Land Law – Appointment of Lambardar – Procedural Defects in Proclamation – Articles 226 and 227 – Petitioner appointed as Lambardar without proper proclamation – Only three days allowed for filing applications – Procedural defect identified by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Directions for fresh proclamation with at least 15 days for submission of applications – Orders upheld – Petition dismissed. [Para 6, 10-12]

Requirement for Proper Proclamation – Analysis – Proclamation conducted on 04.06.2014 with applications invited until 07.06.2014 – Settled law requires at least 15 days from date of proclamation for prospective applicants to apply – Procedural lapses prevented others, including respondent No.4, from applying – Findings of procedural defects by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner justified. [Para 6]

Decision – Orders of Commissioner and Financial Commissioner Upheld – Directions for fresh proclamation and submission of applications within 15 days – Petitioner can reapply after fresh proclamation – No prejudice caused – Petition dismissed. [Para 11-12]

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet - Essential Commodities Act - Fertilizer Control Order - Petition to quash FIR and charges for non-standard DAP fertilizer sample—Petitioner appointed as responsible person after sample drawing—Company not made an accused—No specific allegations in FIR/charge sheet indicating petitioner’s vicarious liability—Court emphasizes strict construction of penal provisions and necessity of specific allegations to continue criminal proceedings—Held, continuation would cause undue harassment and be an abuse of process of law—Petition allowed, FIR and consequent proceedings quashed​​.

Vicarious Liability - Essential Commodities Act - Allegations Required - Held, vicarious liability under Essential Commodities Act requires specific allegations in FIR/charge sheet—Company must be arraigned as an accused for officials to be held liable—Absence of such allegations and company as an accused invalidates proceedings against petitioner—Strict construction of penal statutes mandated​​.

Decision - FIR No. 81 dated 15.04.2005 and subsequent proceedings quashed as against petitioner—No specific allegations or evidence against petitioner for conduct of business—Company not arraigned as accused—Continuing proceedings deemed undue harassment and abuse of process​​.

Departmental Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Trial - Reinstatement of Employees - Constitutional Petition and Letters Patent Appeals - Appeals by State challenging reinstatement of police personnel after acquittal in criminal trial—Writ petition by left out employees challenging departmental inquiry and dismissal—Held, once there is acquittal on merits after detailed discussion, reinstatement is justified—State cannot take different stands for similarly situated individuals—Employees had no concern with the incident and were not present—Delay in lodging FIR and complainants not supporting the case in either proceedings highlighted—Reinstatement with all consequential benefits directed—Appeals dismissed, writ petition allowed​​.

Criminal Law - Acquittal and Departmental Inquiry - Evidence - Role of Standard of Proof - Held, criminal trial acquitted accused based on the same evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer—Primacy given to criminal court judgment—Standard of proof in departmental proceedings differs but should not contradict judicial findings—Departmental findings deemed unjust, unfair, and oppressive when contrary to criminal court acquittal​​.

Decision - Appeals against reinstatement dismissed—Writ petition allowed—Directed reinstatement of employees with all consequential benefits of seniority and pay fixation—Departmental inquiry findings overturned due to lack of independent evidence supporting the misconduct allegations upheld by criminal trial acquittal​​.

Custodial death – Allegation of police brutality – Petition filed seeking CBI investigation and compensation for custodial death of deceased – Deceased taken into custody by police and later found dead with multiple injuries – Inquiry report by CJM confirmed custodial death – CID exonerated accused police officials – Violation of fundamental rights and liberty of deceased established – Court’s duty to intervene in cases of human rights violation – Compensation awarded as mandatory remedy for custodial death – Departmental proceedings ordered against erring police officials – State directed to pay compensation to petitioners and recover from guilty officials, if found – Petition allowed. (Para No.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.)

Service Law - Validation of Degrees - Distance Education - Special Examination- AICTE Special Examination – Petition under Article 309 challenging the denial of benefits based on an engineering degree obtained through distance education – Held: The Supreme Court ordered the suspension of engineering degrees for students enrolled during 2001-2005 but did not declare these degrees illegal per se. If candidates pass the AICTE test in the first attempt, they retain all the benefits of their degrees from the original date of obtaining the degree. [Paras 1, 11]

Determination of Seniority - Direct Recruits vs. Promotes – Analysis – Held: The petitioner, having passed the AICTE special examination in the first attempt, is entitled to seniority based on the length of continuous service in the post. Instructions issued in 1962 are not applicable when specific service rules under Article 309 govern seniority determination. [Paras 12, 15]

Equivalence of Distance Education Degrees – Consideration – Held: The petitioner's engineering degree, which was eclipsed by the judgment, regained validity from the original date once the special examination was passed. The judgment in Ashok Kumar’s case does not impact this decision, as it merely restored the status quo ante. [Paras 13, 15]

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 06.10.2022 is set aside, and the petitioner's engineering degree stands validated from the original date of obtaining the degree. The competent authority is at liberty to decide seniority afresh, but the petitioner is entitled to seniority based on continuous service length. [Paras 16, 17]

Arbitration - Objections to Award - Limitation Period - Section 34(3) - No Condonation Beyond Specified Period– Appeal against dismissal of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as time-barred – Held: Section 34(3) prescribes a limitation period of three months from the receipt of the arbitral award, extendable by a further 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. There is no provision for condoning delays beyond this period. [Paras 2, 5, 6]

Awareness of Arbitral Award - Presence of Counsel – Analysis – Held: The appellants' claim of unawareness of the award was refuted by the Additional District Judge, noting the award was announced in the presence of the appellants' counsel and a certified copy was provided on 24.09.2015. The objections filed on 04.04.2016 exceeded the permissible period. [Para 4]

Condonation of Delay - Legal Precedents – Consideration – Held: The settled legal position, as reinforced by the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. and Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delays under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. [Para 5]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The objections to the arbitral award were filed beyond the permissible period and cannot be entertained. The impugned order stands upheld. [Paras 7, 8]

Administrative Law - Arms Licence Cancellation - Writ Petition Seeking Certiorari - Petition challenging orders cancelling arms licence retrospectively and dismissing appeal - Petitioner held arms licence since 2001 and was later convicted and released on probation - Licence cancelled due to conviction - Held, Licensing Authority must provide written reasons for suspension or revocation of licence and furnish them to the licence holder unless public interest dictates otherwise - No valid reasons provided in this case - Impugned orders set aside - Matter remanded for fresh decision with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard - Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 3, 5, 8].

Licensing Authority's Obligation - Analysis - Held, No specific findings recorded to indicate which clause of Section 17(3) was applicable - Authority failed to justify cancellation under Section 17(5) - Orders were non-speaking and did not comply with statutory requirements [Para 6].

Decision - Remand for Fresh Consideration - Court quashes the cancellation and appeal dismissal orders, directing the Licensing Authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law, ensuring the petitioner is heard [Para 8].

Maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Interpretation of the term "wife" - Expansive interpretation given to the term "wife" in Chanmuniya v. Virender Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 - Broad interpretation includes cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a considerable period of time - Strict proof of marriage not a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Principles of social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.

Applicability of broad interpretation to the instant case - Parties already married to other individuals - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Marriage with living spouse invalidates the claim of a valid marriage for maintenance - Relying on Chanmuniya case not tenable - Second marriage void on account of survival of the first marriage - Second wife not a legally wedded wife - Not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Concerns regarding exploitation and legal loopholes - Section 125 fails to arrest exploitation it seeks to curb - Sympathy for the respondent but constrained by the law - Liberty for the respondent to avail other remedies suited to the circumstances, such as seeking compensation under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Impugned order set aside - Petition disposed of accordingly.

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23(1) - Constitutional validity - Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section restricts the applicability of the provision only to gifts of property made by a senior citizen after the commencement of the Act - Petitioner seeks removal or striking down of the words "after the commencement of the Act" from Section 23(1) - Contention that the provision should have retrospective effect - Petitioner argues that the Act should permit senior citizens to revoke gifts made prior to the Act's commencement - Court examines the legislative intent and purpose of the Act. [Para 1]

Interpretation of statutes - Literal rule of interpretation - Courts must give effect to the plain and clear language of a statute - Departure from literal rule only when language is contradictory, ambiguous, or leads to absurd results - Presumption that every word used by the legislature is intentional - Each word in a statute must be given effect - Court cannot rewrite or amend legislation - Need for caution in interpreting statutes to avoid crossing the line between adjudication and legislation. [Para 11]

Retrospective operation of statutes - Unless expressly provided or required, statutes should not be given retrospective operation - Existing rights should not be taken away or impaired, nor new obligations or liabilities created, unless clearly required - Courts should avoid retrospective operation that affects past transactions - Retrospective operation should be avoided unless the language of the statute necessitates it. [Para 7, 8]

Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act - Prospective operation - Section 23(1) intended to protect existing rights of donees - Rider of "after the commencement of the Act" to avoid disturbing family arrangements and vested rights - Legislature conscious of not giving retrospective operation to vested rights despite the welfare objective of the Act - No case of casus omissus - Court cannot make provision what the legislature did not intend it to be. [Para 6, 12]

Judgment - Dismissal of petition - Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - Court declines to exercise jurisdiction - Competent authority directed to adjudicate the petitioner's case under the Senior Citizens Act in accordance with the law. [Para 14, 15]