Trial court decreed the suit in part, declining specific performance in exercise of discretion under Section 20 but granting damages of Rs. 1,52,250/- and refund of Rs. 10,500/- with interest – Held: For agreements relating to immovable property, a vendor must first serve a notice making time the essence before straightway terminating the agreement; notice of termination dated 30.9.1981 is illegal and bad in law; Plaintiff has proved readiness and willingness [Paras 21–22, 52–53].

Constructive Notice – Section 3, Transfer of Property Act – Proviso to Explanation I – Three Conditions Cumulative and Mandatory – Defendant No. 4 claimed to be a bonafide purchaser without notice – Trial court held he had constructive notice merely because suit agreement was registered – Held: Mere registration of an instrument is insufficient to fasten constructive notice; all three conditions of the proviso to Explanation I of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act must be cumulatively satisfied: (i) registration completed as per the Registration Act; (ii) instrument duly entered in books under Section 51; and (iii) particulars correctly entered in indexes under Section 55 – Only the first condition was proved; conditions (ii) and (iii) were neither pleaded nor proved by the Plaintiff – Finding of constructive notice against Defendant No. 4 set aside [Paras 61–66].

Bonafide Purchaser for Value Without Notice – Section 19(b), Specific Relief Act – Protection from Specific Performance – Defendant No. 4 paid Rs. 1,30,000/- by cheques, name entered in co-operative society records, possessed the flat since May 1986, paid stamp duty, disclosed transaction to Income Tax authorities and lis pendens notice was admittedly not registered by Plaintiff – Held: Defendant No. 4 is a transferee for value who paid in good faith and without notice of the original contract; entitled to protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act [Paras 67, 76(iii)].

Discretion under Section 20, Specific Relief Act – Sub-section (1) vs. Sub-section (2) – Scope – Sub-section (1) confers wide discretionary jurisdiction not confined to the illustrative circumstances in Sub-section (2); discretion must be sound, reasonable and guided by judicial principles – Defendant No. 4 in continuous possession since 1986 after paying valuable consideration; Plaintiff offered balance amount only two months after termination notice – Trial court's refusal to grant specific performance was a proper exercise of discretion – Held: Appellate court will not substitute its discretion unless the lower court's discretion was exercised unfairly, dishonestly or contrary to rules of reason and justice; no such ground made out [Paras 70–74].

Cross-Objection – Respondent's Right to Attack Adverse Finding Without Filing Formal Memo – A respondent in an appeal is entitled to support the decree by challenging any finding recorded against him without filing a formal memo of cross-objections; cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC after the 1976 Amendment are purely optional and not mandatory – Defendant No. 4, who had also filed his own appeal, was entitled to challenge the adverse finding on bonafide purchaser without cross-objection [Paras 56–57].

Decision: Both appeals disposed of – Decree dated 14.1.2010 in Suit No. 1642/1984 confirmed – Appeal No. 171/2010 dismissed – Appeal No. 490/2010 disposed of in the above terms – Interim order extended by six weeks – No order as to costs.

Prevention of Corruption Act — Discharge — CBI Case — Railway Official — Inflated Measurements — Petitioner was the then DSTE (Divisional Signal & Telecom Engineer), Kharagpur, S.E. Railway — Charged under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for certifying inflated measurements in the Measurement Book (MB) in connection with supply and installation of ETIBs at Chengail, Birshipur and Kulgachia stations — Petitioner contended that approximately 90% of the total payment was made before he joined as DSTE and that he had no role in initial planning, tendering or receipt of material — Held: Even assuming 90% of payment was made prior to his joining, it was the petitioner's responsibility to verify the work executed and measurements recorded before facilitating the final payment — Certification of inflated measurements prima facie establishes involvement — Prayer for discharge rightly rejected [Paras 3–12].

Criminal Revision — Abuse of Process — Discharge — Standard of Interference — Inflated bills certified by the petitioner as DSTE formed the basis of final payment — During investigation, CBI revealed that measurements recorded in MB were false and inflated, certified as correct by the petitioner, on the basis of which bills were raised and payments released — Materials collected by CBI prima facie indicate the petitioner's involvement — Held: Continuation of proceedings does not amount to abuse of process of law — Revision devoid of merit [Paras 9–12].

Decision: C.R.R. 2422 of 2021 dismissed — Order dated 24.09.2021 rejecting discharge upheld — Interim order, if any, vacated.