Revisional Application Under Article 227 – Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 – Challenge to Assessment of Property Tax – exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, adjudicated upon the revisional application challenging the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal regarding the annual valuation for property tax of premises no. 99A, Humayun Kabir Sarani, Kolkata. The Tribunal’s order had modified the valuation determined by the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction appropriately and did not adhere to the mandatory statutory procedures under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. [Paras 1-21]

Misapplication of Jurisdiction by Municipal Assessment Tribunal – Held, the Municipal Assessment Tribunal improperly exercised its jurisdiction by failing to provide reasoned justification for modifying the Hearing Officer's order, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal's reliance on past judgments without elucidating their relevance to the present case and its disregard for the procedural requirements under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules thereof constituted a flagrant violation of statutory obligations. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Adjudication – High Court sets aside the impugned order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal and directs it to reconsider the matter in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. [Paras 18-20]

Quashing of Cognizance and Process – Criminal Revision against dismissal of petition to quash cognizance and process – Petitioner accused of offenses under Sections 354A(1)(iv)/34 IPC – Allegations by actress against petitioner – Cognizance and process issued without proper application of judicial mind and procedural requirements – Petitioner challenges orders before Sessions Judge – High Court’s dismissal of similar revisions against co-accused cited as ground for dismissal – Sessions Judge dismisses petitioner’s revision solely based on High Court’s order – Petitioner not heard in High Court’s proceedings – Violation of fundamental principle of hearing and natural justice – Abuse of process of law – Order of Sessions Judge set aside – Matter restored for proper hearing and disposal – Criminal Revision allowed.

Challenge to Recruitment Process – Petitioners, non-Punjab residents, challenged the recruitment advertisement (Annexure P-1) for 1746 constable posts claiming discrimination as no reservation was provided for candidates from other states – Held, petitioners eligible to apply under general/unreserved category – No entitlement to specific reservation for non-state residents [Para 2, 5].

Jurisprudence on Participation in Selection Process – Supreme Court precedents cited, establishing that participation in selection without initial objection bars candidates from contesting the process post-results – Referenced Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 which emphasizes non-entitlement to challenge a process post-participation if one has not been selected [Para 6].

Application of Constitutional Rights – Argument of violation of Articles 14 and 16 rejected – Court found no merit in claims of discrimination or unfairness in the selection process as open category was available to all [Para 7].

Decision:

Petition dismissed on grounds that petitioners participated in selection process without objection and lacked grounds to challenge post being unsuccessful – No constitutional rights violated.

Bail in Economic Offence Case - Conditions - Petitions under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking bail in case FIR No. 120/2023 - Accused charged with offenses under IPC Sections 420, 120-B, Himachal Pradesh Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, and Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act - Allegations of embezzlement through fake websites and virtual currency schemes - Petitioners contend innocence and completion of investigation - Prosecution opposes bail on grounds of seriousness of economic offense and possibility of tampering with evidence - Court examines principles for grant of bail in economic offenses - Relies on jurisprudence emphasizing presumption of innocence until proven guilty, with bail as the rule and jail as the exception - Considers factors such as gravity of offense, severity of punishment, and likelihood of accused tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice - Noting completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet, finds no likelihood of immediate trial completion - Grants bail with stringent conditions including personal bond and sureties, appearance before court and investigating officer, prohibition on crypto currency business, property restrictions, non-interference with evidence or witnesses, and surrender of passport - Allows prosecution to move for bail cancellation if conditions violated.

Petition Under Articles 14, 21, 226, 227 of Constitution and Section 482 of CrPC – Petitioner seeking quashment of FIR and charge-sheet against him in a case where his minor son was allegedly involved in a fatal traffic accident [Para 2.0].

Case Background – The petitioner’s minor son accused of rash driving leading to a fatal accident – Petitioner charged as he was the registered owner of the vehicle and guardian of the juvenile [Para 3.0, 3.1].

Defence’s Argument – Lack of evidence and wrongful implication of petitioner – All witnesses turned hostile in the juvenile case – Settlement with complainant reached – Argument for application of Section 199A of Motor Vehicles Act only, with already served 9-month imprisonment [Para 5.0].

Prosecution’s Argument – Emphasis on petitioner’s responsibility as guardian and owner of the vehicle – Relevance of statutory presumption under the Motor Vehicles Act – Non-compoundability of the offence and ongoing trial [Para 6.0].

Court Analysis and Decision – The Court noted absence of direct evidence linking petitioner to the accident – All witnesses in the juvenile case turned hostile – Statutory presumption under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act rebuttable – Petitioner not present at the accident, not directly involved – Already served 9 months in custody, which is substantial compared to maximum punishment – Proceedings against petitioner quashed subject to payment of Rs.25,000 fine [Paras 7.0-9.1].

Decision – Quashing of Sessions Case No.107 of 2023 against the petitioner, subject to fine payment [Para 10.0].

Interpretation of Rule 15 – Jharkhand Excise (Retail Rules 2022) – Imposing penalty on placement agencies for shortfall in Minimum Guarantee Revenue (MGR) – Court held Rule 15 should apply only when a placement agency fails to perform duties and obligations falling within its scope of work and causes monetary loss to JSBCL – Rule read down to mean liability of placement agency is confined to its scope of work and subject to principles of natural justice – [Paras 88-90]

Viability of Subordinate Legislation – Upholding Rule 15 – Presumption of intra vires nature of subordinate legislation – Judicial review parameters – Reading down the rule to conform with parent statute and constitutional principles – [Paras 72-74, 88-91]

Contractual Obligations – Jharkhand Excise Act, Retail Rules, and Agreement with Petitioners – Obligations under the agreement and rules cannot be contrary to the Jharkhand Excise Act and constitutional provisions – Contractual liabilities must align with the legislative framework and principles of natural justice – [Paras 82-84, 88-89]

Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit – Petitioner Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. – Forfeiture due to non-participation after submitting bid – Held to be premature and without a proper hearing – Directed to initiate fresh proceedings if required, in line with legal principles – [Para 95]

Decision: Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022, read down to limit the scope of penalizing placement agencies only in cases of non-performance causing monetary loss to JSBCL, in adherence to principles of natural justice.

Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit by petitioner Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. Quashed, with liberty to respondent JSBCL to initiate fresh proceedings if deemed necessary.

All writ petitions allowed in the above terms.

Disbursement of Industrial Promotion Assistance – Civil Appeal in High Court – State of West Bengal vs. Birla Corporation Ltd. – Intra-court mandamus appeal challenging the order for disbursement of sanctioned amounts to Birla Corporation Ltd. Under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 – Held, special package for ‘Mega Projects’ allows Industrial Promotion Assistance without financial cap, overriding other terms of the scheme – Directed State to disburse outstanding amounts to Birla Corporation Ltd. And verify additional claims. [Paras 1-35]

Eligibility for Incentive – Analysis – Birla Corporation Ltd.’s entitlement under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 as a ‘Mega Project’ – Discussed conditions of special package and definition of ‘Mega Unit’ – State’s contention of Fixed Capital Investment cap rejected – Held, no overall financial cap on Industrial Promotion Assistance for Birla Corporation Ltd. Under the special package. [Paras 9-20, 25-28]

Judicial Directives – State of West Bengal directed to disburse admitted amounts for financial years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 to Birla Corporation Ltd. – Authority instructed to verify claims for years 2013-14, 2014-15, and part of 2015-16 and disburse entitled amounts – Opportunities of hearing provided if claims are not allowed. [Paras 31-34]

Decision – Appeal of State of West Bengal dismissed – Orders of Principal Secretary quashed for lacking relevance and basis – Birla Corporation Ltd.’s entitlement under special package affirmed. [Paras 33-37]

Cheque Dishonor – Section 138 of NI Act - Conviction and Sentence Set aside - Criminal Revision against lower court's conviction and sentence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Petitioner convicted for dishonoring cheque issued as security - Petitioner contends cheque issued as security for another person's liability, not his own - Defense argues cheque issued with conditions, not presented without consent - Allegations against petitioner and company, but company not made party - Supreme Court precedent cited for necessity of company being arraigned as accused - Judgment setting aside conviction and sentence on grounds of procedural irregularity and abuse of process of law - Conviction and sentence set aside, petitioner acquitted and discharged. [Paras 1-23]

Bail Application – Accused Sah Jamal charged under Section 21© of the NDPS Act – In custody since 24-05-2023 – Application filed under Section 439 of CrPC. [Para 1]

Allegation of Procedural Violations – Petitioner contends wrongful implication, highlights non-compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act regarding handling and sending of samples to CFSL – Raises issue of samples not taken in front of Magistrate and discrepancy in sample identification (sample A1). [Paras 2-3]

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Cited Samarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing on proper procedures for sample seizure and handling as per Mohonlal’s case – Contends that non-compliance with these procedures casts doubt on the prosecution’s case. [Paras 7-10]

Court’s Analysis – Examines Section 52A of NDPS Act and relevant Rules – Notes procedural irregularities in the seizure and handling of the sample, aligning with principles laid out in Samarjit Singh and Mohonlal’s case. [Paras 4-10]

Bail Granted – Concluding that the petitioner overcame the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail granted subject to terms – Two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each, one being local – Regular attendance before investigating officer and court mandated. [Para 12]