Land Acquisition – National Highways – Multiplier Factor – Conflict between Central and State Notifications – Acquisition initiated under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act for National Highway project – Central Government notification dated 09.02.2016 under Section 30(2) read with First Schedule of the Act of 2013 prescribing multiplier factor of 2.00 – State Government notification dated 05.10.2021 and GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022 prescribing multiplier factor of 1.00 even for national highways – Held: For acquisition of land for national highways, Central Government alone is the “appropriate Government” under Section 3(e)(v) of the Act of 2013 and Entry 23 of List I – State Government lacks jurisdiction to prescribe multiplier factor for such acquisitions – State notifications and GRs quashed to that extent [Paras 15–24].

Constitution of India – Legislative Competence – National Highways – Entry 23, List I – Exclusive domain of Union – State Government cannot trench upon powers of Central Government in matters relating to acquisition for national highways – Notifications and GRs issued by State Government insofar as they apply to national highways held unconstitutional and unsustainable [Paras 18, 22–23].

Compensation – Multiplier Factor – Award under National Highways Act – Award dated 13.01.2023 applying multiplier factor of 1.00 based on State Government GRs – Held: Award vitiated as it ignores binding Central Government notification prescribing multiplier factor of 2.00 – Award quashed – Direction issued to pass fresh award applying multiplier factor of 2.00 within six weeks [Paras 25, 29(iii)–(iv)].

Alternative Remedy – Section 3-G(5), National Highways Act – Applicability – Objection relating to determination of multiplier factor involves jurisdictional conflict between Central and State Governments – Statutory arbitrator under Section 3-G(5), being a State functionary, lacks authority to decide such issue – Availability of alternative remedy not a bar to writ jurisdiction in present case [Paras 28–29].

Relief – Writ Petition Allowed – State Government notifications and GRs quashed insofar as applicable to national highway acquisitions – Impugned award quashed – Liberty reserved to petitioners to challenge fresh award on grounds relating to quantum of compensation under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act [Paras 29–30].

Writ Jurisdiction – Termination of Contract under Risk and Cost – Scope of Judicial Review – PWD Road Work – Contractor sought quashing of termination order alleging defective estimate, change in site conditions, requirement of additional retaining walls, rigid pavement and shifting of electric posts – Held: After executing contract with full knowledge of scope of work, contractor cannot resile and demand revision of estimate or additional amounts – Disputes essentially contractual in nature – No arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 [Paras 30–32].

Public Works Contract – Estimate and DPR – Binding Nature – Contractor’s Obligation – Petitioner contended that sanctioned estimate and DPR did not match site conditions and required additional expenditure of ₹3.5 crores – Court held that Ext.P10 site report was only a recommendation and not an आदेश altering contractual obligations – Contractor bound to execute work strictly as per agreement and sanctioned estimate – Cannot insist on additional works post agreement [Paras 31–33].

Risk and Cost Termination – Delay in Execution – Extension of Time Granted – Failure to Complete Work – Agreement executed for completion within stipulated time – Extensions granted twice – Contractor failed to complete even 50% of work – Held: Termination under risk and cost justified – No illegality in forfeiture of performance guarantee and initiation of consequential steps [Paras 27–28, 38].

Electric Posts – Alleged Hindrance – Road Width Dispute – Sanctioned width only 3.75 metres – Contractor’s claim based on alleged local demand for 6–7 metre width rejected – Shifting of 7 electric posts already effected – Claim of necessity to remove 24 electric posts held untenable – Contractor bound by sanctioned estimate and agreement terms [Paras 34–35].

Article 14 – Arbitrariness – State Action in Contractual Field – Limits – Reliance on Supreme Court precedents – Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is not an avenue to rewrite contracts or adjudicate disputed facts unless State action is arbitrary or perverse – No violation of Article 14 established in termination order [Paras 21–23, 29–32].

Hearing on Risk and Cost Liability – Limited Relief – While upholding termination, Court directed that contractor shall be afforded opportunity of hearing while computing final liability under risk and cost clause – Limited procedural safeguard granted [Para 38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Termination order upheld – Direction issued to grant petitioner opportunity of hearing before finalising liability under risk and cost clause.

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C – Allegation of Voyeurism – Section 354C IPC – Ingredients of Offence Not Made Out – Private complaint alleging taking of photograph of complainant while laying clothes for drying – Sworn statement did not disclose that complainant was engaged in a “private act” or that her privacy was violated – No allegation of exposure of private parts or expectation of privacy as contemplated under Section 354C – Held: Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7–10, 11].

Voyeurism – Meaning of “Private Act” – Explanation to Section 354C IPC – Scope – Act of laying clothes for drying in front of house – No material to show complainant was not properly dressed or engaged in any act reasonably expected to provide privacy – Mere presence of accused or flashing of light insufficient to attract offence – Cognizance taken without foundational facts – Proceedings unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 66E – Violation of Privacy – Capture of Image of Private Area – Essential Requirement – Sworn statement of complainant did not allege photographing of naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts – No prima facie case under Section 66E made out [Para 10].

Protest Complaint – Credibility – Contradictory Versions – Initial complaint, investigation reports and protest complaint disclose material inconsistencies – Two police refer reports finding complaint false – Radical change in version at protest stage – Statements of witnesses inconsistent with complainant’s own version – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance in absence of sufficient materials [Paras 3–5, 7, 11].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Abuse of Process – Accused compelled to face prosecution without sufficient grounds – Held: Ends of justice require interference – Proceedings in C.C No.555/2018 quashed against Accused Nos.1 to 3 [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara quashed.

Medical Reimbursement – Emergency Treatment – Non-Empanelled Hospital – Petitioner, a retired Chief Engineer, suffered viral meningoencephalitis, went into coma and was admitted in Emergency ICU at Fortis Hospital – Total expenditure ₹3,54,647/- – Reimbursement restricted to ₹1,38,422/- as per PGI/AIIMS rates under policy dated 06.05.2005 – Held: In admitted life-threatening emergency, reimbursement cannot be mechanically restricted to notified rates solely on ground of non-empanelment – Calculation sheet quashed – Balance amount directed to be paid with interest @ 9% p.a. [Paras 16–20, 41].

Right to Health – Article 21 – Scope and Constitutional Obligation – Court reiterated that right to health and medical care is integral to right to life – Executive memoranda cannot override fundamental rights – Preservation of human life is paramount constitutional duty of State – Fiscal constraints or technicalities cannot defeat genuine emergency claims [Paras 21–25, 29].

Service Law – Medical Facilities to Retired Employees – Welfare State – State obligated to bear medical expenses of its employees and pensioners in genuine emergencies – Social security in old age is constitutional expectation, not charity – Mechanical application of policy converting constitutional entitlement into bureaucratic concession deprecated [Paras 35–36].

Administrative Policy – Interpretation in Light of Article 21 – Executive policy regulating reimbursement must be read in consonance with constitutional ethos – In certified life-threatening emergencies, empanelment status of hospital cannot be sole ground to substantially curtail reimbursement – Where two interpretations possible, one advancing preservation of life must prevail [Paras 33–34, 40].

Natural Justice – Non-Speaking Reduction – Balance claim declined without speaking order – Calculation sheet supplied only under RTI – Approach held mechanical and insensitive in context of emergency medical claim [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Calculation sheet dated 17.05.2018 quashed to extent it restricted reimbursement – Respondents directed to reimburse remaining ₹2,16,225/- within four weeks – Amount to carry interest @ 9% per annum from 25.01.2018 (date of discharge) till actual payment – State advised to revisit policy to incorporate mechanism for full/substantial reimbursement in certified life-threatening emergencies [Paras 41–43].

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Judicial Review under Articles 226 & 227 – Limited scope of interference – Borrower sought quashing of e-auction proceedings on the ground of arbitrary reduction of reserve price and violation of MSME revival framework – Held: Measures taken by secured creditor strictly in accordance with SARFAESI Act and Rules – No arbitrariness or procedural impropriety warranting interference in writ jurisdiction [Paras 13–14].

MSME – RBI Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation – Obligation of borrower – Petitioner claimed benefit of MSME status belatedly after initiation of SARFAESI measures – Held: MSME borrower must proactively assert its status and seek benefits of the framework at the stage of reply to Section 13(2) notice supported by affidavit – Failure to do so disentitles borrower from invoking framework at later stage [Paras 10–13].

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(2) and 13(3A) – Demand notice and objections – No material placed to show that borrower raised MSME status or sought restructuring in response to demand notice – Admittedly no revival or restructuring proposal submitted at any stage – Held: Bank not obligated to suo motu extend MSME benefits in absence of borrower’s claim [Paras 11–13].

Auction of secured assets – Reduction of reserve price – Validity – Reserve price reduced after failure of earlier auctions – Reduction carried out in accordance with bank guidelines and SARFAESI Rules – Held: Mere reduction of reserve price does not per se establish arbitrariness, particularly after repeated failed auctions [Paras 6, 9, 13].

Equitable jurisdiction – Conduct of borrower – Bank released one secured property enabling borrower to liquidate substantial dues – Significant payments adjusted against outstanding – Considerable time gap between NPA classification and auction proceedings – Held: Bank adopted a fair, measured and restrained approach – Borrower cannot invoke equity to stall lawful recovery proceedings [Paras 4, 13].

Precedent – MSME borrowers and SARFAESI proceedings – Reliance placed on M/s Pro Knits v. Canara Bank and Shri Shri Swamy and Finance Solution v. NKGSB Co-op Bank Ltd. – Held: MSME benefits cannot be claimed as a dilatory tactic after SARFAESI process has substantially progressed [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No interference with SARFAESI measures or e-auction proceedings – Actions of the Bank upheld as lawful and in consonance with statutory framework.

Sports Law – Olympic Selection – Cross Country Skiing – Exclusion of Meritorious Athlete – Arbitrary Selection Process – Petitioner, top-ranked Indian athlete as per FIS points list dated 19.01.2026, excluded from Olympic consideration on ground of non-participation in World Championship – Held: FIS Qualification System prescribes exhaustive, objective, points-based eligibility criteria under Section C – Participation in World Championship not a mandatory eligibility condition – Selection based on extraneous criteria is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law [Paras 34–45].

Sports Selection – FIS Qualification System – Distinction between Athlete Eligibility and Quota Allocation – Section C governs athlete eligibility based on age, medical fitness, and FIS points – Section D relates only to allocation of quota to National Olympic Committees – Held: Respondents impermissibly conflated quota allocation with athlete eligibility – Additional conditions cannot be read into the Qualification System by executive interpretation [Paras 38–44].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Introduction of Non-Notified Selection Criteria – Respondents restricted Olympic selection to performance in March 2025 World Championship, ignoring notified assessment period from 01.07.2024 to 18.01.2026 – Held: Retrospective and selective application of criteria defeats the notified qualification framework and violates principles of fairness and transparency [Paras 46–47, 50].

Sports Governance – Long List under NOC Accreditation Manual – Scope and Effect – Long List dated 26.09.2025 relied upon to exclude petitioner – Held: Long List is only an accreditation mechanism and cannot override Final List based on FIS points – Clause 3.2.2 does not mandate World Championship participation as a precondition – Exclusion from Long List cannot defeat substantive eligibility [Paras 48–49].

Judicial Review – Sports Matters – Limits and Exceptions – While courts ordinarily defer to expert bodies in athlete selection, interference is justified where decision-making is arbitrary, unfair, or contrary to governing rules – Present case falls within exception warranting judicial intervention [Paras 31–33, 45].

Ad-hoc Committee – Selection Process – Procedural Impropriety and Bias – Selection undertaken by Ad-hoc Committee applying criteria not traceable to international qualification documents – Held: Committee acted beyond authority and contrary to binding FIS framework – Selection process vitiated [Paras 50, 52–55].

Relief – Direction to Ensure Olympic Participation – Prayer to include petitioner allowed – Respondent IOA and Ad-hoc Committee failed in supervisory duty – Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports directed to make all reasonable efforts to facilitate petitioner’s participation in Winter Olympics, Milano Cortina 2026, with full cooperation from IOA [Paras 56–58].

Observations on Role of State and Sports Bodies – Ministry cannot act as mute spectator in matters affecting athletes’ careers and national representation – Fairness, transparency, and merit-based governance are integral to sports administration – Institutional indifference deprecated [Paras 54–59].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Exclusion of petitioner declared arbitrary and illegal – Directions issued to facilitate petitioner’s participation in XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina 2026 – Prayer C (challenge to Ad-hoc Committee) kept pending; respondents directed to file reply – Matter listed for further hearing.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – MMRDA Act, 1974 – Grant of TDR instead of monetary compensation – Illegality – Land of petitioners acquired for Santacruz–Chembur Link Road project – Competent Authority unilaterally awarded compensation in the form of TDR without determining monetary compensation under Section 35 – Statutory scheme under Section 35 mandates determination of “amount” payable – Held: Compensation under the MMRDA Act must be monetary and cannot be substituted by TDR unilaterally – Award dated 15.12.2012 held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 28–35].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 35, MMRDA Act – Step-wise procedure mandatory – Section 35 provides a complete code for determination of compensation – Requires attempt at agreement under Section 35(2) and, failing that, determination of compensation based on net average monthly income – No provision permitting unilateral grant of TDR – Any deviation from statutory mechanism violates authority of law under Article 300A [Paras 23–29, 34–35].

Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) – Consent of land owner – Requirement of consensus – Even where statute contemplates TDR (as under MRTP Act), grant must be by consensus – Applying Full Bench decision in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers – Under MMRDA Act, which does not expressly provide for TDR, unilateral imposition of TDR is impermissible – Petitioners on stronger footing [Paras 30–34].

Alternative Remedy – Tribunal under Section 35(6) – Not efficacious – Tribunal’s jurisdiction confined to disputes regarding quantum of monetary compensation based on net average monthly income – Tribunal cannot adjudicate legality of grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation – Objection of alternative remedy rejected [Paras 36–37].

Delay and Laches – Continuing violation of Article 300A – Acquisition completed in 2011–2012, writ petition filed in 2024 – Held: Forcible deprivation of property without lawful compensation constitutes continuing wrong – State cannot defeat constitutional right to property on ground of delay – Reliance placed on Sukh Dutt Ratra, Vidya Devi, and Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah [Paras 38–45].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Deprivation of property must be by authority of law and accompanied by just, fair and reasonable compensation – Compensation is integral to lawful acquisition – Unilateral grant of TDR amounts to taking possession without authority of law – Violates constitutional and human right to property [Paras 39–44].

Relief – Quashing of Award – Direction to determine monetary compensation – Impugned award dated 15.12.2012 and communication dated 01.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to determine monetary compensation strictly in accordance with Section 35(2) to 35(5) of the MMRDA Act – Exercise to be completed within six months – Writ petition allowed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned award and communication set aside – Respondents directed to determine and pay monetary compensation as per Section 35 of the MMRDA Act within six months.

Criminal Law – Section 295A IPC – Sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. – Stage of applicability – Petition seeking quashing of FIR on the ground that prior sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. was not obtained – Held: Statutory bar under Section 196 Cr.P.C. operates only at the stage of taking cognizance by the Court and not at the stage of registration of FIR or investigation – Police are competent to register FIR and conduct investigation without prior sanction – Sanction becomes mandatory only when the Court proposes to take cognizance upon filing of the final report [Paras 7–8].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court cautioned against premature interdiction of investigation at an incipient stage – Interference at investigation stage permissible only when complaint does not disclose any offence or proceedings are manifestly abusive – Held: Investigation in present case cannot be stifled when allegations disclose serious offence affecting communal harmony [Paras 8, 10].

Penal Code – Section 295A IPC – Deliberate and malicious intention – Prima facie satisfaction – Allegations relating to circulation of extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane images of Hindu deities in a WhatsApp group – Material on record demonstrating tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony – Held: Ingredients of Section 295A IPC prima facie satisfied – Question of mens rea, extent of petitioner’s role and liability of other administrators are matters for investigation and trial [Paras 9–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 67 – Obscene electronic content – Online dissemination – Circulation of obscene images through WhatsApp group involving large number of participants – Electronic material seized and examined during investigation – Held: Allegations disclose offence under Section 67 IT Act warranting continuation of investigation [Paras 2, 10].

Freedom of Speech – Article 19(1)(a) – Reasonable restrictions – Religious offence – Reliance placed on Ramji Lal Modi, Amish Devgan and other precedents – Held: Section 295A penalises only aggravated forms of insult with deliberate and malicious intent – Content having propensity to disrupt public order falls within reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) – Free speech cannot be a shield for obscene and malicious religious insult [Paras 9–9.4].

Investigation – Selective prosecution – Role of administrators – Court noted concern that investigating agency appeared not to have proceeded uniformly against all group administrators – However, such aspect held to be within domain of investigation – Direction issued to conclude investigation expeditiously and proceed against all persons found culpable [Para 10–11].

Decision:Criminal Petition dismissed – FIR and investigation in Crime No.4/2021 upheld – Interim orders vacated – Investigating Officer directed to complete investigation expeditiously – I.A. No.2 of 2024 disposed.

Civil Law – Amendment of Plaint – Withdrawal or Explanation of Admission – Permissibility – Plaintiffs originally pleaded that predecessor-in-title Udharani Dasi was absolute owner of suit property – By amendment sought to plead that Udharani had only limited interest under prevailing law and lacked authority to alienate property between 1911–1933 – Defendants contended amendment impermissible as it withdraws admission and changes nature of suit – Held: Admission does not create title and is not conclusive – Admission may be explained or clarified if facts justify – Amendment explaining legal nature of predecessor’s title not mutually destructive of original pleading [Paras 13, 18–19, 22].

Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment After Framing of Issues – Due Diligence – Application for amendment filed after framing of issues and at stage of evidence – Objection that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 attracted – Held: Mere delay not a ground to refuse amendment – Dominant test is whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy between parties – Belated amendment can be allowed if prejudice can be compensated by costs or opportunity to file additional written statement [Paras 20–21].

Cause of Action – Nature and Character of Suit – No Fundamental Change – Original suit for declaration of joint ownership and partition – Proposed amendment did not seek additional relief nor introduce a new cause of action – Core controversy remained determination of title and succession – Held: Amendment neither changes nature nor character of suit nor substitutes a new and inconsistent case [Paras 17–19, 21, 23].

Amendment of Pleadings – Real Controversy Test – Court must not examine correctness or falsity of amended plea at amendment stage – Real controversy test to be applied – Amendment necessary to adjudicate whether Udharani had transferable title under law prevailing at relevant time – Held: Trial court rightly allowed amendment to enable complete and effective adjudication [Paras 16–18].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Order allowing amendment discretionary and procedural – No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error found – Held: High Court will not interfere under Article 227 merely because another view is possible [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Civil Revisional Application dismissed – Order dated 20.02.2024 allowing amendment of plaint affirmed – No interference warranted under Article 227 – No order as to costs.