Vehicle Confiscation – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner challenges confiscation of Mahindra Bolero under Section 47(A)(2) of the M.P. Excise Act by Collector during pendency of criminal case – Court discusses jurisdiction and timing of confiscation orders in relation to ongoing criminal trials – Conflicting judgments from coordinate benches on whether confiscation can proceed independently of trial outcome – Matter referred to Larger Bench for resolution [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Precedents – Conflicting Bench Decisions – Analysis of various judgments from coordinate benches – Some benches hold confiscation should await criminal trial outcome based on Apex Court's ruling in Madhukar Rao – Other benches allow parallel proceedings, emphasizing independent nature of confiscation under Excise Act – Need for consistent legal interpretation recognized [Paras 9-16].

Reference to Larger Bench – Issues for Adjudication – Key questions formulated for Larger Bench consideration – Jurisdiction and timing of confiscation orders under Excise Act – Applicability of Supreme Court's Madhukar Rao decision – Parallel proceedings of confiscation and criminal trial – Binding nature of conflicting coordinate bench decisions [Paras 15-17].

Decision:

Interim Relief Granted – Collector, Narsinghpur, directed to release vehicle on supurdginama pending final adjudication – Larger Bench to resolve conflicting legal positions – Petitioner to furnish security equivalent to vehicle value for release [Paras 9-17].

Service Law – Postal Delay – Right of Consideration – The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for the post of Staff Car Driver at PGIMER due to a postal delay. The court examined whether the rejection was justified despite the delay being attributed to postal authorities and not the petitioner’s fault [Paras 1-7].

Application of Judicial Principles – Compliance with Deadlines – The court referred to established judicial principles regarding compliance with application deadlines, emphasizing that deadlines in recruitment processes must be strictly adhered to. The court cited cases like Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University and Dr. Jayanta Samanta v. Director, PGI, Chandigarh to underline the importance of strict compliance [Paras 20-25].

Exception Based on Unique Circumstances – Despite the strict legal stance on deadlines, the court acknowledged the unique circumstances of the petitioner’s case, where the postal delay was solely due to the postal authorities' mistake. The court noted that the petitioner’s application reached PGIMER premises on time but was misdelivered [Paras 26-27].

Equity and Fairness – The court emphasized the principles of equity and fairness, considering that no other candidate would be prejudiced by allowing the petitioner’s application to be reconsidered. The court highlighted that one post remained vacant and reconsideration would not disrupt the fairness of the recruitment process [Paras 28-33].

Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing PGIMER to exercise its discretion in considering the petitioner’s application for the vacant post. PGIMER was advised to seek ‘no objection’ from other candidates if necessary and to decide the matter in light of the discussed circumstances and principles of fairness [Paras 36].

Criminal Law – Common Object and Intention – The appellants were convicted for rioting and causing grievous injuries to police officers. The High Court affirmed that the assembly of appellants, initially lawful, became unlawful when they attacked the police. The testimonies of injured police officers were deemed credible and sufficient for conviction. The Court underscored that for Section 149 IPC, it is unnecessary for every member to have an overt act if the common object is evident from their behavior and context [Paras 12-18].

Section 307 IPC – Attempt to Murder – The Court analyzed the nature of injuries and intent, concluding that while grievous injuries were inflicted, the intent to murder was not established. The conviction under Section 307 IPC was altered to Section 326 IPC, considering the single blow rule and absence of fatal injuries [Paras 33-38].

Grievous Hurt – Section 326 IPC – The appellants were found guilty of causing grievous hurt with a sharp object, satisfying the criteria under Section 326 IPC rather than Section 333 IPC, as the latter is less severe in punishment [Paras 39-41].

Sentence – Reduction and Concurrent Sentencing – Considering the time already served and lack of prior criminal records, the sentence was reduced. The appellants were sentenced to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 326/149 IPC and fined accordingly, with the stipulation that fines paid be directed as compensation to the injured officers [Paras 42-48].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed. Convictions under Sections 307/149 and 333/149 IPC were modified to Section 326/149 IPC with a sentence of 3 years RI. Convictions under Section 148 IPC and 332/149 IPC (five counts) were affirmed. Compensation was mandated from fines collected [Paras 45-48].
 

Externment Order – Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner challenged the externment order dated 22.10.2023 – Contended that notice period was less than 24 hours – High Court found violation of natural justice due to impractical notice period – Highlighted that the petitioner could not be classified as an anti-social element as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act – Externment order deemed null and void [Paras 1-28].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – Writ petition filed despite the availability of alternative remedy under Section 6 of the Act – High Court held writ petition maintainable as the petitioner’s liberty was at stake and principles of natural justice were violated – Reference to precedents including Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1978 SC 851, and others [Paras 6-8].

Definition of Anti-Social Element – Application of Section 2(d) – Evaluated whether the petitioner met criteria under Section 2(d) – Court concluded petitioner did not habitually commit offences as required – Relied on Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14 for interpretation of "habitually" [Paras 9-25].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Externment order dated 22.10.2023 against the petitioner set aside – Directed authorities to comply with principles of natural justice in future proceedings – Emphasized need for reasonable opportunity to respond to notices [Paras 28-29].
 

Reservation Policy in Public Employment – EWS Category – Petitioner challenges the provisional selection of respondent No.4 for the post of Assistant Professor in Sociology under the EWS category – Court examines the applicability of EWS reservation policies as per J&K Reservation Act, 2004, and the UGC guidelines – University of Jammu found not to have amended its statutes to include EWS reservation – Advertisement for the post under EWS category held unsustainable [Paras 1-54].

Reservation in Universities – Applicability of UGC Guidelines – Universities required to follow UGC guidelines on reservation for SC/ST – No specific provision for EWS in UGC guidelines – University’s statutes provide for reservation only for SC/ST and only at the Assistant Professor level – University’s failure to amend statutes to include EWS reservation – Advertisement and selection process quashed [Paras 27-50].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Advertisement for Assistant Professor in Sociology under EWS category quashed – University directed to re-advertise the post as per existing laws – Court highlights need for statutory amendments to include EWS reservation in university recruitment [Para 54].

Attempt to Murder – Reduction of Sentence – Appellant convicted under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder the complainant by assaulting with an axe – Conviction under Sections 504 and 506-II IPC also imposed – Court finds lack of intention to kill; injury caused not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – Conviction under Section 307 reduced to Section 326 IPC – Sentence reduced to 3 years RI with fine – Conviction under Sections 504 and 506-II IPC set aside [Paras 1-36].

Interested Witnesses – Credibility – Testimonies of related witnesses scrutinized – Court holds testimonies reliable despite minor contradictions – Affirms principle that related witness testimonies hold probative value if corroborated by evidence [Paras 13-17].

Independent Witnesses – Absence – Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal – Incident occurred in agricultural field, natural absence of independent witnesses – Prosecution case supported by medical evidence and injured’s testimony upheld [Paras 19-22].

Decision:

Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC set aside and replaced with conviction under Section 326 IPC – Appellant sentenced to 3 years RI with a fine of Rs.10,000/- – Conviction under Sections 504 and 506-II IPC set aside – Appellant to be released after serving the sentence and paying the fine – Fine amount, if already paid, to be adjusted and Rs.10,000/- to be compensated to the injured [Paras 36-40].

Co-operative Societies – Amendment of Rules – Petitioners challenged amendments made by the Registrar acting as an Administrator – Claimed amendments were illegal and contrary to the 1961 Act and 1963 Rules – Court found Registrar's actions to be a colourable exercise of power – Administrator cannot take policy decisions or amend rules unilaterally – Amendments quashed [Paras 1-20].

Registrar's Dual Role – Registrar appointed himself as an Administrator and subsequently approved his own recommendations – Court held this as a conflict of interest and a violation of cooperative principles and legal provisions – Emphasized the necessity of an independent and unbiased procedure for such amendments [Paras 12-19].

Doctrine of Necessities – Doctrine inapplicable in this case – Administrator cannot take policy decisions that fundamentally alter the cooperative structure – Cooperative societies should maintain autonomy in managing their affairs [Para 14].

Relief – Amendments made in the 1970-71 Rules by the Administrator and approved by the Registrar quashed – Petitioners allowed to challenge departmental actions in appropriate forums if necessary [Paras 20-21].

Industrial Law – Wrongful Termination – Compliance with ID Act – The case involved the State of Punjab's challenge to the Industrial Tribunal's award, which found the termination of Kamaljit, a work-woman, to be in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal had ordered her reinstatement with 50% back-wages from the date of the demand notice, citing non-compliance with Section 25-F of the ID Act [Paras 1-2].

Nature of Employment – Classification as Industry – The petitioners argued that the Forest Department was not an 'Industry' under the ID Act. The Tribunal, however, referred to precedents establishing the Forest Department as an 'Industry' and rejected this contention. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on precedents like Divisional Forest Officer vs. Jagdish and others, 2003(4) RSJ 264 [Para 4].

Inconsistent Testimony and Employment Records – The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the management's witness statements regarding Kamaljit's employment duration, ultimately determining that she was employed from October 1998 to December 2000. This inconsistency supported the Tribunal's finding of wrongful termination [Paras 5-16].

Modification of Award – Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Citing similar cases where compensation was awarded instead of reinstatement, the court modified the Tribunal’s order. Kamaljit was awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹3.50 lakhs, considering she had attained superannuation and had rendered over two years of service before termination [Paras 6-8].

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a modification of the Tribunal's award. Kamaljit was awarded ₹3.50 lakhs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, to be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be applicable.
 

Criminal Law – Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Issuance of Security Cheques – Legal Enforceability:
Petitions filed to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheques issued by petitioners as security for employment contracts – Petitioners argued no legally enforceable debt existed at the time of issuance – Respondents contended cheques were dishonored due to breach of contract terms – High Court held the relevant date for determining enforceability is the date of presentation – Cheques issued as security can attract Section 138 if liability exists at the time of presentation [Paras 1-20].

Contractual Obligations and Security Cheques – Burden of Proof:
Petitioners argued cheques were not for discharge of debt but as indemnity against future losses – Court observed that legal liability on the date of presentation suffices for Section 138 – Burden on the drawer to rebut presumption of liability under the Act – Arguments about invalid contracts and lack of enforceability to be examined during trial, not at the quashing stage [Paras 10-12, 20].
Decision: Petitions dismissed – Criminal proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act to continue – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings given the pendency since 2017 – Petitioners allowed to present evidence and challenge the enforceability of the alleged debt during trial [Paras 21-22].