Professional Misconduct – Chartered Accountants – Referral to Disciplinary Committee – The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, challenged the Board of Discipline’s decision to refer a matter for further inquiry regarding alleged misconduct related to auditing companies without proper compliance with RBI regulations – The High Court held that the Board was within its powers under Section 21A of the Chartered Accountants Act to disagree with the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) and refer the matter for a detailed inquiry – The petition was dismissed as the Board’s decision was found to be in accordance with law [Paras 3, 10-12, 18].

Power of the Board of Discipline – Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants Rules – The petitioner argued that the Board did not have the authority to refer the case without further investigation by the Director (Discipline) – The court rejected this argument, citing Rule 9(3)(b) and Section 21A, which empower the Board to refer a case for inquiry even without further investigation if it disagrees with the Director’s findings – The referral for disciplinary action was valid [Paras 15-17].

Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings – The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that courts do not act as appellate authorities over the findings of the Board of Discipline – The review is confined to checking for compliance with natural justice, statutory rules, and the reasonableness of the decision – The Board’s decision did not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity, and thus, the petition was dismissed [Paras 19-21].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed – The High Court upheld the decision of the Board of Discipline to refer the petitioner’s case to the Disciplinary Committee for further inquiry under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and the Rules, 2007 [Paras 22-24].

PIL – Environmental Law - Office Memorandum – Post Facto CRZ Clearance – Incompatibility with CRZ Notification, 2019 – The petitioners challenged the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 19th February 2021, which allowed post facto clearance for projects in CRZ areas without prior clearance as required by law. The impugned Office Memorandum was found to be in conflict with the statutory CRZ Notification, 2019, which mandates prior clearance for all projects – Held: The Office Memorandum is non-statutory and cannot override or supplant the CRZ Notification, 2019, which was issued under the statutory powers of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The memorandum was quashed for being ultra vires [Paras 19-22, 48].

Administrative Circulars vs. Statutory Notifications – Hierarchy of Laws – The Court emphasized that executive instructions, such as the impugned Office Memorandum, cannot override statutory provisions. The impugned memorandum, which allowed post facto clearances, was not issued in compliance with the statutory procedure under Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, nor was it consistent with the statutory requirements of CRZ Notification, 2019 – Held: Administrative orders cannot supplant statutory provisions. The impugned Office Memorandum was legally impermissible and invalid [Paras 30-38].

Post Facto Clearances – Environmental Jurisprudence – Contradiction with Supreme Court Rulings – The Union of India relied on past judicial precedents to justify post facto clearance, citing Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and other judgments. However, the Court clarified that these judgments did not endorse post facto clearances in contravention of statutory provisions like the CRZ Notification, 2019 – Held: The impugned memorandum violated established principles of environmental jurisprudence, including the precautionary principle and sustainable development. Post facto clearances were not permissible under the CRZ Notification, 2019 [Paras 23-25, 39-45].

Supersession of CRZ Notification, 2011 by CRZ Notification, 2019 – Legal Implications – The Court held that the CRZ Notification, 2019 superseded the earlier 2011 notification, making any reference to the CRZ Notification, 2011 in the Office Memorandum irrelevant. The supersession obliterated the legal standing of the 2011 notification and its provisions, including post facto clearances – Held: The Office Memorandum's reliance on the superseded CRZ Notification, 2011 was legally flawed [Paras 26-29, 47].

Decision: The impugned Office Memorandum dated 19th February 2021, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, was quashed as being in contravention of the CRZ Notification, 2019. Applications for CRZ clearance from the interveners, including the State of Nagaland and M/s. Patel and Associates, were directed to be processed by the competent authority on their merits as per applicable law. [Paras 48-50].

Permanent Lok Adalat – Scope of Jurisdiction – Complex Legal and Factual Issues – Petition Dismissed – The petitioners sought quashing of orders passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) in a dispute concerning a housing loan and the rejection of an insurance claim after the co-applicant’s death – The Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat had rightly declined to adjudicate the matter, as it involved complex issues requiring voluminous evidence and cross-examination, which fall outside the summary jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat – The Court emphasized that Permanent Lok Adalats are not meant to decide intricate legal and factual issues [Paras 15-25].

Summary Proceedings – Judicial Restraint in Complex Matters – The Court endorsed the Permanent Lok Adalat's decision to allow the petitioners to approach an appropriate forum, reiterating that complex matters requiring detailed evidence are beyond the scope of summary proceedings under the Legal Services Authorities Act [Paras 21-24].

Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 16.02.2024 and 23.08.2024 were affirmed.

Service Law – APAR Downgradation – Bias Allegations – Petitioner, serving as Second in Command (2-I/C) in CRPF, challenged the adverse remarks and downgradation of his APAR from "Very Good" to "Good" for the period 01.04.2018 to 29.10.2018 – Contended that the downgrade was due to bias and vindictive attitude of his Commandant (respondent no. 4) after petitioner refused to participate in illegal activities – Court noted inconsistencies in the APAR with contradictions between positive appraisals and adverse remarks – Held: Adverse remarks and downgradation made without objective reasoning and were likely biased [Paras 22, 29, 31, 39, 43].

Procedural Compliance – Supervisory Period for APAR – Petitioner argued that the Reporting Officer lacked authority to record the APAR since he had not worked under him for the mandatory period of three months – Court found that while leave days should be deducted, the petitioner had worked under the Reporting Officer for sufficient time after leave adjustment, but the grading lacked objectivity and fairness – Held: APAR recorded without due diligence [Paras 24, 30, 39].

Bias in APAR – Petitioner alleged bias due to previous conflicts with respondent no. 4, including false advisories and malicious downgrading – Court held that the cumulative pattern of prior "Very Good"/"Outstanding" APARs and a sudden downgrade in a short period supported reasonable apprehension of bias – APAR found inconsistent and motivated by personal vendetta – Held: APAR quashed due to bias and lack of objective assessment [Paras 41, 43].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned APAR and orders rejecting representation set aside – Adverse remarks and downgradation for the period from 01.04.2018 to 29.10.2018 quashed – Respondents directed not to rely on the impugned APAR for any future assessments of the petitioner [Paras 43, 44].

Civil Law – Probate of Will – Two competing Wills – Probate granted in favor of respondent based on 1993 Will – Trial court dismissed claim on 1995 Will – Appellants challenged the genuineness of the 1993 Will, alleging suspicious circumstances, including mention of deceased wife who was alive at the time of the Will's execution – Held: The 1993 Will was suspicious due to discrepancies, and the probate granted in favor of the respondent is set aside – Appellants’ claim regarding the 1995 Will was also rejected for lack of credibility [Paras 1-4, 35-56].

Proof of Will – Execution and Attestation – Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Respondent proved the execution of the 1993 Will through attesting witnesses – However, the court found suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including false statements about the wife’s death, leading to doubts about the testator’s true intention – A mere compliance with legal requirements is insufficient where suspicion exists – The court must be satisfied that the Will truly reflects the testator's intentions [Paras 22-31, 57].

Suspicious Circumstances – Mention of Wife’s Death – The 1993 Will stated that the testator’s wife was dead, although she was alive at the time of its execution – No provisions were made for the wife in the Will – This inconsistency raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the Will – The court held that such unexplained abnormalities indicated that the Will was not a genuine document, even though it was attested by witnesses [Paras 34-37, 52-55].

Revocation of Earlier Will – 1995 Will – Appellant’s claim of a 1995 Will revoking the 1993 Will was rejected by the trial court – Evidence provided by the appellants, including testimonies and documents, failed to substantiate the revocation or cancellation of the earlier Will – The court agreed with the trial court’s decision that the 1995 Will was not credible, pointing out discrepancies in the signatures and overwriting in the document [Paras 9, 39-47].

Decision: Appeal F.A. No. 185 of 2015 allowed – Probate granted in favor of the respondent for the 1993 Will is set aside due to suspicious circumstances – Appeal F.A.T. No. 302 of 2015 dismissed – 1995 Will also held not genuine – Appellants’ applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC rejected – Trial court judgments modified accordingly [Paras 58-59].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Applicant convicted for abetment of suicide and cruelty towards his wife – Trial Court sentenced him to imprisonment, and the conviction was upheld by the appellate court – Applicant argued that contradictory medical opinions (postmortem and chemical analysis) undermined the prosecution’s case and that there was no evidence of abetment – Held: Medical evidence favored the postmortem findings over the chemical analysis, but the prosecution failed to establish abetment or cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-12, 13-31].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem vs. Chemical Analysis – The postmortem indicated poisoning, while the chemical analysis found no poison – Court relied on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to conclude that poison might not always be detected after death due to various factors – Held: Postmortem findings prevail over chemical analysis, but this does not conclusively establish abetment or cruelty [Paras 7-12].

Abetment of Suicide – Insufficient Proof – Applicant argued that no evidence of provocation or incitement was provided to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC – The Court referred to Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that abetment requires proof of instigation or active encouragement – The prosecution failed to prove any proximate incitement leading to the deceased's suicide [Paras 13-22].

Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Lack of Continuous Harassment – No evidence of continuous harassment or unlawful demands for dowry was established – The deceased’s complaint about harassment was vague and not corroborated by credible witnesses – The general allegations surfaced only after her death, which were insufficient to convict under Section 498A IPC [Paras 23-29].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC quashed – Applicant acquitted and fine to be refunded – Bail bonds canceled and surety discharged [Paras 31].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his neighbor following an altercation over a disputed will – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and a dying declaration made by the deceased – The trial court convicted the appellant, despite acquitting the co-accused on the same evidence – Held: The conviction was overturned on appeal due to contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, inconsistencies between the dying declaration and initial medical history provided by the deceased, and lack of independent corroboration – The court ruled that the dying declaration could not be relied upon exclusively to convict the appellant, especially in light of conflicting evidence [Paras 30-55].

Dying Declaration – Reliability and Contradictions – The deceased initially told doctors that his injuries were accidental, caused by a fall, but later implicated the appellant in a dying declaration – The court emphasized that a dying declaration, if contradictory or delayed, requires corroboration – Here, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case, and the dying declaration was deemed unreliable [Paras 40-45].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Eyewitness Reliability – The prosecution’s key witnesses were family members of the deceased, and their accounts contained material contradictions, particularly concerning the sequence of events and the timing of the complaint – The court held that their testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and their status as interested witnesses [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges – The court emphasized that when evidence is circumstantial and inconsistent, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Full Tank Level Dispute – Extent of FTL – Petitioners' objections regarding Durgam Cheruvu tank’s FTL not considered – Directions for Reconsideration – The petitioners argued that the FTL determined by the respondents exceeded the original extent of Acs. 65.12 Guntas, encroaching on their private property – Held: The Lake Protection Committee was directed to hear the petitioners’ objections and decide the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu through a speaking order – No demolition of the petitioners’ constructions until the FTL determination is finalized [Paras 1-6].

Administrative Law – Right to Hearing – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners entitled to a personal hearing before Lake Protection Committee – Petitioners had submitted objections within the prescribed time limit but were not considered – Held: The Lake Protection Committee must provide the petitioners with a personal hearing and finalize the FTL notification after considering the objections [Paras 10-12].

Land Rights – Private Property – Article 300-A Constitution of India – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners’ claim of interference with peaceful possession – Petitioners' properties were alleged to fall under the extended FTL area – Held: The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession until the FTL is determined [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Remedy – No Final Relief Granted – Pending Decision by Committee – The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims as the matter was left to be adjudicated by the Lake Protection Committee – Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Committee [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the Lake Protection Committee to hear the petitioners' objections and notify the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu within six weeks. No demolition of the petitioners' constructions will take place until the FTL is determined.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Scope Expanded – The applicants filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with accusations under Sections 451, 394/34 of IPC – Held: The scope of anticipatory bail has been expanded compared to the earlier provision under Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973, removing guiding factors like the gravity of accusations and criminal antecedents, thus widening judicial discretion – The Court found no intention to commit the alleged offenses based on the facts and granted anticipatory bail on conditions of cooperation with the investigation and ensuring no interference with evidence [Paras 4-7].