Civil Writ - Foreigners Tribunal – Ex-Parte Declaration – Delay in Challenge – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the ex-parte opinion of the Foreigners' Tribunal after nearly six years – High Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, had appeared through counsel, and failed to adduce evidence despite multiple opportunities – Delay not justified – Petition dismissed solely on ground of laches and delay [Paras 1-4, 13, 20, 22].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Not Discharged – Tribunal held the petitioner failed to prove her Indian citizenship prior to 1971 as required under Section 9 – High Court observed that despite filing written statement, the petitioner failed to lead evidence, and absented herself from proceedings – Held: Petitioner failed to discharge burden imposed by law [Paras 2, 10-12, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Condonation of Delay – High Threshold in Citizenship Matters – Petitioner claimed poverty, illiteracy, and advocate’s inaction as cause of delay – Court held these reasons insufficient, especially when petitioner’s family members were not prevented from assisting – Held: Delay of 6 years fatal – Petitioner not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction belatedly [Paras 5-9, 13, 16, 18-20].

COVID-19 Argument – Not Applicable – Pandemic Not a Valid Excuse – Petitioner argued delay due to COVID-19 disruption – Held: COVID limitation relief ended in 2022 – Petition filed in 2025 still barred by gross delay [Para 13].

Final Order – Writ Petition Dismissed – Opinion of Tribunal Sustained – High Court refused to interfere and directed that consequences of the Tribunal’s order would follow – Petition dismissed with directions to record the order in the Tribunal record [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Writ – Hit-and-Run Investigation – Mandamus Issued – Police Found Negligent – Petitioner sought Writ of Mandamus directing filing of charge-sheet in a fatal road accident involving her son – FIR was registered on 17/08/2022 but investigation remained stagnant – Court found initial investigation grossly negligent and directed departmental inquiry against the first IO – Charge-sheet finally filed on 07/08/2025 after court’s intervention – Petition disposed with directions for expeditious trial and liberty to seek compensation [Paras 1–12].

Police Inaction – Dereliction of Duty – Court Orders Inquiry – PSI Mr. Dnyadev Pawar, who led the investigation for two years, failed to seize key evidence including the deceased’s vehicle and ignored available e-challan records – Held: Clear case of dereliction of duty – Director General of Police directed to initiate departmental inquiry and take appropriate action under rules [Paras 8–10].

Compensation – Liberty to Approach MACT – Delay in Criminal Proceedings to Be Excluded – Since the accident involved a motor vehicle and the deceased was unmarried and earning, Court allowed liberty to Petitioner to seek compensation from MACT – Period spent before High Court and Trial Court to be excluded for computing limitation [Para 12(c)].

Expeditious Trial – One Year Timeline – Directions Issued – Trial Court directed to complete trial within one year – All parties directed to cooperate – Adjournments to be strictly limited to compelling reasons only [Para 12(a)-(d)].

Final Decision – Petition Worked Out – Rule Made Absolute – As charge-sheet was filed and investigation completed, petition deemed worked out – However, serious view taken of earlier investigative failures, and directions issued for systemic accountability [Paras 7–12].

Civil Writ - Public Employment – Appointment on Forged Documents – Termination – Held: Appointment obtained through forged and fabricated certificate is void ab initio – Fraud vitiates all – No equity, estoppel, or statutory right arises from such fraudulent employment – Petitioner cannot claim protection under service regulations or Article 311(2) when initial appointment itself was fraudulent [Paras 7-9.1].

Fraud in Employment – No Right to Salary or Service Benefits – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Fraudulent entry into service confers no legal entitlement to salary, pension, or continuity of service – Principles from Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748 and R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 reaffirmed – Even long years of service cannot cure illegality of appointment [Paras 8.1-9.2].

Employer’s Duty – Negligence in Verification – Responsibility to be Fixed – Held: While petitioner’s appointment was rightly terminated, the employer (DHBVNL) failed in its duty to properly verify certificates during probation – Laxity allowed fraudulent entry into public service for 10 years – Court directed Managing Director of DHBVNL to fix responsibility of negligent officials and take disciplinary action – Compliance report to be filed within 8 weeks [Paras 10-13].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Termination upheld as legally valid – Fraudulent appointment cannot be protected – However, disciplinary accountability fixed on negligent officers who failed to verify documents [Paras 11, 13].

Tenancy Law  – Personal bona fide requirement – Clause (g), Section 13(1), Bombay Rent Act – Liberal construction includes landlord’s dependent family – Eviction decree sustained – Landlords (a priestly family near a temple) proved insufficiency of existing premises and need for additional space for named family members; Trial Court erred by insisting those members be examined; Appellate Court rightly decreed eviction and High Court found no revisional infirmity – Held: “for occupation by himself” is not confined to the landlord individually and non-examination of the specific family members is not per se fatal [Paras 5, 15-21, 22-24].

Evidence – Unimpeached testimony and absence of cross-examination – Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Court’s duty to evaluate merits still applies – Decree valid where plaintiff’s case, even if uncontested, independently proves bona fide need – Tenant’s failure to cross-examine PW-1/PW-2 or lead rebuttal evidence left landlord’s evidence intact; Trial Court’s approach was erroneous; Appellate Court corrected error; High Court approves – Principle from Balraj Taneja applied to require judicial satisfaction, which was met on facts [Paras 6-11, 15-21].

Comparative hardship – Tenant operating multiple firms – Evidence (including invitation card, Exh. 32) unimpeached – Hardship balanced in favour of landlord – No material to show tenant’s efforts to find alternative premises post-suit – Finding of greater hardship to landlord upheld [Paras 25-26].

Scope of revisional jurisdiction – Interference limited to jurisdictional error or material irregularity – Appellate decree based on proper appreciation of law and evidence – No perversity or jurisdictional error – Revision dismissed [Paras 24, 27-28].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Eviction decree on ground of personal bona fide requirement affirmed – Stay to continue for four weeks subject to undertaking. [Paras 27-28; Final Order].

Civil Revision – Waqf Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaint Rejected – Plaintiff, a devotee, sought declaration and possession over Survey Nos. 51 and 52 as Waqf property of Dargah – Tribunal rejected applications under Order 7 Rule 11 – Held: Suit not maintainable as properties never included in gazetted list under Section 5 of Waqf Act, 1954/1995 – No statutory procedure followed – Suit barred by limitation under Section 6 proviso – Relief of declaration cleverly drafted to overcome legal bars – Plaint rejected – Revision allowed [Paras 13-19, 25, 27, 32].

Waqf Property – Gazette Notification Mandatory – Sections 4-6 of Waqf Act, 1954/1995 – Inclusion of property in Waqf list requires survey, enquiry and gazette notification – Mere letter dated 11.12.1979 or corrigendum cannot confer status – No evidence of statutory procedure – Suit properties not proved as Waqf – Tribunal’s finding perverse [Paras 14-18].

Limitation – Section 6 of Waqf Act – Suit filed after 47 years – Proviso mandates filing within one year from publication of list – Properties not notified in 1973 list – Declaration suit of 2020 manifestly barred – Section 107 cannot revive extinguished rights – Relief time-barred [Paras 19-25].

Section 107, Waqf Act – No Retrospective Operation – Protects suits for possession of Waqf property – But does not save stale claims barred before 1995 Act – SC in T. Kaliamurthi (2008) and K. Akbar Ali (2021) held extinguished rights cannot be revived – Plaintiff’s declaratory relief barred [Paras 22-25].

Clever Drafting – Abuse of Process – Plaintiff avoided challenging old sale-deeds (1985, 1988) and couched plaint to declare land as Waqf – Cause of action illusory, bar of limitation camouflaged – Absurd pleadings and oblique intentions – Abuse of law – Fit case to reject plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 [Paras 20-21, 27].

Decision – Civil Revision Application allowed – Common order dated 07.09.2021 by Waqf Tribunal quashed – Plaint in Waqf Suit No. 66 of 2020 rejected – Stay of judgment granted for four weeks to enable appeal [Order, Paras 32, 36].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Section 302 IPC – Upheld for Accused No. 4 – Based on testimony of four consistent eyewitnesses who specifically attributed sword blows to the accused – Minor inconsistencies held immaterial – Conviction for murder upheld despite lapses in investigation [Paras 11, 15-16].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Accused No. 2 Acquitted – No Direct Evidence – Conviction based solely on discovery panchnama which was not proved in accordance with law – Neither eyewitnesses nor circumstances linked him to the crime – Held: Conviction not sustainable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 12-14, 18].

Test Identification Parade – Procedural Lapses – TIP Not Trustworthy – Conduct of TIP not in accordance with law – Witnesses knew many dummy participants – No corroboration between parade and court testimony – However, in-court identification of Accused No. 4 by multiple witnesses deemed reliable – TIP discrepancies did not vitiate case against him [Paras 11(4), 12].

Discovery Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Knife Recovery Unreliable – Panch witnesses to discovery panchnama turned hostile – Investigating Officer failed to narrate full details of discovery – Recovery pertained to weapon allegedly used by another accused – Held: Discovery inadmissible and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 13-14].

Police Notification – Section 135(1) of Gujarat Police Act – Notification Not Proved – Prosecution failed to produce certified copy or gazette publication of weapon prohibition order – Held: Conviction under Section 135(1) unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 78 of Evidence Act [Para 17].

Faulty Investigation – Not a Ground for Acquittal – Though lapses occurred in identification and recovery processes, they do not override consistent eyewitness accounts – Court reiterated that faulty or negligent investigation alone does not justify acquittal if guilt is otherwise proven – Held: No interference with conviction of Accused No. 4 [Paras 10, 15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of Accused No. 4 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 135(1) Gujarat Police Act set aside – Accused No. 2 acquitted of all charges – State not having filed appeals against acquittals or certain IPC charges – Held: Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2017 allowed – Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2018 partly allowed [Paras 16-18].

Article 227 – Territorial jurisdiction – DRAT situs vs. DRT situs – Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction – Petitioner challenged DRAT, Kolkata’s pre-deposit order (05.07.2024) and dismissal order (04.09.2024) arising out of DRT, Guwahati’s ex parte decree – Held: For challenges under Article 227 to orders of an appellate tribunal (interim or final) exercising jurisdiction over multiple States, the proper High Court is the one within whose territory the original Tribunal (DRT) is situated – Calcutta High Court lacks jurisdiction since the source DRT is Guwahati – Petition dismissed [Paras 1–3, 15, 19–21, 29–31, 45–47, 55–56].

Doctrine of Merger – Not determinative of Article 227 forum – Though original orders merge into appellate orders, situs of appellate forum does not confer Article 227 jurisdiction where the appellate forum spans multiple States – The doctrine cannot override the certainty-of-forum principle and the binding-precedent structure – Ambica Industries and ABC Papers applied [Paras 21–24, 29, 31, 35, 42–46].

Article 226(2) vs. Article 227 – Distinction in reach – Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction based on cause of action even beyond territorial seats – Article 227 superintendence is territorially tethered to courts/tribunals “throughout the territories” of the High Court – For appellate bodies covering multiple States, Article 227 control lies with the High Court where the adjudicatory source (DRT) is located [Paras 26–33, 38–40, 53–54].

Certainty of Forum – Prevention of forum shopping – When appellate tribunals cover several States, allowing dominus litis choice by relying on appellate situs would create uncertainty and inconsistent binding effect of precedents – Hence, only the High Court where the original adjudicating authority sits has supervisory jurisdiction – ABC Papers, Ambica Industries followed [Paras 29–31, 41–45].

Interlocutory Orders (Pre-deposit) – Same jurisdictional rule – Challenge to an interim pre-deposit direction and dismissal for non-compliance equally tracks the forum of the source DRT – Interference would revive the appeal and unsettle finality of the DRT’s order, rendering issues res sub judice – Therefore, Calcutta High Court cannot entertain even interlocutory challenges sourced from DRT, Guwahati [Paras 50–52].

Conflicting Coordinate Bench View – Sabbam Hari distinguished – Earlier order proceeded on “appellate order as part of cause of action” – In light of Ambica Industries, Calcutta Gujarati Education Society, Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and Navin Jain, Sabbam Hari is not a binding precedent on the jurisdictional point [Paras 48–50].

Decision – Application under Article 227 dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty to approach the appropriate High Court within whose territory DRT, Guwahati is located – No order as to costs [Paras 55–57].

Public Interest Litigation – Government Resolution establishing Additional Tahsildar office – Sections 4, 7 & 13, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Scope of power – GR dated 18.07.2023 created office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi, allocating 63 villages under its jurisdiction – Petitioners contended that such creation amounted to constitution/reconstitution of revenue area under Section 4(4), mandating prior publication and compliance with Section 24 of Bombay General Clauses Act – State contended that action was under Sections 7 and 13, relating to appointment of Revenue Officers, not creation of new revenue area – Held: Establishing Additional Tahsildar office for administrative convenience does not amount to constituting/altering revenue area – Section 4(4) not attracted – State acted within powers under Sections 7 & 13 – Petition dismissed [Paras 18–29, 34–36].

Distinction from Earlier Precedents – Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar & Santosh Suresh Patil cases – Not applicable – Those cases concerned creation/reconstitution of revenue areas under Section 4 – Present case involves only establishment of Additional Tahsildar’s office under Section 7/13 – Petitioners’ reliance misplaced [Paras 30–31].

Allegation of Political Motivation – Consideration – Material showed enquiry and recommendation by Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector before issuance of GR – Action based on administrative convenience and increased population – No arbitrariness or mala fides demonstrated – Court will not supplant executive wisdom in administrative matters [Paras 32–36].

Decision – PIL dismissed – Rule discharged – Pending applications also disposed of – Establishment of Additional Tahsildar office at Kasar Shirsi upheld as valid exercise of power under Sections 7 & 13, MLR Code [Paras 37–40].

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Standard of Proof – Mother of minor victim sought summoning of grandmother and paternal aunts on the ground of alleged suppression and non-reporting of child sexual abuse – Trial Court rejected application noting that no new or compelling evidence had emerged during trial beyond what was already part of the charge-sheet – High Court concurred, holding that child witness’s testimony was vague, inconsistent and lacked corroboration – Held: Section 319 CrPC requires strong prima facie evidence suggesting possible conviction – Mere suspicion or general allegations insufficient [Paras 8-13, 18-19].

POCSO Act – Duty to Report – Section 21 – Knowledge of Crime – Allegations against grandmother and paternal aunts for failing to report child sexual abuse – PW-1 (minor victim) made broad claims about “family knowing” and “suppression” – Court held that such statements lacked specificity and did not establish actual knowledge or intent to suppress – Held: Section 21 not attracted in absence of clear, credible, and independent proof of knowledge or concealment [Paras 15-16].

Misuse of Process – Matrimonial Acrimony – Vindictive Prosecution – High Court found application was not filed in the child’s best interest but was a misuse of criminal law motivated by the mother’s personal disputes with her estranged husband – Held: Attempt to implicate elderly grandmother and aunts using the minor victim’s testimony amounted to arm-twisting and gross abuse of process – Court cautioned against converting child protection laws into tools for vengeance [Paras 9, 14, 19-22].

Costs – Deterrence Against Frivolous Litigation – Trial Court’s imposition of ₹20,000 in costs upheld – Additional ₹10,000 cost imposed by High Court – Held: Costs justified to curb misuse of judicial time and protect individuals from baseless criminal allegations arising out of personal vendetta [Paras 21, 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial Court order upheld – Additional cost of ₹10,000 imposed – Pending applications also disposed of.