Reappointment of Vice Chancellor – Requirement of Fresh Selection Process – Petitioners challenge reappointment of respondent No. 6 without fresh selection process – High Court affirms necessity of adhering to UGC regulations – Reappointment without fresh process deemed permissible only if regulations specifically allow it – Precedents from Supreme Court applied [Paras 18-20].

Violation of UGC Regulations – Composition of Search Committee – Initial appointment and subsequent reappointment of respondent No. 6 challenged for non-compliance with UGC Regulations – Search Committee lacked UGC Chairman’s nominee – High Court holds appointments void ab initio due to non-compliance with mandatory regulations – Central legislation prevails over state legislation in case of conflict [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held: Initial appointment and subsequent reappointment of respondent No. 6 as Vice Chancellor of Dr. YSR Horticulture University declared void ab initio – Quo warranto issued – Reappointments quashed – No order as to costs [Para 25].
 

Enemy Property – Classification and Requisition – Petitioner contested the inclusion of his property as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 – Contention that petitioner’s father had not voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship – Government of India had already determined that petitioner’s father was an Indian citizen – High Court held that petitioner’s father did not fall within the definition of enemy as per Defence of India Act, 1962 and 1971, and hence the property cannot be treated as enemy property [Paras 1-9].

Citizenship and Nationality – Determination of Status – Petitioner’s father adjudicated as Indian citizen under Section 9(2) of Citizenship Act, 1955 – Order confirming Indian citizenship still in force – Property wrongly classified as enemy property [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Inclusion of property in enemy property list quashed – Direction issued to authorities to accept basic tax for the property – Orders passed by Custodian of Enemy Property set aside for lack of legal basis [Para 9].
 

Administrative Law – Discretionary Power – Licensing Authority – Appellant challenged interim order permitting racing and betting activities by the Bengaluru Turf Club despite rejection of their license applications – Court held that licensing authority exercised proper discretion based on pending criminal cases against Club’s office bearers and allegations of illegal activities – Interim order allowing activities set aside – Emphasis on statutory provisions granting discretionary power to authorities in issuing licenses [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Impact on Licensing – Office bearers of the Bengaluru Turf Club facing criminal charges for betting-related offenses – Court found sufficient grounds in pending criminal cases to justify refusal of license – Rejection upheld as a valid exercise of administrative discretion [Paras 5.3-5.6].

Interim Relief – Nature and Scope – Court observed that interim order by Single Judge effectively granted final relief by allowing racing activities – Such interim orders not permissible as they render main relief sought in the petition redundant – Order granting interim relief stayed [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Interim order by learned Single Judge stayed – Respondent-Club prohibited from conducting racing and betting activities during pendency of main petition – Matter to be decided on merits in final hearing [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Rape and Cheating – Appellant convicted for rape under the pretext of false promise of marriage – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Appellant argued that the prosecutrix knew he was married and that her consent was not obtained under misconception – High Court emphasized the absence of evidence proving misconception or coercion [Paras 1-14].

Consent under Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Court highlighted that prosecutrix knew about appellant’s marital status – Consent given by prosecutrix for sexual intercourse not influenced by a promise of marriage – Section 90 not applicable [Paras 33-48].

Evidentiary Standards – Witness Testimony – Court examined contradictions and interpolations in testimonies of P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses – Noted discrepancies undermining reliability of evidence – Medical examination showed no signs of force or violence [Paras 37-47, 62-64].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Explained in Context – Court acknowledged cultural and social hesitation in reporting sexual offences – Delay of five days in lodging FIR considered reasonable in context – However, investigation deemed shoddy and delayed without reasonable cause [Paras 66-74].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 74-74].

Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – Petitioners sought to punish respondents for disobeying orders of the Division Bench of the High Court – Respondents claimed good faith, misunderstanding the status of interim order – Court accepted unconditional apologies considering no further actions were taken post-execution petition – Contempt case closed with direction to respondents to halt further proceedings in E.P.12/2022 [Paras 1-8].

Execution of Compromise Decree – Lok Adalat Award – Compromise reached and award passed by Lok Adalat required execution of sale deed – Respondent filed execution petition post interim stay order, misunderstanding it was vacated – Court emphasized the duty to verify the status of interim orders before proceeding [Paras 2-4].

Apology and Undertaking – Respondent’s Conditional Compliance – Respondent tendered unconditional apology and submitted undertaking to cease further actions in execution proceedings till disposal of main writ petition – Court accepted apology but highlighted the importance of verifying court orders [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Contempt Case Closed – Held – Apologies accepted and directions given to halt proceedings in E.P.12/2022 – No costs awarded – Interlocutory applications, if any, to stand closed [Para 8].

Pension and Gratuity – Withholding of Retirement Benefits – Rule 43(b) and 43(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – Petitioner retired without any pending departmental or criminal proceedings – Withholding 10% of pension and gratuity deemed illegal in absence of such proceedings – Writ petition allowed directing respondents to pay withheld amounts [Paras 2-19].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Pending Proceedings – Rule 43(b) and 43(c) stipulate withholding only if proceedings are pending – Respondents failed to show any ongoing departmental proceedings – Court emphasizes strict adherence to procedural fairness in withholding pension and gratuity [Paras 13-16].

Decision:n Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to pay the petitioner the remaining 10% of pension and gratuity along with arrears forthwith.

Employment Law – Transfer and Posting – Appeal against order favoring employee’s writ petition challenging compulsory retirement due to unauthorized absence – Employer's prerogative to decide employee's place of work emphasized – Health issues and political influence in transfer orders considered – Court upholds employer's decision, reinstates punishment of compulsory retirement [Paras 1-8].

Absenteeism and Misconduct – Employee claimed health issues as reason for absenteeism – Medical report did not support health-related leave – Unauthorized absence deemed misconduct – Supreme Court precedents affirm disciplinary action for such absence [Paras 5-7].

Political Influence in Service Matters – Court criticized political interference in employee transfers and postings – Noted it disrupts public administration – Court disapproved employee’s act of seeking political influence, affecting writ relief eligibility [Para 7].

Judicial Review of Disciplinary Actions – Findings of guilt in disciplinary proceedings generally upheld – Limited judicial interference, especially when departmental appeals fail on merits – Court supports employer’s disciplinary decisions unless exceptions apply [Para 8].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Order of the learned Single Judge set aside – Compulsory retirement of the respondent-employee reinstated – Benefits accruing from compulsory retirement to be processed within eight weeks, with interest for delays.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheques – Petitioner issued cheques to the respondent which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Legal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act initiated – Settlement agreement reached, but petitioner failed to comply fully – Respondent invoked Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. for enforcement – Court upheld the enforcement of settlement terms [Paras 1-10].

Settlement Agreement – Non-compliance – Settlement under Section 147 of the NI Act – Petitioner failed to pay agreed amount – Court confirmed liberty for respondent to recover amount through Section 421 of Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that settlement subsumes original complaint and failure leads to fresh cause of action [Paras 6-8].

Jurisdiction and Legal Principles – Apex Court’s observations on settlement agreements and subsequent liabilities – Reference to cases Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels, Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy – Court noted principles but found them inapplicable to petitioner’s arguments [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Criminal Petition Rejected – Interim order dissolved – Emphasized enforcement of settlements and no merit in technical objections by petitioner [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Formation of Unlawful Assembly – Conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 324 read with Section 149 IPC upheld – Appellants’ involvement in group violence following a football match – Evidence established presence and participation in the unlawful assembly [Paras 1-13, 16].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC for accused 1 to 3 – Evidence showed that the accused inflicted head injuries likely to cause death – No premeditated intention to kill established – Appellants already served more than 7½ years [Paras 9, 17-19, 22].

Witness Testimony – Identification and Credibility – Multiple witnesses identified the appellants – Witnesses’ injuries corroborated by medical records – Arguments challenging credibility dismissed due to corroborative evidence and procedural correctness in witness examination [Paras 8, 10-11, 15-16].

Evidence – Omission and Contradiction – Arguments on omissions in witness statements rejected – Omission not brought up during cross-examination under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act not treated as material contradiction [Para 15].

Conspiracy – Insufficient Evidence – Conviction under Section 120B IPC set aside – No evidence of premeditated agreement to commit murder – Incident considered as a spontaneous clash rather than a planned conspiracy [Paras 17-18, 22].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 324 read with Section 149 IPC upheld for all appellants – Conviction under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 149 IPC set aside for accused 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 – Conviction for accused 1 to 3 modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellants’ imprisonment already served considered sufficient – Release ordered if no other cases pending [Paras 22-24].