Civil Writ – Service Law - Family Pension – Determination of Marital Status – Service Records Prevail – Respondent consistently recorded as wife/nominee in employee’s service register for entire career – No objection raised by department during lifetime of employee – Held: Service records are decisive for pension entitlement; criminal court findings in 498-A/494 IPC case not conclusive for determining marital status for pension purposes [Paras 19–23].

Bigamy Allegation – Effect of Criminal Case – Criminal Court’s observations in C.C. No.132/2006 were confined to charges under Sections 498-A & 494 IPC – Such findings do not constitute a binding civil declaration of marriage nor conclusively establish first/second wife status – Standard of proof differs – Department cannot rely solely on criminal case to deny pension [Paras 20–21].

Competing Marriage Claims – Burden on Department – Department failed to prove that respondent’s marriage was void or that she was the “second wife” during subsistence of earlier marriage – No civil court declaration produced – Long cohabitation (45 years) and three children raise presumption of valid marriage – Department’s reliance on executive circulars inapplicable absent proof of bigamy [Paras 17, 23–25].

Pension Rules – Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of 1980 Rules – Even in case of multiple widows, pension must be shared equally – After death of alleged first wife in 2014, respondent remained the only surviving widow at employee’s death in 2019 – Thus entitled to full family pension [Paras 14, 22].

Service Conduct Rules & Suppression – Allegation that employee suppressed first marriage in service records rejected – No disciplinary proceedings initiated during entire tenure – Department accepted respondent as wife for decades; cannot dispute after employee’s death [Paras 19(iii), 23].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge directing release of family pension to respondent upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 26–27].

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Live and Proximate Link – Delay Vitiates Detention – Alleged occurrence on 11.06.2025; arrest on 22.06.2025; detention order on 21.07.2025 – State failed to satisfactorily explain delay – Mere calendrical narration in affidavit insufficient – Applying Anand Prakash (AIR 1990 SC 516) and Sushanta Kumar Bainik (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333), Court holds live and proximate link snapped; detention vitiated [Paras 6–9].

Detaining Authority Must Consider Custody Status – Non-Application of Mind – Detaining authority failed to record that detenu was already in judicial custody at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa on date of detention order; subjective satisfaction regarding imminent likelihood of release on bail absent – Violative of principles in Khudiram Das (1975) 2 SCC 81 and reaffirmed in Ameena Begum (2023) 9 SCC 587 – Detention unsustainable [Paras 10–11].

Subjective Satisfaction – Limited Judicial Review – Court reiterates Khudiram Das doctrine that subjective satisfaction is reviewable on grounds such as non-application of mind, irrelevant considerations, improper purpose, incorrect factual assumptions – Detention order failed these tests as detaining authority ignored crucial factual data [Paras 10–11].

Distinction from Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019) 20 SCC 609 – DH Dhakad applies where detaining authority considers custody and likelihood of bail but records no explicit finding – Present case more severe: detaining authority completely omitted fact of custody, hence order vitiated on a more fundamental ground [Para 11].

Default Bail – Impact on Preventive Detention Justification – Lone FIR forming basis of detention saw detenu granted default bail on 08.10.2025 due to State’s failure to file final report – Though not the sole ground for quashing, it underscores inconsistency in State sustaining preventive detention while allowing lapse in regular criminal process – Court notes Ram Manohar Lohia’s concentric circle principle distinguishing law and order, public order, security of State [Paras 12–13].

Detention Order Quashed – Procedural & Substantive Violations – Delay unexplained; custody status ignored; subjective satisfaction not in conformity with settled constitutional standards – Detention order, approval and confirmation all set aside – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 14].

Decision:

Writ of Habeas Corpus allowed – Preventive detention order dated 21.07.2025, its approval dated 31.07.2025 and confirmation dated 22.08.2025 quashed – Detenu Longjam Boy Singh @ Khaba directed to be released immediately, if not required in other case(s) – No order as to costs.

[Paras 14]

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegations of cruelty by wife not established – Appellant-husband alleged wife refused to cook, misbehaved, and pressured him to live separately from parents – Trial Court found no credible evidence of cruelty – Held: No perversity in Family Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1–9, 22, 54–56]

Family Law – Cruelty – Legal Standard – Reiterated: Cruelty includes physical and mental suffering causing reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful to live with the spouse – Mere marital discord or incompatibility does not amount to cruelty – Allegations must be grave and substantiated. [Paras 26–34]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Desertion implies intentional abandonment without reasonable cause and without consent – Requires factum of separation and animus deserendi – Respondent-wife was ousted from matrimonial home – No voluntary desertion – No ground made out. [Paras 35–46, 50–52]

Family Law – Appreciation of Evidence – No perversity – Evidence of both parties considered by Family Court – Allegations of cruelty and desertion found unproved – Court also considered wife’s willingness to resume matrimonial life – Held: No interference warranted in appeal – Appellate Court not to re-appreciate evidence without perversity or legal error. [Paras 18–23, 47–53]

Family Law – Pending Proceedings – Fact that respondent-wife had filed criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC – Does not per se constitute cruelty – Needs to be established that such proceedings were false and malicious. [Paras 16, 49]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Impugned judgment of Family Court upheld. No element of perversity found. Pending applications also disposed of. [Paras 55–57]

Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Delay in Lodging FIR – FIR registered in 2024 for alleged fraudulent dilution and transfer of shares between 2010–2011 – Allegations surfaced during arbitration in 2024 – Held: Delay of 14 years in raising grievances without pursuing civil remedies casts doubt on urgency and requires trial to determine knowledge and intent [Paras 17–20].

Forgery and Corporate Misconduct – Role of Director – Allegations of backdated share allotments, forged AGM records, and illegal share transfers by applicant – Investigation ongoing – Evidence includes presence of deceased persons in AGM attendance and statements of shareholders denying consent – Held: Whether applicant played a culpable role is a matter of trial and not for pre-arrest stage [Paras 6–12, 21–22].

Criminal Procedure – Custodial Interrogation – Not Necessary – Applicant cooperated with investigation on multiple occasions under interim protection – Allegations based on company records, ROC filings, and share certificates – No evidence of tampering or absconding – Custodial interrogation not warranted [Paras 23–27].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions and Safeguards – Applicant granted bail with stringent conditions – Required to cooperate with investigation, not contact witnesses, and remain within jurisdiction – Held: Arrest not punitive and bail justified in absence of threat to investigation or risk of flight [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bail in event of arrest on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation and adhere to conditions – Observations not to affect trial on merits.

Service Law – Police Personnel – Corruption – Dismissal – ASI trapped for accepting bribe – Inquiry held valid – SP competent authority – Court affirms dismissal as justified under Rule 16.2 and Rule 16.40 PPR; length of service irrelevant when guilt of corruption established [Paras 6–8, 12–13].

Competent Authority – SP as Appointing & Disciplinary Authority – Challenge rejected – Court relies on Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2865 – SP competent to dismiss ASI – Contention misconceived [Para 6].

Departmental Proceedings – Approval of District Magistrate – Not Required in Corruption Cases – Rule 16.38 PPR inapplicable; Rule 16.40 governs corruption matters – Following Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 3242 – Contention rejected [Paras 7–8].

Natural Justice – No Requirement to Call for Comments on Inquiry Report – Rule 16.24 PPR contains complete procedure – Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority may be different – Supply of inquiry report + opportunity to reply + personal hearing = full compliance – No violation of natural justice [Paras 9–11].

Show-Cause Notice – Mention of Proposed Punishment – Not Illegal – Post 42nd Amendment to Article 311(2), no right to representation on proposed penalty – State instructions of 1975 merely advisory – Court relies on Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 [Paras 10–11].

Rule 16.2 PPR – Length of Service & Pension – Consideration Not Mandatory in Corruption Cases – Court cites State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1992) 4 SCC 54 – Single act of corruption is “gravest misconduct” warranting dismissal; long service cannot shield corrupt conduct [Paras 12–13].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence – Interference justified only for perversity or procedural violations – No such infirmity found – Court relies on Subrata Nath (2022), P. Gunasekaran, Syed Yakoob (1964), CCRAS v. Bikartan Das (2023) [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No perversity or procedural violation – Dismissal from service justified and upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16–17].

Consumer Law – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to National Commission Orders – High Court holds that although writ under Article 226 is maintainable against National Commission orders, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily declined when Article 227 remedy exists – Petitioner’s challenge rejected as findings of Consumer Fora were concurrent, factual, and non-perverse – Held: Writ petition not maintainable on facts; no exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 18–21, 24–27]

Alternate Remedy – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – When supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, invocation of Article 226 ordinarily impermissible unless there is violation of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court precedents in Whirlpool, Harbanslal Sahnia, Radha Krishan Industries, Ibrat Faizan and Rikhab Chand Jain applied – Petitioner failed to bring case within exceptions [Paras 12–16, 18–21]

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Findings – Real Estate Project – Consolidation Proceedings – Petitioner alleged force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act – Consumer Fora found that project land was under consolidation and possession never with petitioner – Petitioner's pleas rejected repeatedly – High Court refuses re-appreciation of facts in writ jurisdiction – Findings held reasonable and not perverse [Paras 22–24, 26]

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Role of High Court – National Commission treated as ‘Tribunal’ under Articles 136 & 227 – High Court reiterates its limited power of interference and declines to act as appellate authority over factual determinations of Consumer Fora [Paras 15–16, 18–21]

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with orders of District, State or National Consumer Commissions – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 27].

Civil Law - Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Natural Justice – Mutation Case Rejected Without Notice – Petitioners’ application for mutation rejected by Additional Tahasildar, Jatani on the ground of non-submission of original certified copy and non-appearance – Held: Record does not reveal issuance of notice to petitioners nor opportunity of hearing – Violation of principles of natural justice – Order quashed [Paras 3–5]

Administrative Law – Opportunity of Hearing – Mutation Case – Authorities must ensure proper notice and opportunity to parties before passing orders – Absence of notice renders the order unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners [Paras 5–8]

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – High Court exercised jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside impugned mutation order for failure to comply with procedural fairness – Authorities directed to conclude proceedings within two months [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 23.10.2024 in Mutation Case No.3928 of 2024 quashed – Matter remitted to Additional Tahasildar, Jatani for fresh disposal after hearing petitioners and other parties – Petitioners directed to appear on 16.12.2025 for further proceedings – Mutation case to be concluded preferably within two months from filing of certified copy of the judgment.

PIL- Police Misconduct – Misbehaviour with Lawyers – Incident of SHO manhandling a practicing advocate inside police station in presence of his wife, also an advocate – Victim was a prosecutrix in a rape case – Video of incident taken on record – Court holds incident as serious breach of conduct and dignity of legal profession – Commissioner of Police appears in person and assures disciplinary proceedings – Held: Police and advocates are both essential limbs of justice delivery system and must function with mutual respect and coordination – Court expects strict departmental action and compliance report [Paras 1–4, 8].

Judicial Oversight – Institutional Coordination – Court reiterates need for Coordination Committees at district level for resolving grievances between lawyers and police – Refers to earlier directions in Bharat Yadav v. State of Rajasthan (2019 SCC OnLine Raj 782) – Finds that Coordination Committees have not been effectively implemented despite earlier orders – Orders formation of fresh Committees at each district level with participation of judiciary, police, and bar representatives – Directed that details be submitted to Court on next date [Paras 6–7].

Legal Profession – Protection of Advocates’ Rights – Court underscores that advocates performing their professional duties cannot be subjected to intimidation or unlawful confinement by police – Incident reflects need for sensitization and soft-skills training of police personnel dealing with victims and legal representatives – Commissioner directed to extend training not just to Jodhpur Police but across Rajasthan [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Petition registered on oral mention by Bar Associations – Court takes suo motu cognizance – Commissioner of Police directed to submit compliance report on departmental action – Fresh Coordination Committees to be constituted at district level – Case listed for further directions on 08/12/2025.