Passport Issuance and Criminal Proceedings – The Court examined whether the pendency of a criminal case bars the issuance or renewal of a passport – Analyzed Sections 2(e), 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 and relevant rules – Recognized that Section 6(2)(f) mandates denial of passport if proceedings for an offense are pending in a criminal court in India [Paras 8, 12, 13, 18, 19].

Government Notification G.S.R. 570(E) – Discussed its applicability for issuance of short validity passports to individuals with pending criminal cases – Allowed issuance of such passports based on court orders, with specific conditions regarding the validity period [Para 9].

Judicial Precedents and Legal Interpretation – Cited various judgments to elucidate the principle that the passport authority can refuse passport renewal on the same grounds applicable for the first-time issuance under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act – Highlighted the significance of Section 6(2)(f) in cases of passport re-issuance or renewal when the applicant is facing criminal charges [Paras 14-17, 19].

Decision – Petition for issuance of a normal validity passport for 10 years was rejected – The Court sustained the impugned endorsement dated 14.12.2023 – Directed the petitioner to approach the concerned court for a short validity passport in accordance with the Act and G.S.R. 570 Notification – Emphasized that the court should not reject the application for a short validity passport merely due to the pendency of a criminal case [Paras 20-21].

Coercive Recovery Proceedings by Bank - Kerala Bank initiated coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance from the petitioner invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Petitioner challenged the proceedings due to inability to repay due to COVID-19 pandemic. [Para 1]

Financial Transactions and Default - Petitioner received various loans from the Bank between 2011 and 2022 - Default in repayment due to COVID-19 - Petitioner sought to repay overdue amounts in monthly instalments, but the Bank commenced coercive recovery. [Paras 2, 3, 5]

Bank's Stance and Legal Position - Bank denied petitioner's claims - Stated petitioner defaulted deliberately and did not provide any legal basis to stop coercive proceedings - Bank open to allowing repayment if substantial payment made soon. [Paras 5, 6, 7]

Court's Observation and Directions - Court noted petitioner's initial regular repayments and subsequent default due to uncontrollable circumstances - Directed the petitioner to clear dues in 10 monthly instalments, starting 19.02.2024, along with current EMIs - Failure to comply will allow the Bank to proceed with coercive actions. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11]

Quashing – PC Act - Tender Process and Alleged Misconduct – Petitioners, officials in port management, involved in tender process for manual dredging and sale of port sand in Kasaragod district – Alleged preferential treatment to unqualified co-operative societies – Allegations of criminal misconduct and conspiracy [Paras 2-3, 7, 22, 24-25].

Submission by Petitioners – Challenging the basis of allegations – No evidence of obtaining pecuniary advantage or causing loss to the government – Argued irregularities in the tender process do not constitute criminal misconduct [Paras 5.1-5.5].

Prosecution's Stand – Asserted that certain co-operative societies were wrongfully permitted in the tender – Alleged conspiracy and preferential treatment by petitioners [Para 6.1].

Judicial Analysis – The court examined the allegations of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act – Emphasized the requirement of dishonest intention for criminal misconduct – Found that prosecution failed to establish dishonest intention or pecuniary advantage obtained by petitioners [Paras 11-13, 19-24].

Dismissal of Charges – Determined that the allegations pointed to procedural irregularities, not criminal misconduct – No evidence of pecuniary gain or dishonest intention – Proceedings against petitioners quashed, considering no prima facie case established against them [Paras 24-28].

Transfer Petition in Family Court Matters – Jurisdiction and Convenience – Petition for transfer of case from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Manjeri – Petitioner, a mother, citing financial and health constraints and shorter distance to Manjeri – Respondents argue minimal distance difference and minor child's school and Madrassa in Kozhikode – Court considers convenience of mother in guardianship matters and insufficient opposition by respondents. [Para 1-4]

Jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act – Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, confers jurisdiction based on minor's residence – Court notes natural jurisdiction conferred by special statutes in family matters, emphasizing the need to consider mother's convenience in transfer petitions. [Para 4]

Decision – Transfer petition allowed – Case O.P.(G&W) No.720/2023 ordered to be transferred from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Manjeri – Transferee court instructed not to insist on minor's presence at every court date, except when essential for proceedings. [Para 5]

Criminal Law – Discharge - Conspiracy and Misconduct in Granting Dredging Permits – Accused alleged of forming a criminal conspiracy in granting permits for the disposal of dredged materials from Azheekkal Port – Accused allegedly adopted different criteria for different dredgers, causing a loss of Rs.3,20,000/- to the public exchequer. [Paras 2, 28-33]

Investigation Validity and Competence of Investigating Officer – Major part of the investigation conducted by an Inspector of Police, VACB, Kannur – Validity upheld based on Notification No.12094/C1/88/Vig dated 02.03.1993 authorising Inspectors to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. [Paras 7-12]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Reliance on testimonies of the Wharf Supervisor and other officials – Testimonies and documents indicating differential treatment in granting dredging permits and quantifying the resultant loss to the government. [Paras 14, 29]

Legal Interpretation of Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Court’s consideration for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Evaluation of whether charges against accused are groundless, without going into probative value of materials. [Paras 16-27]

Accused's Arguments and Court's Analysis – Petitioners’ arguments on lack of guidelines for dredging and rate fixation under Section 68 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 – Court's consideration of evidence indicating excess dredging and resultant loss to the government, and involvement of accused in alleged conspiracy. [Paras 31-37]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Charges not groundless, necessitating full trial – Allegations of pecuniary advantage and loss to the government through differential dredging permits substantiated. [Para 41]

Writ - Service Law - Termination of Judicial Probationer – Principles of Article 311(2) – Violation of Natural Justice – Termination Quashed - The petitioner, a probationer in Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch), was terminated following allegations of misconduct based on a complaint by his former wife and the report of the Administrative Judge – No charge sheet was issued or disciplinary proceedings held, and the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to defend himself – Held: The foundation of the termination order was punitive in nature, as the adverse report relied on misconduct allegations without fair opportunity to the petitioner – Thus, the termination is violative of Article 311(2) and principles of natural justice, and is set aside [Paras 3.4, 4.1, 4.2].

Probationer’s Rights – Substantive vs. Procedural Termination - A probationer’s termination, though appearing innocuous, will be scrutinized if it is based on misconduct allegations requiring adherence to Article 311(2) – The substance of the termination order, not its form, is decisive – Foundational reliance on misconduct without inquiry amounts to punitive action, attracting constitutional safeguards [Paras 3.2, 3.3, 3.4].

Doctrine of Motive and Foundation – Shamsher Singh Principles Reiterated - The principles laid down in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831, were reiterated – If termination is based on misconduct allegations (foundation) rather than unsuitability (motive), procedural safeguards under Article 311(2) apply – The Administrative Judge’s report formed the foundation of the petitioner’s termination, making it stigmatic and punitive [Paras 3.2, 3.4].

Reinstatement Ordered – Right to Fair Hearing Affirmed – Directions Issued - The court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, seniority, and back wages – However, the respondent authority was granted liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if deemed appropriate, in accordance with the law – Held: Writ petition allowed [Paras 4.1, 4.2, 4.3].

Decision: Petition allowed. Petitioner to be reinstated with continuity of service, seniority, and back wages. Respondent authority granted liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if advised.
 

Election Disqualification – Challenging the disqualification of elected members of Supreme Court Bar Association Multi-State Cooperative Group-Housing Society Ltd. by Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Respondent No. 2) – Disqualification for a period of five years from date of order – Petition filed against jurisdiction and procedure of disqualification. [Para 1-2]

Election Procedure – Revision of election programme and publication of final list of candidates by the Returning Officer (Respondent No. 4) – Petitioners' inclusion in final list and objection to their exclusion on the eve of the elections – Allegations of vested interest by complainants in the election. [Para 3-4]

Jurisdiction and Authority – Respondent No. 2's order based on Section 43(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 – Role of the Returning Officer in election process and finalization of candidate list. [Para 5-6]

Court's Decision – Recognition of the final list of candidates published by the Returning Officer – Direction for elections to be conducted as per the final list, including the Petitioners – Reservation of rights for Petitioners and Respondents to pursue statutory remedies against the impugned order. [Para 7-9]

Decision – Petition disposed of with direction to conduct elections as per the final list of candidates published on 11.01.2024 – Petitioners allowed to contest the elections despite disqualification order, with rights reserved to challenge the order. [Para 10]

Service Law - Dismissal from Service – Disproportionality of Punishment – Petitioner challenging orders of Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) and Directorate General BSF – Alleged disproportionate dismissal from service for using threatening and insubordinate language towards superior officer and another constable, and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline – High Court upholding the dismissal considering the seriousness of the charges. [Para 2-4, 6-8]

Disciplinary Proceedings in Armed Forces – Seriousness of Charges – Petitioner, a constable in BSF, found guilty of using threatening language towards a superior officer, insubordinate language, and conduct detrimental to force discipline – SSFC verdict and respondent’s decision to mitigate imprisonment but retain dismissal upheld by the High Court – Emphasis on maintaining discipline in armed forces. [Para 5-6, 8]

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Cases – High Court’s limited scope in reviewing disciplinary actions in armed forces – Refusal to interfere with SSFC’s decision and Directorate General’s order in petitioner’s case due to the gravity of the offences and the importance of discipline in armed forces. [Para 7-8]

Decision – High Court dismisses the petition upholding SSFC’s and Directorate General’s orders – Dismissal from service maintained considering the nature of charges and the necessity of discipline in armed forces. [Para 8]

Land Acquisition and Ownership – Government’s acquisition of land in Karkardooma, Delhi – Plaintiffs’ claim for ownership and management rights over land – Trial and First Appellate Courts dismissed claim due to government acquisition and lack of legal standing of plaintiffs [Paras 3, 6, 7, 26-33].

Pairokar (Agent) Relationship – Plaintiff’s failure to establish that defendant No.1 was an agent (Pairokar) of his late mother, Smt. Mohro Devi, for managing the suit land – No documentary evidence provided, reliance on self-testimony insufficient [Paras 13-21].

Estoppel Principle – Application of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 – Plaintiff’s claim for relief based on alleged landlord-tenant relationship with defendants not substantiated [Paras 31-32].

Trespass and Encroachment – Clarification that defendant No.1, despite occupying the suit land, does not gain legal rights over it through this judgment – Municipal Corporation of Delhi authorized to act against encroachment [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Plaintiff Shiv Prakash’s claim over the suit land rejected due to lack of title and standing after government acquisition. Defendant Mool Chand also recognized as a trespasser with no legal rights to the land.