Income Tax – TDS – Section 201(3) – Limitation – Quarter-wise Computation – Not Annual – Assessee filed TDS Returns for the first three quarters of FY 2008-09 in that financial year itself, while the fourth quarter return was filed on 15.06.2009 in FY 2009-10 – Order under Section 201(1) declaring assessee in default was passed on 15.03.2012 – Section 201(3) stipulates that no order shall be passed after expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement is filed – Since TDS statements under Rule 31A are mandatorily filed on a quarterly basis, each quarter constitutes a separate compliance period with a distinct filing date and independent starting point for limitation – Appellant's contention that limitation must be computed on an annual/cumulative basis rejected as contrary to the text and structure of the statutory framework – Held: Proceedings for first three quarters barred by limitation; demand for fourth quarter rightly sustained – Limitation provisions in taxing statutes must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by implication [Paras 6-7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of ITAT, Pune dated 12.03.2018 upheld – Proceedings for first three quarters of AY 2009-10 held barred by limitation – Demand for fourth quarter sustained.

Railways Act – Untoward Incident – Section 123(c)(2) – Crossing Railway Track – Not Falling from Train – Claim Rejected – Deceased was allegedly travelling from Nallasopara to Borivali on 05.08.2006 and said to have fallen from a moving train between Bhayandar and Nallasopara – However, the postmortem report dated 10.08.2006 recorded that on arrival at K.E.M. Hospital at 3:15 p.m. on 05.08.2006, it was stated by Mr. Sachin Jewekar (companion) that the deceased was crossing the railway track at Nallasopara Railway Station when he was hit by a running train from behind – Station Master and police were not informed on the date of incident – Subsequent police investigation report (08.08.2006) and inquest panchanama (10.08.2006) stated that deceased fell from a moving train – Held: Statement made at the first available instance before hospital authorities on the date of the incident is more authentic and reliable than subsequent statements – Incident was one of being knocked down while crossing a railway track and does not fall within the definition of "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) – Tribunal justified in rejecting the claim [Paras 5-7]

Railways Act – Bonafide Passenger – Issue Not Required to Be Examined – Both conditions of "bonafide passenger" and "untoward incident" must be satisfied for compensation – Since the incident does not fall within an "untoward incident", the issue of bonafide passenger need not be examined – Failure of either condition is sufficient to reject the claim [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 23.02.2015 upheld – Civil/Interim Applications do not survive.

Minor's Personal Liberty – Social Media – Misleading Post – Facebook – Article 21 – A minor child, residing lawfully with her natural guardian-mother, approached the Court after a post falsely declaring her missing and offering a cash reward of Rs.1,00,000/- was uploaded on Facebook, allegedly in the name of her grandfather (Respondent No.5) – The post, though disputed as to its origin, remained visible on Facebook causing unknown persons to visit the petitioner's residence – Held: Posting of misleading or false material on Facebook or any social/electronic/print media violates personal rights, dignity, and reputation guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Meta Platform Inc. directed to block/take down the offending post and photographs of the petitioner forthwith [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Social Media Regulation – Intermediary Liability – IT Rules, 2021 – Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandates intermediaries, including social media platforms, to ensure users do not host, upload, or share patently false, misleading, or privacy-invading information – Facebook/Meta Platform Inc. found to have failed in enforcing adequate safeguards against such misleading content – Regulation of social media essential to balance freedom of expression with dignity and rights of vulnerable individuals, particularly children [Paras 8, 9, 10].

Child Custody – Pending Proceedings – Minor to Remain with Natural Guardian-Mother – Respondents claimed to have filed an application for custody of the petitioner before a competent Court, disputed by the petitioner's counsel as already rejected – Held: In the absence of any subsisting order or pending petition, the petitioner shall remain in the lawful custody of her natural guardian-mother; any pending Court proceedings shall govern the rights of the parties accordingly [Para 7].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Meta Platform Inc. (parent company of Facebook) directed to block/take down the misleading post and photographs of the petitioner from its platform – Copy of order directed to be sent to the registered office of Meta Platform Inc. in India – Stay application and all pending applications disposed of.

Company Law – Interim Relief – Administration Suit – Plaintiff sought directions to be made joint signatory to bank accounts, deposit of income from estate properties, and restoration of monies allegedly withdrawn from estate – Reliance placed on Commissioner’s Report indicating high cash withdrawals and financial irregularities in company associated with deceased – Held: Commissioner’s report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence at interlocutory stage and defendants must be given opportunity to challenge and test the report through cross-examination and evidence – Interim reliefs refused as they would amount to granting substantially final relief without trial [Paras 24–25, 31].

Company Law – Jurisdiction – Civil Court vis-à-vis NCLT – Plaintiff raised grievances regarding financial management and alleged dissipation of assets of company in which deceased held substantial shareholding – Held: Issues relating to corporate governance, oppression, mismanagement, or functioning of company fall within exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT – Civil court in administration suit cannot grant reliefs interfering with management of company [Paras 29].

Evidence – Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Report of court-appointed commissioner appointed by consent of parties – Held: Mere consent to appointment of commissioner does not imply acceptance of findings as final – Commissioner’s report is not substantive evidence and can be challenged by parties through cross-examination and independent evidence [Paras 24–25].

Corporate Governance – Acquiescence – Plaintiff, a director of the company, had signed financial statements for multiple years after demise of deceased reflecting financial transactions and shareholding structure – Held: Plaintiff cannot prima facie feign ignorance of financial affairs or challenge shareholding structure at interlocutory stage after several years – conduct indicates acquiescence and delay [Paras 26–27].

Interim Relief – Mandatory Directions – Prayer to restore allegedly withdrawn monies and deposit revenues of estate in court – Held: Reliefs are substantially mandatory and near-final in nature – In administration suits such directions ordinarily follow only after determination of rights and accounting – Grant of such relief at interim stage impermissible [Paras 30–31].

Administration of Estate – Interim Financial Arrangement – Court noted earlier ad-interim order directing defendants to pay plaintiff ₹3,00,000 per month – Held: Existing arrangement sufficiently safeguards plaintiff’s financial interests pending suit – No irreparable injury shown as alleged monetary loss can be compensated after accounts are taken [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Interim Application rejected insofar as prayer clauses (c), (f) and (g) are concerned – Statement of defendants recorded that they shall not create third-party rights in respect of estate assets pending suit – Existing arrangement directing payment of ₹3,00,000 per month to plaintiff to continue – Liberty granted to plaintiff to seek enhancement of amount if circumstances so warrant – No order as to costs.

Municipal Law – Building Safety – Judicial Directions – Commissioner's Order Quashed – Section 258(2) of Jammu Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 – Tenants running shops for decades at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu, were faced with an unsafe building declaration obtained allegedly at the landlord's behest to forcibly evict them – Court-supervised expert committee of PWD (R&B) Engineering Wing declared shops structurally safe vide report dated 26.05.2025 – This Court vide judgment dated 16.07.2025 in WP(C) No. 299/2025 directed the Commissioner to reconsider "strictly in the light of the report" – Commissioner instead issued impugned order No. 41/2025 directing a fresh safety audit through a private empanelled firm – Held: "The order passed by the Commissioner is in flagrant violation of the judgment passed by this Court" and "is palpably bad in the eyes of law, being arbitrary and contrary to the binding directions" – Order quashed [Paras 2–61].

Administrative Authority – Bound by Expert Report – Cannot Reopen Concluded Issues – "Once a competent court issues a direction requiring reconsideration strictly in light of a specified report, the scope of such reconsideration stands circumscribed by the judicial mandate itself" – Authority must either accept expert findings or record "cogent, legally sustainable and reasoned grounds for differing" – "Once a Court-appointed inquiry committee has concluded its inquiry, the administrative authorities are denuded of any power to constitute another committee or order a parallel inquiry on the same issue" – Held: Commissioner's referral to a fresh private agency amounted to "abdication of duty" and "excess of jurisdiction" [Paras 35–36, 46].

Fraud on Power – Colourable Exercise – Unsafe Declaration as Tool for Illegal Eviction – The Court noted prima facie circumstances suggesting that the initial unsafe report "may have been engineered at the instance or under the influence of the landlord, with an oblique motive to oust the lawful tenants by bypassing the legally prescribed civil process for ejectment" – Held: "The process of declaring a building unsafe cannot be misused as a tool to dispossess tenants" – "What cannot be achieved directly through legal means cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly by invoking safety concerns contrary to an authoritative technical report" – Reliance placed on Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872 and State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh, 1980 AIR SC 319 [Paras 50–60].

Right to Livelihood – Article 21 – Prolonged Shop Closure Constitutionally Impermissible – Petitioners are "petty shopkeepers whose livelihood is directly and exclusively dependent upon the shops in question" – "It pains this Court to note that how these poor shopkeepers would have survived during the intervening period when the shops in question were their sole source of livelihood" – Held: Administrative action causing closure of shops declared safe by a court-constituted committee is "disproportionate" and "constitutionally impermissible" as it amounts to "a direct infringement of the petitioners' fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21" [Paras 45, 53–54].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order No. 41/2025 dated 26.07.2025 quashed – Petitioners directed to be permitted forthwith to use and occupy the shops declared structurally safe – Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 directed to carry out rectification of Shop No. 5 expeditiously – Chief Secretary, UT of Jammu & Kashmir, directed to constitute an independent inquiry committee within two weeks to examine circumstances leading to the initial unsafe report – If any officer found responsible, personal costs of Rs. 10,000/- to each petitioner (totalling Rs. 70,000/-) recoverable from salary – Contempt petition CCP(S) No. 382/2025 stands closed.

Mining Law – Quarry Lease – Validity of Lease – Earlier Lease Held Invalid – Claim for Renewal/Extension – Quarry lease granted in favour of partner of petitioner firm (Vivek Exports) pursuant to Government Order relaxing Rule 3A of KMMC Rules – Said Government Order subsequently quashed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Earlier writ proceedings had already held that renewal of lease granted in favour of Vivek Exports was implicitly invalid and not a subsisting valid lease – Said finding attained finality after dismissal of appeal before Supreme Court – Held: Petitioner cannot claim extension or statutory renewal under amended rules on the basis of an invalid lease – Endorsement rejecting request for extension justified [Paras 13-20].

Mining Lease – Statutory Extension under KMMC (Amendment) Rules – Applicability – Petitioner sought extension of quarry lease up to 30 years under Rule 8A(2) of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and further relied on KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023 providing deemed lease period of 50 years – Court held that such statutory extension presupposes existence of a valid subsisting lease – Since the lease itself was declared invalid by earlier judicial orders that attained finality, benefit of statutory extension cannot be invoked [Paras 16-20].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Challenge after Seven Years – Petitioner challenged endorsement rejecting its claim after nearly seven years – Explanation offered regarding illness and misunderstanding regarding subsisting lease was unsupported by material – Held: Inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation is a sufficient ground to reject writ petition in addition to lack of merits [Paras 21-22].

Quarry Lease Application – Pending Application – Effect of Amendments to KMMC Rules – Application for quarry lease filed by KUM Internationals in 2008 was rejected on ground that applied area overlapped with existing lease – After earlier proceedings held the existing lease invalid and directed reconsideration, authorities rejected application citing Rule 8B of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and absence of NOCs from other departments – Held: Since application had been pending since 2010 and previous court orders directed consideration, rejection on ground that NOCs were not received prior to 12.08.2016 was unjustified – Responsibility to obtain NOCs primarily lies with authorities [Paras 28-33].

Mining Law – Responsibility for Obtaining NOCs – Role of Authorities – Under Rule 8(5) of the KMMC Rules (prior to later amendment), the duty to seek NOCs from other departments rested on the Senior Geologist/competent authority – Applicant could only facilitate the process – Authorities cannot reject application solely for non-receipt of NOCs when such process was within their control [Paras 32-34].

Effect of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023 – Amendment revived eligibility of applications filed prior to the 2016 Rules – Considering the earlier judicial directions and the amendment restoring eligibility, application of KUM for quarry lease over notified 5 acres deserved consideration and grant [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

Writ Petition No.2922/2023 (filed by Vivek Exports) dismissed – Claim for extension/renewal of quarry lease rejected.

Writ Petition No.10370/2022 (filed by KUM Internationals) allowed – Endorsement dated 10.12.2020 rejecting application quashed – Authorities directed to issue necessary notification and execute quarry lease deed in favour of KUM for the notified area within four weeks.

Education Law – Unfair Means in Examination – Possession of Mobile Phone – CBSE Guidelines – The respondent student appearing for Class XII examination was found carrying a mobile phone inside the examination hall – Though no incriminating material relating to the examination was found and the phone was not used for copying, the CBSE Unfair Means Committee placed the case under Category-3 and imposed penalty of cancellation of current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects – Single Judge set aside the penalty relying on parity with earlier decision and extended benefit of doubt – Division Bench held that after the 139th Governing Body Meeting dated 24.06.2024, possession of a mobile phone itself has been specifically included in Category-3 attracting stringent penalty – Courts cannot dilute or read down guidelines framed and ratified by an expert body in academic matters – Held: Mere non-use of the phone is irrelevant once possession inside the examination centre is established – Single Judge’s order unsustainable [Paras 24-31].

Judicial Review – Academic/Expert Decisions – Scope of Interference – Guidelines regarding Unfair Means were framed after deliberation by the Examination Committee and ratified by the CBSE Governing Body – The categorisation placing possession of mobile phones in Category-3 with severe penalty was a conscious policy decision to prevent leakage of question papers and misuse of electronic devices – Held: Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot substitute their opinion for that of an expert body or dilute such policy unless manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional [Paras 24-31].

Parity with Earlier Judgments – Applicability – Single Judge relied on decision in *Shuchi Mishra* where penalty for possession of mobile phone was set aside – Division Bench held that the said case arose prior to issuance of revised UFM guidelines and categorisation introduced later – Hence, the doctrine of parity was inapplicable to the present case governed by the amended rules [Paras 22-23].

Unfair Means Committee – Findings – The committee recorded that the student admitted possession of the mobile phone though it was not used for copying – Evidence included mobile phone, statements of invigilator, observer and student – Based on the revised guidelines, the competent authority imposed Category-3 penalty – Held: Action of CBSE was in accordance with the governing guidelines and cannot be interfered with merely on sympathetic considerations [Paras 19, 26-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the Single Judge dated 23.08.2025 in W.P. No.16511/2025 set aside – Penalty imposed by CBSE cancelling the current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects upheld – All pending applications disposed of.

Land Acquisition – Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Applicability – Petitioners contended that though award was passed in 2002 and compensation paid, they continued in possession of the land for more than 12 years and therefore acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Respondents established that possession had been taken in 2005 through proceedings of Mandal Revenue Officer and mutation was effected in revenue records – Held: Once possession is taken and compensation tendered, acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) – Petitioners cannot claim fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act [Paras 20-27].

Effect of Constitution Bench Decision – Section 24(2) Interpretation – Petitioners relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki to argue lapse of acquisition – Court held that the said decision has been expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal – Deemed lapse occurs only where both conditions are satisfied, namely possession not taken and compensation not paid – Therefore reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation is misplaced [Paras 24-27].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land in State – Effect of Possession and Compensation – After passing of award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land vests absolutely in the State – Even if landowners subsequently remain in physical occupation, such possession is illegal and unauthorized and does not confer any legal right to reclaim the land [Paras 22, 28-30].

Encroachment on Acquired Land – No Right to Claim Restoration – Petitioners allegedly re-entered the buffer zone of the mining area years after acquisition and compensation – Such occupation amounts to encroachment and cannot create any enforceable right to retain possession or demand reacquisition of land [Paras 22, 30].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) – No Revival of Concluded Proceedings – Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not revive stale or concluded acquisition proceedings and cannot be invoked to reopen acquisitions that were completed long before the commencement of the 2013 Act [Paras 26-27].

Decision:

Batch of writ petitions dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to claim lapse of acquisition or protection of possession – Acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held valid – Eviction action by authorities upheld – No order as to costs.

Qalandra under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 quashed for violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C. – SHO not competent to file complaint when original representations were addressed to Commissioner of Police – DGP Punjab directed to institutionalise sensitisation programme for police officials on compliance with Section 195 Cr.P.C./Section 215 BNSS.

“When The Whistle-Blower Becomes The Accused” – Quashing of Qalandra – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Section 66 Punjab Police Act, 2007 – Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner, a social worker, submitted representations to the Commissioner of Police alleging misuse of reservation benefits by a certain individual – Enquiry conducted at the level of the Commissioner of Police found allegations unsubstantiated – Directions were issued to the SHO to initiate proceedings under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 – Impugned Qalandra filed by the SHO before the Magistrate – Held: Section 195 Cr.P.C. mandates that complaint must emanate from the public servant concerned or an officer administratively superior thereto – SHO being subordinate in the hierarchy was not competent to file the Qalandra – Ratio of P.D. Lakhani (supra) squarely applicable – Impugned Qalandra and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 6, 7].

“Routine Cognizance Without Judicial Mind” – Non-Application of Mind by Magistrate – The learned Magistrate registered the Impugned Qalandra and issued notice in a routine manner without examining the statutory bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Held: The requirement of due consideration at the stage of taking cognizance cannot be treated as a routine formality – Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind to the question of maintainability [Para 7].

“Quashing Does Not Mean Absolute Immunity” – Scope of Quashing Order – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The quashing of the Impugned Qalandra does not operate as a perpetual injunction against the State – Instant adjudication predicated solely upon the statutory bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Court has not delved into the factual culpability or innocence of the petitioner – State remains at liberty to initiate a fresh complaint in strict accordance with prescribed statutory procedure [Para 8].

“Sentinel on the Qui Vive” – Mandatory Nature of Section 195 Cr.P.C./Section 215 BNSS – Section 195 Cr.P.C. is not a mere directory provision but a mandatory jurisdictional pre-requisite – Filing of Qalandra without adherence to the strictures of Section 195 Cr.P.C. constitutes a textbook example of procedural dereliction – Court deplored the alarming proliferation of frivolous complaints where baseless allegations are weaponized to unsettle the administration of justice [Para 9].

“Remedial Directions to DGP Punjab” – Directions to Director General of Police – DGP Punjab directed to institutionalise a comprehensive sensitisation programme for all police officials to ensure strict adherence with mandatory provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C./Section 215 BNSS – DGP further directed to conduct a formal inquiry as to whether the filing of the Impugned Qalandra by the SHO was a bona-fide professional error or was motivated by malafide intentions – Compliance report to be filed before Registrar General within 06 weeks [Paras 9.2, 10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Qalandra under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 and all consequential proceedings including the order dated 11.06.2018 quashed – DGP Punjab directed to institutionalise sensitisation programme and file compliance report within 06 weeks.