Delay and Laches – Petition Filed After 17 Years – Dismissal Justified - The Court observed that the petitioner failed to explain the delay of 17 years in filing the writ petition. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the long lapse between the impugned order and the filing of the PIL, making the petition liable for dismissal due to laches [Paras 21, 23].

Material Suppression – Intentional Non-disclosure – Costs Imposed - The petitioner suppressed the fact of de-notification of reserved forest land in 1962 under G.O.Ms.No.3676. The Court held that such suppression was deliberate, given the extensive nature of the affidavit filed, and imposed exemplary costs for misleading the Court [Paras 23-25, 29-30].

Bonafide of PIL – Lack of Credibility – Restricted Filing - The Court noted discrepancies in the petitioner’s age, income, and occupation, along with his inability to justify filing the petition. It concluded that the petition was mala fide, filed with oblique motives, and restricted the petitioner from filing PILs for one year without prior permission [Paras 29-30].

Decision: W.P.No.18846 of 2024 was dismissed. The petitioner was restrained from filing PILs in this Court for a year without prior permission. Costs of ₹10,00,000/- each were imposed on the petitioner, payable to the 12th respondent and the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within four weeks, with compliance to be filed.

Criminal Law – Separation of Trials – Common Verdict for Separated Sessions Cases – Impermissibility – Appellants convicted under Sections 148, 302, 324, 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 201 IPC, and Section 27 Arms Act – Separate Sessions trials titled State v. Davender and State v. Kartar Singh and Others impermissibly joined – Evidence recorded in one trial was relied upon in the other without appropriate procedural compliance – Common verdict quashed due to procedural violation [Paras 24–33].

Fair Trial – Right to Separate Appraisal of Evidence – Mandate Violated – Evidence adduced in separate trials must remain confined to the accused in those trials – Common verdict rendered by the trial court was in gross violation of procedural and substantive law – Violated principles laid down by Supreme Court in A.T. Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department (Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2021) [Paras 26–32].

Section 311 CrPC – Misapplication – Improper Joinder of Separated Trials – Affirmative order allowing evidence from one trial to be used in another trial held void – Consent of defense counsel does not validate procedural illegality [Paras 29–32].

Decision: Criminal Appeals (CRA-290-DB-2006, CRA-392-DB-2006, CRA-421-DB-2006): Allowed – Common verdict and sentences quashed – Cases remanded with directions to the trial court to:
Ensure prosecution witnesses testify only in their respective trials.
Assign separate numbers to both Sessions cases (State v. Davender and State v. Kartar Singh and Others).
Hear arguments and pronounce separate judgments for both trials within six months [Paras 34].
Criminal Revision Petition (CRR-1591-2006): Dismissed as infructuous due to remand of main cases [Paras 35].
 

Charitable Trusts – Cancellation of Registration – Section 12AA(3) – Cancellation Retrospective Effect – Unjustified - The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) cancelled the registration of the assessee-society retrospectively for the assessment year 2004-2005 under Section 12AA(3), introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2010 – Held: Retrospective application of cancellation not permissible – The CIT lacked jurisdiction to cancel registration for periods predating the statutory amendment – Cancellation set aside for being illegal [Paras 23–27].

Charitable Purpose – Definition under Section 2(15) – Advancement of General Public Utility – Use of Funds for Construction Activities - Funds utilized for establishing a medical college and hospital cannot be deemed non-charitable – Construction of infrastructure forms an incidental but essential component of achieving charitable objectives – Registration and exemptions restored [Paras 24, 34, 35].

Income Tax Exemptions – Section 11 – Incidental Commercial Activities – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – Revenue argued commercial activities violated exemption clauses – Held: Activities incidental to the primary purpose of providing medical and educational relief permissible under law, provided they are incidental and within prescribed statutory limits – Exemptions under Section 11 granted [Paras 27, 35].

Penalty – Section 271(C) – Non-applicability – Dismissal of Penalty Appeals – Since the primary exemption and registration issues have been decided in favor of the assessee, penalty provisions under Section 271(C) do not apply – Appeals dismissed [Para 32].

Decision

ITA Nos. 271, 274 of 2014; 33 of 2022 filed by the Assessee: Allowed.

ITA Nos. 52, 164 of 2017; 48, 61 of 2020; 196, 197, 199, and 200 of 2023 filed by the Revenue: Dismissed.

Excise Law – Policy Differentiation – Validity of Restricted Timings – Petitioners challenged Clause 9.8.8 of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024–25, which limited the operational hours of bars and pubs in Panchkula to 12:00 midnight, while allowing extended hours in Gurugram and Faridabad on payment of additional fees – Held: Excise policy can distinguish between districts based on reasonable classification – Classification found not arbitrary or discriminatory as districts have varying economic and social considerations [Paras 17–23].

Liquor Trade – No Fundamental Right to Trade in Liquor – Trade in liquor is not a fundamental right but a privilege controlled by the State – Petitioners, having accepted the terms of the policy, cannot challenge specific clauses – Doctrine of 'take it or leave it' applies in contractual matters related to excise policies [Paras 19–25].

Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Policy differentiation upheld – Licensing and fee structures across districts differ due to local factors – Panchkula and Gurugram/Faridabad are not similarly situated for excise policy purposes – Classification serves valid policy objectives [Paras 18–22].

Policy Framing – Judicial Restraint – Courts reluctant to interfere in State’s policy decisions, especially in areas concerning excise and liquor trade – Observed that unrestricted sale of liquor through the night could have adverse social implications – Recommended policy makers strike a balance between revenue generation and cultural considerations [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Clause 9.8.8 of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024–25 upheld as valid and non-discriminatory.
Observations made regarding societal impact of unrestricted liquor sale at night, recommending review in future policies.
 

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Applicability of Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance as Sine Qua Non – Proceedings Quashed - Petitioner, a public servant, sought quashing of criminal proceedings against him for alleged involvement in irregularities linked to the I Monetary Advisory (IMA) Group scam – Allegations included receiving bribes and failing to act as the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 – Held: Both "demand" and "acceptance" of illegal gratification must be conclusively proven for invoking Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Mere recovery or vague approver statements do not suffice – Observed: There was no direct evidence of demand or acceptance, no trap or recovery from the petitioner, and no incriminating materials in search and seizure – Accordingly, proceedings quashed [Paras 12-18].

Approver Statements – Evidentiary Value – Vagueness Insufficient for Framing Charges - Statements of approvers indicated alleged transfer of money to petitioner – Held: Statements lacked specificity and were based on hearsay – Law requires direct or circumstantial evidence to establish demand and acceptance – Observed: Vague or unsupported statements by approvers cannot justify framing of charges under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 13, 17].

Discharge of Similarly Placed Co-Accused – Extension of Benefit to Petitioner – Quashing Proceedings - Co-accused public servants facing identical allegations had been discharged in earlier proceedings – Observed: Trial court noted no material evidence or demand and acceptance against the co-accused – Petitioner entitled to similar relief based on parity – Proceedings against petitioner quashed [Paras 14-15].

Principles of Demand and Acceptance under Prevention of Corruption Act – Judicial Interpretation – Requirement of Direct Evidence - Reiterated: Demand and acceptance are core ingredients of offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Mere recovery or vague inferences cannot establish culpability – Presumption under Section 20 applies only when demand and acceptance are conclusively proven – Proceedings against petitioner unsustainable [Paras 16-18].

Abuse of Process of Law – Lack of Evidence – Trial Not Warranted - Search and seizure yielded no incriminating materials, and prosecution failed to produce direct or circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing – Held: Allowing trial in absence of substantive evidence would amount to abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice – Proceedings quashed [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed. Proceedings in Special C.C. No. 1055 of 2019 before the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru, quashed.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Extortion – Ingredients under Section 383 IPC – Not Prima Facie Made Out – Quashing of FIR Allowed – To establish extortion under Section 383 IPC, there must be intentional fear caused, dishonest inducement, and delivery of property by the victim. In this case, the complainant, who was not a direct victim, alleged extortion under the Electoral Bond Scheme. The Court held that there was no evidence of any person being dishonestly induced to deliver property, nor was there fear or delivery as required under the provision. [Paras 16-20]

Locus Standi – Section 384 IPC – Requirement of Aggrieved Person – Criminal law can generally be set in motion by any person. However, in offences under Section 384 IPC, only the aggrieved victim, i.e., the person put in fear and made to deliver property, has the standing to file a complaint. The complainant, being a Co-President of a public forum, was not an aggrieved party and hence lacked locus standi. [Paras 17-20]

Role of Magistrate – Reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Failure to Apply Mind – The Magistrate's referral of the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was held to be improper as the essential ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 384 IPC were not prima facie made out. The Court criticized the Magistrate for acting as a "rubber stamp" without examining whether the complaint disclosed cognizable offences. [Paras 22-23]

Power of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of FIR – The High Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings where allegations in the complaint did not disclose the ingredients of the offence and were inherently improbable. The proceedings were deemed frivolous, and the Court held that continuing the investigation would amount to abuse of process. [Paras 23-24]

Electoral Bond Scheme – Alleged Extortion and Criminal Conspiracy – Lack of Prima Facie Evidence – Allegations of coercion under the Electoral Bond Scheme, based on raids conducted by Enforcement Directorate officials, were held to lack specificity and substantiating evidence. The complaint was deemed a “figment of imagination,” with no material to support claims of quid pro quo or delivery of property under threat. [Paras 11-12, 16, 24]

Judgments Referred – Scope of Public Interest Complaints – Not Applicable to Extortion Cases – The Court distinguished the case at hand from precedents where public interest complaints were entertained for offences affecting society at large. It held that extortion under Section 384 IPC is victim-specific and cannot be set in motion by a stranger or public forum. [Paras 20-22]

Decision – Criminal proceedings in Crime No. 224/2024 were quashed in respect of the petitioner, as the complaint failed to meet the statutory requirements of offences under Section 384 IPC and lacked the requisite locus standi. [Paras 24-25]

Defamation Allegation on Online Platforms – Section 69A of the IT Act – Directions against Intermediaries Denied – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought the removal of a video on YouTube alleging it to be defamatory and contrary to the rights of the Marthoma community – Held: The content in question does not fall within the scope of Section 69A of the IT Act, which is limited to situations affecting sovereignty, integrity, and public order, among others – The Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1] categorically limits intermediary obligations under Section 69A to Court-ordered directions for blocking content – Decision: Writ Petition dismissed as no grounds for removal under Section 69A were made out [Paras 8-12].

Intermediary Liability – Section 79 of the IT Act – No Direct Obligation on Intermediary Without Court Order – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner’s contention that the intermediary violated its statutory responsibility was rejected – The Hon'ble Court clarified that under Section 79, intermediaries like YouTube are exempt from liability unless actual knowledge of unlawful acts is notified by a Court order – Reliance placed on the Shreya Singhal case, which read down Section 79(3)(b) to mean that an intermediary can only act upon actual knowledge from a competent authority or Court order – Decision: No relief granted, as no Court order existed to mandate the removal of content [Paras 8-11].

Scope of Section 69A and 79 – Limitation of Relief in Absence of Court Order or Government Notification – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner failed to demonstrate how the content violates Section 69A or that any Court order had been passed directing its removal – Held: Without such specific orders, intermediaries cannot be compelled to act solely based on allegations of defamation – Decision: Writ Petition dismissed, finding no statutory violation on part of the intermediaries [Paras 10-12].

Admissions via Fraud – Cancellation of Admissions – RPMT 2009 – Allegations of Impersonation – Dismissal of Petitions – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their MBBS admissions by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) due to allegations of cheating by impersonation in RPMT 2009 – Respondents relied on Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports and a committee report affirming impersonation allegations – Petitioners argued violations of natural justice and delay in proceedings – Held: Admissions attained via fraud are void; principles of natural justice do not mandate adherence when fraud is established – Cancellation upheld [Paras 4–8, 31.4–31.9].

Fraudulent Means – Doctrine of Res Judicata – Bar on Re-litigating Issues – Petitioners contended FSL report and committee findings lacked evidentiary support under Indian Evidence Act – Court held: Fraud vitiates all acts, and the principle of res judicata barred re-litigation of issues settled in earlier judicial decisions – Past judgments categorically upheld the cancellation of admissions, deeming them attained through fraudulent means [Paras 31.1–31.2, 31.6].

Impact on Public Interest – Integrity of Examination Process – Court emphasized the societal impact of allowing candidates who attained admissions via fraud to continue medical practice – Fraudulent admissions compromise the integrity of merit-based selection in medical education – Held: Cancellation of admissions aligns with public interest and preserves examination integrity [Paras 31.4–31.5].

Delay in Challenging Orders – Consequences of Laches – Petitioners failed to challenge foundational orders at the appropriate time, rendering their petitions untenable – Court observed: Delay and acquiescence preclude equitable relief – Impugned orders upheld [Paras 31.7–32].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Impugned cancellation orders upheld – Relief denied due to fraud, delay, and lack of merit [Para 33].
 

Municipal Law – Inclusion of Gram Sabha Areas – Statutory Guidelines Violated – Petitioners challenged notification dated 25/04/2023, extending the municipal limits of Kalanwali to include Gram Sabha areas, without adhering to criteria under Annexure P-12 and Section 4(2) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 – Held: The impugned notification violated statutory provisions mandating consideration of objections and personal hearing – Notification quashed with liberty to reissue after compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 29–39].

Principles of Natural Justice – Civil Consequences – Necessity of Personal Hearing – Conversion of Gram Sabha areas to municipal limits entails significant civil consequences, including taxation and loss of agrarian character – Even absent explicit statutory mandate, principles of natural justice apply – Failure to grant personal hearing vitiates notification [Paras 27–38].

Panchayati Raj – Duration of Panchayats – Article 243E of the Constitution – Reduction in Panchayat’s tenure through inclusion of Gram Sabha areas in municipal limits violates constitutional mandate of five-year term for elected Panchayats – Impugned notification found unconstitutional [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Review – Applicability of Precedents – Decisions in Tehal Singh and Rameshchandra Porwal distinguished – Inapplicability of earlier rulings relied upon by respondents due to factual dissimilarities – Apex Court’s ruling in Baldev Singh emphasizing necessity of personal hearing upheld [Paras 25–37].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed: Impugned notification dated 25/04/2023 quashed.

Directions Issued: Respondents granted liberty to reissue notification after:

Granting personal hearing to objectors.

Recording detailed and reasoned decisions on objections.

Time frame for compliance: Four months from the date of this judgment.