Constitutional Law – Local Body Elections – Appeals Dismissed – Article 243-U – Mandate for Timely Municipal Elections - The appeals challenged the learned Single Judge's direction for notifying elections, citing the incomplete "triple test formalities" for OBC reservation - The Court highlighted the inviolability of the constitutional mandate under Article 243-U, stating that elections should be conducted even if the "triple test formalities" are not completed - Held: The failure to conduct elections undermines the democratic setup envisaged by the 74th Constitutional Amendment – The "triple test formalities" cannot obstruct the constitutional duty to hold elections, ensuring the elected bodies are installed promptly [Paras 39, 44, 45, 49].

Municipal Law – Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 – Sections 16(4), 16(8), and 20 - The State had appointed administrators after the expiry of the elected bodies' tenure, citing Section 16(8) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 - The Court noted that this was a temporary arrangement, emphasizing the need for elections to uphold the "government by the people" principle - Held: The appointment of administrators should not become a permanent solution, and elections must be conducted to ensure democratic governance at the local level [Paras 46, 47].

Judicial Precedents – "Triple Test Formalities" and Democratic Mandate - The State relied on K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) v. Union of India and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra to argue for the necessity of "triple test formalities" - The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Suresh Mahajan v. State of M.P., which held that the absence of "triple test formalities" cannot justify delaying elections - Held: Non-compliance with the "triple test" cannot defer the constitutional mandate for elections, as it would defeat the purpose of the 74th Amendment [Paras 48, 50].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The State is directed to notify elections for Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Nagar Panchayats in Jharkhand immediately – The court upholds the learned Single Judge's direction to ensure the democratic process of elections is not hindered, reiterating the inviolability of the constitutional mandate for timely elections [Paras 51, 52].

Service Law – Inter-Cadre Deputation – Order of Central Administrative Tribunal Set Aside – The petitioner, an Indian Forest Service officer from the Manipur Cadre, sought an extension of his inter-cadre deputation to Kerala for an additional two years due to personal difficulties – His initial deputation was granted on grounds of his father's old-age ailments and his family's location in Kerala – Both the State of Kerala and State of Manipur provided no objections for the extension – However, the Government of India rejected the extension request, citing a lack of cogent reasons and delay in submission – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the petitioner’s application for extension – On appeal, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh decision on the request for extension – [Paras 1, 2, 4, 11, 13]

Guidelines and Personal Difficulties – According to clauses (c) and (d) of the inter-cadre deputation guidelines, an extension is based on personal difficulties and requires review – The maximum period for inter-cadre deputation is five years – The petitioner’s original deputation was based on his father's ailments and his family's location in Kerala, which the Government of India initially accepted – The petitioner argued that these reasons still existed with worsened impact, warranting an extension – [Paras 4, 8-9]

Decision and Reconsideration – The High Court noted that the CAT found the petitioner’s request for extension was submitted in time and disagreed with the Central Government's claim of delay – The Court observed that the reasons for the petitioner’s initial deputation were still valid and held that the matter required reconsideration by the competent authority – The Court directed the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s extension request, allowing him to continue in Kerala until a decision is made – [Paras 10, 12]

Order – Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the original petition, setting aside the CAT's order and the Central Government's rejection of the extension request – It directed a fresh decision on the petitioner’s request for a further two-year extension of inter-cadre deputation to Kerala, effective from June 26, 2023 – [Paras 13].a

Constitutional Law – Citizenship – Cessation of Citizenship – The appellant was disqualified from the post of Mukhiya on the ground of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Nepal, resulting in the cessation of his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – The appellant contended that the State Election Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter, which should have been referred to the Central Government under the Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Held: The Election Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate on the cessation of citizenship; such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government – The decision of the Election Commission was set aside, and the matter was directed to be referred to the Central Government [Paras 11-13, 15].

Election Law – Disqualification – Jurisdiction of State Election Commission – The State Election Commission disqualified the appellant for alleged foreign citizenship – Held: As per the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, the State Election Commission can consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials, provided it is not purely an election dispute – However, contentious issues, especially those concerning citizenship cessation, should be decided by a competent court or the Central Government, not the Election Commission [Paras 14-20].

Procedural Law – Referral to Central Government – The court directed the State Election Commission to refer the dispute to the Central Government to determine whether the appellant had acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily, which could lead to the cessation of Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The order of the State Election Commission and the judgment of the learned Single Judge were set aside – The State Election Commission was directed to refer the matter to the Central Government for determination – The appellant is entitled to continue in the post of Mukhiya until the Central Government's decision is made [Para 16].

Contract Law – Coal Supply Dispute – Appeal Dismissed – Coal Pricing – Colliery Control Order 2000 – Imposition of Add-on Charges - CCL imposed add-on charges over the base price of coal, which the appellant paid under protest. The appellant contended that under the Colliery Control Order 2000, only CIL was authorized to fix coal prices and that CCL had no power to impose such charges - Held: The appellant unconditionally agreed to pay the enhanced price, and there was no evidence to suggest that CCL's demand for a 30% premium was for profiteering - Writ petitions were dismissed as no violation of Article 14 or profiteering was established [Paras 29-32].

Contractual Disputes – Maintainability of Writ Petitions - The respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the dispute pertained to a commercial contract without any public law element. The appellant argued that the exercise of powers by the authorities under the statutes governing coal supply was being questioned - Held: The writ petitions were maintainable as they involved the exercise of statutory powers under the Essential Commodities Act and Colliery Control Order 2000 [Paras 35-37].

Price Fixation – Article 14 and Fair Pricing - The appellant claimed that the imposition of add-on charges violated Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that no other subsidiaries of CIL imposed such charges. The respondents maintained that coal pricing involved various factors, and the appellant enjoyed the benefits of source-specific coal - Held: No evidence suggested that the price fixation was arbitrary or aimed at profiteering - Price fixation must ensure a fair price for the consumer while allowing for reasonable profit, but not profiteering [Paras 43-46].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petitions was upheld – No relief granted to the appellant regarding the refund of add-on charges/source-specific premium charges – Costs were not awarded [Paras 49-50].

Compensation – Death Due to Negligence – Maintainability Under Article 226 – The petitioners sought compensation for the death of their minor son caused by the alleged negligence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in maintaining its premises – Held: The High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 for compensation in cases of violation of fundamental rights, including Article 21, where the State's negligence is evident – The Court found sufficient evidence of negligence by MCD in failing to maintain the premises, leading to the death – The writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 15-18].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Application in Public Law Remedy – The Court applied the maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitur,' presuming negligence on the part of MCD – It was established that the falling of a slab from the MCD-owned premises caused the death, indicating clear negligence in maintaining a safe environment for the public – Held: The principle allows for the presumption of negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the case, justifying the awarding of compensation [Paras 19-21].

Quantum of Compensation – Calculation – The petitioners sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 – The Court applied principles from prior judgments, considering factors such as the age of the deceased, potential future prospects, and minimum wage rates – The Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of death until realization – The compensation was computed based on loss of dependency and pecuniary losses, with the amount being adjusted for inflation [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Compensation Awarded – The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of death – In case of non-compliance, the petitioners would be entitled to an additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum – The writ petition was disposed of with these directions [Paras 34-35].

Property Law – Settlement and Adverse Possession – Appellant's claim of adverse possession and rightful ownership dismissed – The trial court and appellate court found the plaintiff-respondent in possession and use of disputed land as appurtenant to his house since the time of ancestors (Para 21) – Defendant-appellant failed to prove purchase from the zamindar, as claimed, with conflicting evidence regarding the zamindar's identity weakening the case (Para 22) – Courts held that land need not be adjacent but in close proximity for beneficial enjoyment under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act 1950 (Paras 10, 13, 17) – Appeal dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision (Para 28).

Easementary Right and Adverse Possession – Distinction – The court explained that easementary rights and adverse possession cannot be pleaded together – Easementary right pertains to beneficial use of another’s property for one's own property's enjoyment, while adverse possession involves hostile possession of another's property for a statutory period (Para 19) – Adverse possession requires peaceful, open, and continuous possession, which the defendant-appellant could not prove (Para 24) – The plaintiff-respondent's established possession negates the appellant's claim of adverse possession (Paras 24, 26).

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Not Interfered by Second Appeal – The appellate court affirmed the trial court's concurrent findings, emphasizing that such findings are not to be set aside unless shown to be perverse (Para 27) – The appellant's reliance on the weakness of the defendant’s case was insufficient to overturn the plaintiff's established title – The court emphasized that concurrent factual findings on the basis of evidence and pleadings are binding unless shown to contain errors in law or fact (Paras 29-31).

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – No interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and appellate court – The plaintiff-respondent's possession and use of the land under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act 1950 upheld – No order as to costs (Paras 32-33).

Criminal Law – Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Bail Granted – The appellant, Manik Bhattacharya, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for allegedly receiving Rs. 7,00,000 from 44 candidates – Charged under Section 3, read with Section 70, and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 – His bail applications were denied twice by the trial court – Upon appeal, the High Court considered his prolonged detention, health issues, and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Noting the delay in framing charges and the unlikelihood of a trial conclusion soon, the High Court granted bail with stringent conditions – [Paras 24-25, 27-28]

Investigation and Witness Testimony – The ED alleged the appellant's involvement in illegal appointments in primary education – Evidence included statements from co-accused Tapas Kumar Mondal, who stated that Rs. 3.25 crores were collected to secure appointments for 325 candidates – The appellant argued these statements did not directly implicate him, and the ED failed to establish a money trail to him – Furthermore, no money was recovered from his possession, and he challenged the authenticity and completeness of the evidence – [Paras 6, 14]

Grounds for Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – The High Court referred to the principles established by the Supreme Court concerning the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Considering the appellant's nearly two-year detention without trial and the vast amount of documentary evidence, the Court found that further detention would breach his fundamental rights – The improbability of a near-future trial conclusion indicated that prolonged pre-trial detention would equate to punishment without trial – [Paras 22, 23, 29, 30]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Granted – The High Court granted bail, subject to stringent conditions: surrendering the passport, restricted movement without court permission, and no tampering with evidence or witness intimidation – The appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties – It was clarified that the observations in this judgment were solely for the bail application and would not influence the trial court's assessment of the case's merits – [Paras 31-34]

Constitutional Law – Citizenship – Cessation of Citizenship – The appellant was disqualified from the post of Mukhiya on the ground of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Nepal, resulting in the cessation of his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – The appellant contended that the State Election Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter, which should have been referred to the Central Government under the Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Held: The Election Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate on the cessation of citizenship; such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government – The decision of the Election Commission was set aside, and the matter was directed to be referred to the Central Government [Paras 11-13, 15].

Election Law – Disqualification – Jurisdiction of State Election Commission – The State Election Commission disqualified the appellant for alleged foreign citizenship – Held: As per the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, the State Election Commission can consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials, provided it is not purely an election dispute – However, contentious issues, especially those concerning citizenship cessation, should be decided by a competent court or the Central Government, not the Election Commission [Paras 14-20].

Procedural Law – Referral to Central Government – The court directed the State Election Commission to refer the dispute to the Central Government to determine whether the appellant had acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily, which could lead to the cessation of Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The order of the State Election Commission and the judgment of the learned Single Judge were set aside – The State Election Commission was directed to refer the matter to the Central Government for determination – The appellant is entitled to continue in the post of Mukhiya until the Central Government's decision is made [Para 16].

Consumer Law – Writ Petitions under Article 227 – Jurisdiction – Challenge to NCDRC Orders – Multiple writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Petitioners contended that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction as NCDRC is located in Delhi – Respondents argued that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the cause of action arose, relying on Siddhartha S. Mookerjee case – Held: Jurisdiction for petitions under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, not merely based on the location of the NCDRC in Delhi – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and other similar cases, emphasizing that jurisdiction should align with where the matter originated – Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-76].

Writ Jurisdiction – Cause of Action – Petitioners claimed that the NCDRC’s location in Delhi vested jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court – Court disagreed, holding that the cause of action determines jurisdiction, not the location of the appellate or revisional tribunal – The cause of action for each petition had arisen outside Delhi, and the petitions should have been filed in the respective jurisdictional High Courts – Situs of the tribunal not a decisive factor for jurisdiction [Paras 13-65].

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Regional Benches and Jurisdiction – NCDRC, as a national-level tribunal, exercises jurisdiction across multiple states – Petitions challenging its orders must be filed in the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the original cause of action – Establishment of regional benches by the central government could further guide jurisdictional filings – [Paras 49-56].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – Petitioners directed to pursue remedies in the appropriate jurisdictional High Courts – Delhi High Court cannot entertain petitions solely based on the situs of the NCDRC [Paras 73-76].