Municipal Law – Eviction Proceedings – Quashed – Quasi-Judicial Nature – Petitioners occupying municipal premises challenged eviction orders issued by Nashik Municipal Corporation. The Corporation justified eviction on grounds of public interest, namely road widening and development infrastructure. Petitioners argued that the Corporation failed to provide substantial evidence for the necessity of the eviction in public interest and that no proper show-cause notice was issued after remand. Held: Eviction orders quashed for lack of proper reasoning and evidence. The Corporation must give reasons for its decision in quasi-judicial proceedings [Paras 9-13, 16].

Administrative Law – Requirement of Reasoning in Quasi-Judicial Orders – The Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 29th February 2020 was held to be a non-speaking order with no discussion on the explanation submitted by the petitioners. It was emphasized that quasi-judicial decisions require proper reasoning, and the requirement of public interest must be substantiated with evidence [Paras 17-19].

Legal Procedure – Scope of Show Cause Notice – The Court observed that the show-cause notice must specify the grounds for proposed eviction, and the Corporation is required to produce material evidence to dispute the cause shown by the noticee. In this case, the Corporation’s failure to do so rendered the eviction orders invalid [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – The eviction orders passed by the Nashik Municipal Corporation are set aside. The Corporation is directed to issue fresh proceedings in accordance with law, ensuring proper reasons and evidence are provided for any proposed eviction [Paras 23-25].

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].

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].

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce Granted – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion - The appellant alleged that the respondent-wife insisted on moving to her parental home and later deserted him without consent - The respondent claimed harassment and demand for dowry - The Court noted the absence of denial by the respondent that she left the matrimonial home and the omission to explain the circumstances of her departure - Held: The evidence pointed towards desertion and cruelty by the respondent – The marriage is dissolved on these grounds [Paras 7-10].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Evidence - In cross-examination, the appellant confirmed his modest income, supported by a certificate of net salary - The respondent and her father’s claims of a higher income could not be substantiated, and they failed to explain the departure from the matrimonial home - Held: The appellant's contentions were supported by evidence, and the respondent's objections were not upheld [Paras 12-15].

Permanent Alimony – Consideration of Appellant's Income - Considering the appellant's current income and the respondent's age and education, the Court directed a permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court - Held: The alimony is justified in exercising the Court's discretion, given the dissolution of marriage [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition is reversed – The marriage solemnized on 9th March 2015 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court within two months – The decree to be drawn up expeditiously [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appellants convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards the deceased (Paramjit Kaur) – Trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and 1 year under Section 498-A IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable and there was no evidence of cruelty or demand for dowry – Held: The prosecution proved that the deceased died due to poisoning within 7 years of marriage, and there was credible evidence of harassment and demand for dowry – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-32].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The deceased, Paramjit Kaur, made a dying declaration implicating her husband (Mohinder Singh), father-in-law (Amrik Singh), and other relatives for harassment and dowry demands – The appellants argued that the dying declaration lacked a doctor’s fitness certificate – Held: The declaration, recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found credible and supported by other evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports – The absence of a doctor's certificate did not invalidate the declaration [Paras 8-10, 30].

Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The deceased died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to harassment related to dowry – The court applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused – The appellants failed to rebut this presumption, and the prosecution’s evidence supported the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 11-12, 26-31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem and chemical analysis confirmed that the deceased died of poisoning by aluminium phosphide – The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the death was unnatural and related to dowry demands – No discrepancies in the medical testimony were found [Paras 19-21, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC upheld – Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of [Paras 32-33].

Family Law – Appeal for Declaration of Matrimonial Status – Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act 1984 – The appellant, Smt. Hasina Bano, filed an appeal against the dismissal of the suit by the Family Court, Jhansi, seeking a declaration of her matrimonial status as "divorced" by mutual consent (mubara’at) under Muslim Personal Law – The trial court dismissed the suit for non-filing of the original 'Talaqnama' and for being filed after approximately 20 years from the dissolution of marriage – On appeal, the High Court condoned the delay, finding that the dissolution was undisputed and the suit was filed jointly by both parties – Held: No period of limitation is prescribed under the Family Courts Act for such suits – Appeal allowed, setting aside the trial court's order and decreeing the suit for declaration of divorce [Paras 24-28].

Witness Testimony – Admittance of Divorce – Both the appellant and respondent had mutually consented to divorce (mubara’at) and executed a 'Talaqnama Tehreer' dated 07.03.2000 – They lived separately since 16.07.1990, which was not disputed – The trial court’s dismissal of the suit on technical grounds, such as the non-availability of the original 'Talaqnama,' was found unwarranted under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – The divorce was mutually agreed upon and admitted by both parties – Held: Facts admitted need not be proved [Paras 19-22].

Legal Position on Mubara’at – The High Court elaborated on the concept of mubara’at under Muslim Personal Law, which allows for divorce by mutual consent without the need for a court's intervention – The Family Court is competent to declare such an extra-judicial divorce under Explanation (b) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act 1984 – Referred to the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Asbi K.N. v. Hashim M.U. – Held: Mubara’at is a valid mode of divorce under Muslim Personal Law and does not require a formal judicial process [Paras 14-18].

Limitation – Suit Not Barred by Limitation – The court clarified that no specific limitation period is prescribed under the Family Courts Act for suits seeking declaration of matrimonial status – Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, explicitly states that nothing in the Act shall apply to any suit concerning marriage and divorce – The claim for a declaration of matrimonial status is of a recurring nature and must be assessed within a reasonable period, considering the conduct of parties and the case's circumstances – Held: The suit was not barred by limitation [Paras 23, 25-27].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment dated 10.10.2023, and decree dated 19.10.2023 – The matrimonial status of the parties is declared as "divorced" – The suit for declaration was decreed – Registry directed to return the original 'Talaqnama Tehreer' to the appellant after retaining a photocopy – The parties were directed to bear their respective costs [Para 28].

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissed - Exercise of Extraordinary Power – The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for offenses under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC – The deceased had given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alleging harassment by the petitioners – The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie involved in the offenses and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide – Held: The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious cases where custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the truth – Petitions dismissed [Paras 25, 67, 83].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Investigation – The Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious allegations like abetment to suicide – Held: Effective interrogation of a suspect is crucial and may be rendered ineffective if the suspect is granted pre-arrest bail – The need for custodial interrogation outweighs the liberty of the individual in this case [Paras 67, 83].

Consideration for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – The Court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which highlight the necessity to balance individual rights, public interest, and fair investigation while considering pre-arrest bail – The grant of pre-arrest bail is not a rule but an exception and should be granted only when the court is convinced of exceptional circumstances [Paras 21, 25].

Decision:

Petitions for pre-arrest bail dismissed – The nature of the offense and the necessity for custodial interrogation disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail – Observations made are confined to the disposal of these petitions and shall not impact the merits of the case [Para 83].