Selection Process – Normalization of Marks – Interview Weightage – Petitioner challenges the selection process of ISRO for the post of Administrative Officer, alleging irregularities in the normalization of marks in the written test and interview – Court holds that the selection process followed laid down procedures, including normalization and interview weightage, which were clearly mentioned in the advertisement – No irregularity found in calling more than three candidates for interview or the allocation of 40% marks to the interview stage – Court concludes that the selection board exercised due discretion in evaluating candidates, and the petitioner’s failure in the interview cannot be grounds for challenging the process after participating in it without objection [Paras 26–30, 35–36].

Challenge to Selection Criteria – Participation in Process Without Objection – The petitioner participated in the selection process and only challenged the criteria after being unsuccessful – Court refers to settled law that candidates who participate in a selection process without raising objections cannot later challenge the procedure after finding themselves unsuccessful – Cites Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) SCC 357, to emphasize that candidates are estopped from challenging a process they participated in without protest [Paras 33–34].

Court’s Role in Evaluating Selection Decisions – The Court reiterates that it cannot step into the shoes of the appointing authority to reassess the marks assigned to candidates during interviews – The discretion to evaluate a candidate’s performance in interviews lies with the selection board, and courts should refrain from second-guessing such evaluations unless there is evidence of mala fide intent, which was not present in this case [Paras 35–36].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, finding no irregularities in the selection process – The petitioner’s challenge was deemed to lack merit, as he participated in the process without objection and failed to show any mala fide or procedural impropriety [Paras 37–38].

Suspension of License – Absence of Reasons and Indefinite Period – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner challenged the suspension of her bar license on the grounds of the impugned order being arbitrary, lacking reasons, and imposing an indefinite suspension period – Held: The suspension order was issued without specifying the suspension duration, which amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice. The authorities are required to pass a final order within three weeks, adhering to the principles of natural justice, failing which the suspension will be deemed revoked [Paras 5, 12, 23].

Liquor Trade Regulation – Right to Trade under Article 19(1)(g) – Reasonable Restrictions – The petitioner contended that the suspension of her bar license infringes upon her fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Held: The right to trade in liquor is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and health. The court upheld the temporary suspension but directed the authorities to ensure that the suspension is not indefinite or tantamount to cancellation [Paras 13, 23].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to Respond – Report Obtained Post-Submission of Explanation – The petitioner argued that a report was obtained from the District Prohibition & Excise Officer after her explanation, which was not furnished to her, resulting in a violation of natural justice – Held: The report did not introduce new material adverse to the petitioner, and the court found no violation of natural justice, as the petitioner had adequate opportunity to respond [Paras 19, 21].

Decision – The court dismissed the writ petition but directed the authorities to treat the suspension as temporary and to pass a final order within three weeks. The authorities were also directed to observe the principles of natural justice during further proceedings. If the final order is not passed within the stipulated time, the suspension shall be deemed revoked [Paras 23-25].

Full Tank Level Dispute – Extent of FTL – Petitioners' objections regarding Durgam Cheruvu tank’s FTL not considered – Directions for Reconsideration – The petitioners argued that the FTL determined by the respondents exceeded the original extent of Acs. 65.12 Guntas, encroaching on their private property – Held: The Lake Protection Committee was directed to hear the petitioners’ objections and decide the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu through a speaking order – No demolition of the petitioners’ constructions until the FTL determination is finalized [Paras 1-6].

Administrative Law – Right to Hearing – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners entitled to a personal hearing before Lake Protection Committee – Petitioners had submitted objections within the prescribed time limit but were not considered – Held: The Lake Protection Committee must provide the petitioners with a personal hearing and finalize the FTL notification after considering the objections [Paras 10-12].

Land Rights – Private Property – Article 300-A Constitution of India – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners’ claim of interference with peaceful possession – Petitioners' properties were alleged to fall under the extended FTL area – Held: The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession until the FTL is determined [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Remedy – No Final Relief Granted – Pending Decision by Committee – The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims as the matter was left to be adjudicated by the Lake Protection Committee – Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Committee [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the Lake Protection Committee to hear the petitioners' objections and notify the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu within six weeks. No demolition of the petitioners' constructions will take place until the FTL is determined.

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Applicant convicted for abetment of suicide and cruelty towards his wife – Trial Court sentenced him to imprisonment, and the conviction was upheld by the appellate court – Applicant argued that contradictory medical opinions (postmortem and chemical analysis) undermined the prosecution’s case and that there was no evidence of abetment – Held: Medical evidence favored the postmortem findings over the chemical analysis, but the prosecution failed to establish abetment or cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-12, 13-31].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem vs. Chemical Analysis – The postmortem indicated poisoning, while the chemical analysis found no poison – Court relied on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to conclude that poison might not always be detected after death due to various factors – Held: Postmortem findings prevail over chemical analysis, but this does not conclusively establish abetment or cruelty [Paras 7-12].

Abetment of Suicide – Insufficient Proof – Applicant argued that no evidence of provocation or incitement was provided to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC – The Court referred to Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that abetment requires proof of instigation or active encouragement – The prosecution failed to prove any proximate incitement leading to the deceased's suicide [Paras 13-22].

Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Lack of Continuous Harassment – No evidence of continuous harassment or unlawful demands for dowry was established – The deceased’s complaint about harassment was vague and not corroborated by credible witnesses – The general allegations surfaced only after her death, which were insufficient to convict under Section 498A IPC [Paras 23-29].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC quashed – Applicant acquitted and fine to be refunded – Bail bonds canceled and surety discharged [Paras 31].

Taxation Law - Entry Tax – Use or Consumption – Refining of Crude Oil – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners, including Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (now known as Patanjali Foods Ltd.), challenged the imposition of Entry Tax on crude soya oil brought into Madhya Pradesh for refining, arguing that the refining process does not amount to manufacture, and no new product emerged – Held: The refining of crude oil, which undergoes processes like degumming and deodorization, constitutes "use" of the crude oil as it leads to the production of refined oil, which is a different commercial commodity from crude oil – Entry Tax was correctly imposed [Paras 21-22, 33].

Definition of Manufacture – Exclusion of Refining Process – Petitioners argued that the process of refining crude soya oil had been excluded from the definition of "manufacture" under Notification No. 18 dated 01-04-1995 issued under Section 2(o) of the MPCT Act – Held: Even though refining does not constitute manufacture, the Entry Tax is applicable under Section 3(1) of the Entry Tax Act as it covers "use" or "consumption," both of which apply in this case, given that refined oil is a new marketable product [Paras 23, 27].

Supreme Court Precedents – Relevance to the Entry Tax Act – The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Mamta Surgical Cotton Industries vs Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Rajasthan (2014) and Commissioner of Trade Tax vs M/s Mishra Tea Blending (2023), which clarified that processes transforming a raw material into a commercially different product amount to "use" under entry tax laws, irrespective of whether the process constitutes "manufacture" – Applied the same principle to the refining of crude soya oil [Paras 26, 29].

Decision:

The writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the imposition of Entry Tax on the crude soya oil brought into Madhya Pradesh and refined into a new marketable product – No order as to costs [Para 34].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his neighbor following an altercation over a disputed will – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and a dying declaration made by the deceased – The trial court convicted the appellant, despite acquitting the co-accused on the same evidence – Held: The conviction was overturned on appeal due to contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, inconsistencies between the dying declaration and initial medical history provided by the deceased, and lack of independent corroboration – The court ruled that the dying declaration could not be relied upon exclusively to convict the appellant, especially in light of conflicting evidence [Paras 30-55].

Dying Declaration – Reliability and Contradictions – The deceased initially told doctors that his injuries were accidental, caused by a fall, but later implicated the appellant in a dying declaration – The court emphasized that a dying declaration, if contradictory or delayed, requires corroboration – Here, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case, and the dying declaration was deemed unreliable [Paras 40-45].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Eyewitness Reliability – The prosecution’s key witnesses were family members of the deceased, and their accounts contained material contradictions, particularly concerning the sequence of events and the timing of the complaint – The court held that their testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and their status as interested witnesses [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges – The court emphasized that when evidence is circumstantial and inconsistent, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Consumer Law – Award of Interest – Execution of Forum's Order – The respondent was awarded 15% interest on the deposited amount by the Consumer Forum, with a recovery certificate issued for further interest on the interest amount – Held: Interest is payable only on the principal sum adjudged, not on the interest component, as per Section 34 of the CPC and Section 3(3) of The Interest Act, 1978 – The Forum's order awarding interest on interest was set aside as illegal [Paras 17-23]​.

Judicial Review – Interest on Principal vs. Interest on Interest – The Court clarified that interest on interest cannot be awarded unless expressly provided by statute or contractual terms – Reiterated that courts ordinarily award interest only on the principal sum – The impugned orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed [Paras 23-24]​.

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders of 01/01/2020 and 15/03/2021 set aside – No order as to costs [Para 24]​.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Scope Expanded – The applicants filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with accusations under Sections 451, 394/34 of IPC – Held: The scope of anticipatory bail has been expanded compared to the earlier provision under Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973, removing guiding factors like the gravity of accusations and criminal antecedents, thus widening judicial discretion – The Court found no intention to commit the alleged offenses based on the facts and granted anticipatory bail on conditions of cooperation with the investigation and ensuring no interference with evidence [Paras 4-7].

Service Law - ACP Scheme – Benefit of Past Service for Grant of 2nd ACP – Past Service Must Be Counted – The petitioner, a clerk, sought the 2nd ACP on completion of 9 years of service after being transferred from one Sessions Division to another – The Court held that the petitioner’s past service must be counted for the benefit of the ACP scheme since the rule restricting this benefit (Rule 4.8(b)) was introduced after the petitioner’s transfer, and cannot be applied retrospectively [Paras 7.2, 7.3].

Discrimination – Similarly Situated Employees Granted ACP Benefit – Petitioner Entitled to Equal Treatment – The Court found that other similarly situated employees were granted the benefit of ACP, but the petitioner was denied the same – This was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory, warranting relief [Paras 7.4, 7.6].

Precedent – Court Denies “Wrong Cannot Be Perpetuated” Argument – The respondents argued that a prior wrong decision could not be a precedent, but the Court held that the petitioner’s claim was lawful and justified based on prior service and existing rules [Para 7.5].

Decision: The petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the petitioner by respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The impugned order dated 09.01.2020 is set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the 2nd ACP.