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.

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.

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.

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.

Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Temporary Employees – Denial of Permanency – Petitioners employed as clerks and peons by District Central Co-operative Bank continued on temporary basis for more than a decade despite performing work of permanent and perennial nature – Industrial Court dismissed complaints solely on ground that staffing pattern of the Bank had not been approved – Evidence on record showed that petitioners were appointed against vacant posts, worked continuously without termination, PF contributions were deducted and deposited, and duties were identical to those performed by permanent employees – Bank admitted existence of substantial manpower shortage and perennial nature of work – Held: Continuation of employees as temporary for prolonged period despite existence of vacancies constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Industrial Court erred in ignoring admissions and evidence on record – Impugned award set aside [Paras 28–37, 63–67].

Unfair Labour Practice – Discrimination in Service Conditions – Petitioners paid consolidated wages of Rs.6000–9000 and denied allowances, leave benefits, promotions and other privileges available to permanent employees performing identical work – Bank admitted denial of benefits solely on ground of temporary status – Held: Differential treatment without justification amounts to discrimination attracting Item 5 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act [Paras 5–6, 65–67].

Banking Regulation – NABARD Guidelines – Nature and Binding Effect – Bank relied on NABARD communications and guidelines regarding staffing pattern and recruitment policy claiming that absence of sanctioned staffing pattern prevented regularisation – Court held that Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act empowers inspection and supervisory functions but does not confer authority on NABARD to issue binding directions regarding staffing pattern or service regularisation – Such communications are advisory and do not have statutory force unless backed by specific statutory provision or rule [Paras 39–44].

Co-operative Societies – Power of State Government – Section 79A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Statutory directions regarding management and administration of co-operative societies including staffing pattern can be issued only by State Government under Section 79A – Such directions acquire binding force only when issued in writing upon satisfaction that they are necessary in public interest or for proper management – In absence of any such order on record, employer cannot rely on alleged restriction to deny permanency [Paras 45–52].

Regularisation – Principle under MRTU & PULP Act – Reliance on Supreme Court decision in Casteribe – Industrial and Labour Courts empowered to grant appropriate relief including permanency where employees are deliberately continued on temporary status for years to deny benefits attached to permanent employment – Relief not based merely on long service but on proof of unfair labour practice – Where work is perennial, vacancies exist and employees are continued for years, denial of permanency amounts to unfair labour practice [Paras 55–58].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022 passed by Industrial Court, Nashik quashed and set aside – Respondent Bank held to have engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Bank directed to undertake exercise of regularisation of petitioners against available vacant posts within twelve weeks subject to verification of eligibility – Eligible petitioners to be granted permanency with continuity of service – Regular pay scale and benefits to be granted prospectively from date of regularisation – Bank restrained from terminating petitioners till completion of exercise – Request for stay rejected.

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Taking possession of secured assets – Jurisdiction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – Challenge to order passed under Section 14 SARFAESI Act on ground that only Chief Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrate is competent – Applicants contended that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction as High Court notification did not expressly confer powers of Chief Judicial Magistrate – Held: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate exercises the same judicial powers as Chief Judicial Magistrate and is competent to deal with application under Section 14 SARFAESI Act – Notification appointing JMFC as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate implicitly confers powers under Section 10(2) BNSS / Section 12(2) CrPC – Contention regarding lack of jurisdiction rejected [Paras 18–28, 42].

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – Scope of Section 10 BNSS and Section 12 CrPC – Court clarified that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is subordinate to Chief Judicial Magistrate only for administrative purposes and not in exercise of judicial powers – For judicial functions, ACJM stands at par with Chief Judicial Magistrate and can exercise powers under criminal law and other statutes unless expressly restricted [Paras 22–24].

SARFAESI Act – Alternative remedy – Maintainability of petition under Section 482 CrPC – Borrower challenged action taken by bank for possession of secured assets after loan account classified as NPA – Held: SARFAESI Act provides complete statutory mechanism including remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 – High Court should not exercise inherent jurisdiction when efficacious statutory remedy is available – Petition held not maintainable [Paras 38–41, 43].

Banking Law – Recovery of secured debts – Legislative scheme of SARFAESI Act – Court reiterated that Act empowers banks and financial institutions to enforce security interests and recover dues without intervention of court while simultaneously providing safeguards through remedy before DRT – Borrower aggrieved by measures under Section 13(4) or Section 14 must approach DRT for relief [Paras 29–36].

Inherent Powers – Exercise under Section 482 CrPC – High Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot be invoked when dispute relates to recovery proceedings under a special statute providing its own adjudicatory mechanism – Interference in SARFAESI proceedings at this stage would be improper [Paras 38–44].

Decision: Application dismissed – Orders passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI Act and order of Additional Sessions Judge upheld – Applicants directed to avail remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal – Prayer for stay rejected.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – “Account Blocked / Debit Freeze” – Maintainability of prosecution under Section 138 – Petitioners issued cheque for ₹41 lakhs to complainant relating to breach of No-Pre-EMI scheme in housing project – Cheque presented after police ordered debit freezing of company’s bank account in connection with criminal investigation – Bank returned cheque with endorsement “Account blocked situation covered in 2125” – Held: Dishonour occurred due to statutory freezing of account and not due to insufficiency of funds – Where drawer has no control or authority over account at time of presentation, essential ingredients of Section 138 are not satisfied – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 6-12].

Section 138 NI Act – Requirement that cheque must be drawn on “account maintained by the drawer” – Meaning of expression – For offence to arise, drawer must have operational control over bank account at time cheque becomes payable – If account is frozen or attached by statutory authority or court order, the drawer cannot operate or maintain the account – In such circumstances dishonour cannot be attributed to voluntary act of drawer – Prosecution under Section 138 not sustainable [Paras 8-11].

Cheque Dishonour – Reason “Account Blocked” – Distinction from “Insufficient Funds” – RBI clearing regulations classify return codes where payment stopped due to attachment or legal restriction – Such return does not indicate failure of drawer to maintain funds – Where dishonour arises from attachment or freezing of account beyond drawer’s control, criminal liability under Section 138 cannot be invoked [Para 11].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Court found that cheque was issued when account was operative and freeze order was passed later during police investigation – Petitioners were unaware of freezing at time of replying to statutory notice – Continuing prosecution despite absence of statutory ingredients would result in miscarriage of justice – Hence proceedings in cheque case quashed [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No.1446 of 2025 pending before XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act quashed.

Registration Act – Power of Registrar – Cancellation of Registered Document – District Registrar entertained complaint under Section 68(2) and nullified three registered sale deeds on allegation of fraud – Held: Section 68(2) only confers supervisory power over Sub-Registrars and authority to rectify errors relating to registration records – It does not confer power to cancel or declare registered documents as null and void – Such power lies exclusively with Civil Court [Paras 9, 15–16].

Registration of Documents – Fraud Allegations – Jurisdiction of Registering Authority – Allegations of fraudulent sale transactions raised between parties – Held: Registering authority cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title or civil rights – Fraud in general sense cannot be expanded to permit administrative authorities to cancel registered documents – Parties must approach Civil Court for declaration of invalidity of sale deeds [Paras 12–14].

Civil Disputes – Parallel Proceedings – Complaint before Registrar during pendency of civil suit – Civil suit seeking declaration of sale deeds as null and void was already pending – Registrar nevertheless entertained complaint and cancelled documents – Held: Such exercise of power amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction of Civil Court and violates property rights protected under Article 300A of the Constitution [Paras 15–16].

Writ Jurisdiction – Determination of Disputed Facts – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition on basis of alleged fraud – Division Bench held that disputed questions regarding consideration and genuineness of transaction must be decided in civil suit and not in writ proceedings [Para 17].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order of Single Judge set aside – Order of District Registrar cancelling sale deeds quashed – Parties relegated to pursue remedies before Civil Court.