Civil Writ - PIL - Solid Waste Processing – Prayer for Shifting Refused – Compliance with SWM Rules, 2016 Upheld – Petitioners sought direction to relocate waste processing activities of PCB and PMC at Hadapsar Industrial Estate, alleging pollution, foul odour, health hazards, and violation of previous governmental directions – Held: Processing facilities at the site are in accordance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and the State Government’s order dated 11.09.2018 – No mandatory order exists to shift or close processing at the current site – Petitioners’ reliance on direction for exploration of alternative site held only recommendatory, not binding – Shifting of all waste processing outside city limits not feasible for urban agglomerations like Pune – Existing facilities to continue with safeguards [Paras 21, 44-47, 55-56, 60-61].

Interpretation of State and Court Directions – Secretary, UDD’s Order of 11.09.2018 – Suitability for Waste Processing – After expert review and site visit, Secretary, UDD held the entire 28-acre land suitable for solid waste processing but prohibited further open dumping of mixed waste – Scientific processing, composting, bio-mining, and capping of legacy waste mandated – Direction to “look for alternative site” held as long-term recommendation, not as immediate order for relocation – Mere non-implementation of exploratory direction does not vitiate ongoing authorized operations [Paras 41-44, 45, 55-56].

Legal Duties of Local Bodies – Waste Management within City Limits – Under Rule 11(f) & Rule 15 of SWM Rules, 2016, local bodies must establish waste processing/disposal facilities for each area of 20 sq. km – Complete removal of all such facilities from city limits neither practical nor required under law – Mandate is to ensure scientific processing, compliance with environmental safeguards, and avoidance of mixed waste dumping – Individual inconvenience or ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome cannot override statutory duty for citywide waste management [Paras 29-31, 45-47].

Role of Pollution Control Board and Oversight – Authorization and Monitoring by MPCB – Facility authorized by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) with compliance to SWM Rules, 2016 – MPCB to monitor strict adherence to conditions, and to take legal action in case of any violation – No challenge to MPCB authorization in current petitions – Ongoing operation of facility remains subject to continuous regulatory compliance [Paras 33, 40, 57, 61(v)].

Joint Use by PCB and PMC – Validity of Collaboration – No legal bar against PCB and PMC jointly using the Hadapsar site for waste processing – Site within PMC limits but under PCB control; mutual arrangement to treat waste from both authorities found legal and longstanding – Petitioners’ objection to joint use rejected [Paras 53-54].

Safeguards and Environmental Protections – Directions to Minimize Health Impact – Both PCB and PMC directed to strictly prevent dumping of mixed waste and to ensure scientific processing, composting, and proper disposal of residual waste – Both bodies must adopt all feasible modern measures (including odour/dust suppression, enclosure, fogging/misting, increased boundary wall, etc.) to protect public health and minimize nuisance – Court issues further directions for compliance with SWM Rules, 2016 and State Government’s order dated 11.09.2018 [Paras 48-52, 59-61].

Decision – Relief for Shifting Facility Rejected – Both writ petitions and PIL dismissed – Prayer for shifting the waste processing facility from Hadapsar Industrial Estate to an alternate site refused – Directions issued for scientific and compliant management of facility, with liberty to PCB/PMC to seek more land if needed [Paras 60-62].

Criminal Law - Bail – Second Regular Bail Application – No Change in Circumstance – Dismissed – Applicant filed second bail application citing prolonged custody exceeding three and a half years – No substantial change in circumstances since first application – Court held that seriousness of offence and role played by applicant in the sexual assault of minor boys ruled out any relief at this stage – Bail denied [Paras 1, 5, 17].

Sexual Offences Against Minors – Strong Prima Facie Case – Active Participation by Applicant – The applicant forcibly brought one of the minor victims and participated in the commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Presence of applicant throughout, threats issued, and restraining acts established active complicity – Medical reports, FSL, and video footage supported the prosecution case – Bail denied in view of gravity [Paras 10–14].

Applicability of Section 436A CrPC – Not Applicable – Though applicant remained in custody for over 3.5 years, Court noted that minimum punishment under Section 6 of POCSO Act is 20 years – Threshold for release under Section 436A not yet satisfied – Continued custody justified in light of serious charges and risk of influencing victims or tampering with evidence [Paras 18–21].

Judicial Intervention – Time-Bound Trial Directed – Despite general judicial reluctance to issue directions for speedy trials, Court deemed this case exceptional due to serious nature of offences – Directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within one year – Directed the State to ensure regular production of accused and expeditious witness examination [Paras 24–28].

Final Order – Bail Application Rejected – High Court held that prolonged incarceration did not outweigh the gravity of allegations, especially considering the applicant’s role in the offence, availability of direct evidence, and threat perception to victims – Matter to be monitored for expeditious trial completion – Application dismissed [Para 29].

Civil Law - Land Revenue Act – Delay Condonation – Appeal Filed After 24 Years – Quashing Sought – Delay Condonation Upheld – Petitioner challenged condonation of 24-year delay in appeal against mutation order – Court found that petitioner had actively participated in appeal proceedings post-revisional order – Once petitioner accepted revisional direction and appeared before appellate authority, he could not later challenge the same order without disclosing participation – Held: Petition dismissed due to suppression of material facts and conduct unbecoming of a litigant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction [Paras 24–26, 31].

Writ Jurisdiction – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner Approached Court with Unclean Hands – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner failed to disclose that he had participated in proceedings before Appellate Court from 18.08.2022 to 04.11.2023 – Held: Writ remedy being equitable, discretionary relief cannot be granted to a litigant who deliberately misleads the Court – Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed exemplary costs [Paras 25–30, 34–35].

Parallel Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Invoking Article 226 While Participating in Lower Court Proceedings – Impermissible – Petitioner challenged revisional and appellate orders in writ jurisdiction while simultaneously pursuing proceedings before the appellate forum – This amounted to forum shopping and abuse of judicial process – Held: Dual remedies on same cause of action not maintainable when material facts are suppressed [Paras 24, 34].

Exemplary Costs – Misuse of Constitutional Remedy – ₹20,000 Imposed for Abuse of Process – In view of calculated concealment and misuse of Court’s process, the Court imposed ₹20,000 costs on the petitioner to be deposited in the Advocate’s Welfare Fund – Intended to deter dishonest litigants and uphold sanctity of writ jurisdiction [Para 34].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – No Relief Granted – Court found that petitioner suppressed critical information and tried to mislead the Court – Petition dismissed with ₹20,000 costs – Observed that petitioner was not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 [Para 35].

Property Law - Jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar – Section 16A of Apartment Act – Delegation of Powers under MCS Act – Jurisdiction Upheld – Petitioners contended that the Deputy Registrar lacked authority under Section 16A of the Apartment Act, as no express delegation existed – Held: Notification dated 24.11.2021 issued under Section 3 of the MCS Act conferred powers of the Registrar on the District Deputy Registrar of Pune City – Hence, order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar was within jurisdiction [Paras 3.1, 4, 17].

Interpretation of Section 10 of Apartment Act – Common Maintenance Charges – Proportionate Contribution Mandated – Petitioners challenged the directive to pay maintenance based on apartment size – Held: Deed of Declaration dated 29.07.2011 and statutory provisions under Sections 6 and 10 of the Apartment Act require owners to bear common expenses in proportion to their undivided interest – The clause explicitly provides for sharing expenses based on unit size – Equal maintenance practice by resolution is contrary to law and cannot override statute or registered deed [Paras 6-12, 14-17].

Validity of Deed of Declaration – Binding Nature of Registered Instruments – Obligation of Apartment Owners – Held: Deed of Declaration and Supplementary Deed are binding on all owners – Covenant in clause 8(XVIII) of the Declaration clearly provides a formula for sharing expenses based on area and contribution to maintenance corpus fund – Registered instrument must prevail unless modified through another registered document – Members cannot escape obligations under the Deed or the Apartment Act [Paras 6-9, 11, 14].

Equality Argument – Larger Flat Owners Not Entitled to Equal Charges – Rejected – Petitioners contended that larger flat owners did not enjoy more benefits in common areas – Held: Argument untenable – Larger apartments have greater value and higher undivided share; statutory scheme mandates proportionate contribution – Equal maintenance collection historically practiced cannot negate statutory obligation [Paras 10-12, 16-17].

Condonation of Prior Resolutions – Estoppel and Practice – No Defence Against Statutory Compliance – Petitioners argued that the general body resolutions permitted equal charges – Held: Past practice or resolutions cannot override provisions of the Apartment Act – Registered Deed of Declaration and statutory mandate must be followed – Petitioners have benefited from previous inequality but cannot now resist legal compliance [Paras 13, 15, 17].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders of Deputy Registrar and Co-operative Court Upheld – Held: Both orders dated 08.07.2021 and 13.05.2022 are reasoned and consistent with the Apartment Act and the Deed of Declaration – Writ Petition fails – No interference warranted [Paras 17-19].

Matrimonial Dispute – Return of Gold Ornaments – Wife’s Claim Not Proved – Decree Set Aside – The wife alleged that 81 sovereigns of gold were misappropriated by the husband, including 75 sovereigns received at marriage – Held: Husband admitted only 22 sovereigns and produced documentary evidence (RC extract, receipts, account statements) proving jeep was purchased on hire purchase – Ext.B7 photo relied upon by wife was found unreliable – Wife failed to prove misappropriation – Decree for return of gold ornaments set aside [Paras 6-12].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Petition Filed as Counterblast – Rejected – OP for restitution was filed by wife after receiving notice in divorce petition – Conduct and chronology indicate lack of bona fides – Wife lodged complaint to husband’s superior officer and remained at parental home since 2008 – Her conduct not consistent with desire to resume cohabitation – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights reversed [Paras 13-14].

Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Long Separation and Unjust Accusations – Divorce Granted – Parties had been living separately since 2008 with no cohabitation thereafter – Wife accused husband before military superiors, despite evidence of financial support – Letters by husband reflected cordiality and intent to continue relationship – Relationship had irretrievably broken down – Held: Husband entitled to divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion [Paras 13-14].

Appreciation of Evidence – Family Courts Act – Evidence Act Not Applicable – Family Court erred in rejecting Ext.A3 RC extract despite certification by RTO – Ext.A4 series and Ext.A5 account statements corroborated hire purchase – Court held that standard of proof in family proceedings is liberal – Documentary evidence accepted [Paras 8-10].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Marriage Dissolved – Wife’s Claims Dismissed – Held: Husband’s petition for divorce allowed – Wife’s petitions for return of gold ornaments and restitution of conjugal rights dismissed – Family Court’s judgment set aside [Para 14].

Transgender & Intersex Persons Policy – Implementation & Reforms – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Court Directions Issued – In writ petition concerning rights of transgender persons, the Court noted with appreciation the State’s notification of the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons, 2025 – Considered community suggestions on horizontal reservation, representation in monitoring committees, marriage registration, recognition of domestic partnerships, and renaming of policy – Directed State to take early decision on reservation; ensure representation of trans women, trans men, and intersex persons in district/state committees; issue directions to Registrars for smooth marriage registration; and consider renaming policy to reflect transgender and intersex focus – Also urged framing of LGBQA+ policy at the earliest – Ordered relevant departments to file status reports on NCERT module and medical curriculum sensitisation – Matter posted for further orders [Paras 1-10, 14].

Reservation – Clause 3.7 of Policy – Court noted ambiguity on whether horizontal reservation in education and public employment is envisaged – Directed Government to decide to avoid repeated litigation [Para 4].

Monitoring Committees – Representation Mandated – Directed State to ensure district and state-level committees under the policy include at least one trans woman, one trans man, and one intersex person – Necessary notifications to be issued for effective functioning [Para 5].

Marriage of Transgender Persons – Apex Court Recognition – Directed State to issue instructions to Registrars for legal sanction and registration of such marriages in line with NALSA and Arunkumar rulings [Para 6].

Recognition of Domestic Partnerships – Suggested that State provide for deeds of familial association or civil unions to safeguard rights where succession laws are silent [Para 7].

Policy Title – Court observed that renaming to “Transgender and Intersex Persons Policy” may better reflect intent and community identity [Para 8].

Decision:Court issued directions to Government to consider and implement community suggestions, take decisions on reservation and policy amendments, ensure committee representation, and expedite framing of LGBQA+ policy – Status reports directed – Matter adjourned to 15.09.2025 for further orders [Paras 4-10, 14].

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Appointment Cancelled – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her appointment as Supervisor (Women) under ICDS on the ground that she had sufficient experience as an Anganwadi Worker – Court held that Advertisement No.03/2024 clearly stipulated eligibility for in-service Anganwadi Workers with 10 years of experience – Petitioner was serving as Forest Guard on the relevant date, thus not qualifying as “in-service” – Appointment found contrary to statutory rules – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Recruitment Process – Interpretation of Advertisement – No Ambiguity – Court held that the language of Advertisement No.03/2024 and Rule 23 of RICDS Rules clearly required the candidate to be an in-service Anganwadi Worker – The petitioner’s participation despite not being in service rendered her ineligible – There was no alteration or ambiguity in recruitment terms during or after the process [Paras 5, 9, 11].

Statutory Rules – Rule 23 & Schedule-II of RICDS Rules – Binding Force – Court emphasized that Rule 23 and Schedule-II mandate that 50% of Supervisor posts be filled from among in-service Anganwadi Workers – Appointment made in violation of statutory rules held void ab initio – Respondents acted within rights by cancelling appointment [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Precedents – Void Appointments – Relied Upon Supreme Court Rulings – Court relied on precedents such as Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh and State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan to reinforce that appointments made in breach of statutory rules are null from inception – Petitioner’s plea was therefore untenable [Paras 6, 12].

Misapplication of Advertisement – Fault of Applicant – No Relief – Court noted that petitioner was fully aware of eligibility criteria under Advertisement No.03/2024 yet chose to apply – It was not a case of misleading or changed conditions post-application – Her disqualification stemmed from her own ineligibility and not administrative unfairness [Para 13].

Final Judgment – Petition Lacked Merit – The writ petition was found devoid of legal merit and dismissed – Pending applications were disposed of accordingly [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Obstruction of Public Servant – Section 186, 353, 333, 34 of the IPC – Conviction Restored – The trial court acquitted the Respondent of charges of obstructing a public servant – Held: Testimony of the Complainant HC Rohtash and eye-witnesses including SHO and QRT staff clearly establish that the Respondent prevented the complainant from discharging his duties during helmet checking – Minor contradictions in police DD entries immaterial – Offence under Section 186 IPC proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction ordered [Paras 25-32, 39, 41].

Use of Criminal Force – Section 353 IPC – Public Servant Assaulted – Conviction Upheld – Respondent engaged in physical scuffle with HC Rohtash upon being stopped – Supported by testimonies of PW-11 (Complainant), PW-5 (SHO), PW-8 and PW-9 (Constables) – The scuffle qualifies as criminal force under Sections 349 and 350 IPC – Offence under Section 353 IPC also proved – Acquittal reversed [Paras 25-30, 42-45].

Grievous Hurt to Public Servant – Section 333 IPC – Acquittal Sustained – Medical record did not show external injury; MLC lacked final PTA report – Alleged hearing loss not corroborated by timely medical evidence – PW-11 did not revisit hospital post incident – Injury claimed not linked conclusively to the incident – Held: Offence under Section 333 IPC not established – Acquittal upheld [Paras 47-50].

Delay in Medical Certification – Evidentiary Gaps – PTA report missing – Although the MLC initially mentioned referral for ENT assessment, the final report indicating grievous hearing loss was never produced – HC Rohtash’s testimony did not describe specific ear injury – Such absence of material evidence led to doubt about grievous hurt claim [Paras 48-50].

False Defence – Allegation of Bribery by Accused – Found Baseless – Respondent alleged money was forcibly taken and FIR fabricated – Held: Recovery of ₹11,000 documented in personal search memo; if money had been illicitly seized, it would not have been officially recorded – Story of being let off and returning with mother found implausible – Defence rejected [Paras 33-36].

Final Decision – Acquittal under Sections 186 and 353 IPC Set Aside – Conviction Ordered – Respondent held guilty under Sections 186 and 353 IPC – However, acquittal under Section 333 IPC affirmed due to lack of conclusive medical proof – Matter listed for arguments on sentence [Paras 51-52].

Civil Law – Mandatory Injunction and Mesne Profits – Licensee Status – Appeal Dismissed - Plaintiff-respondent filed suit for mandatory injunction directing appellant to vacate premises and recovery of mesne profits – Appellant inducted as licensee by license deed dated 06.08.2014 at ₹1,800 per month – Continued unauthorized possession after expiry of license – Compromise executed on 07.11.2017 (Ex.P4) where appellant agreed to vacate by 31.12.2019 and pay enhanced compensation of ₹2,500 per month – Appellant alleged tenancy rights and claimed license deed and compromise obtained by fraud on blank papers – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts concurrently found appellant was licensee who failed to substantiate allegations of fraud and tenancy rights – Appeal dismissed holding appellant liable to vacate and pay mesne profits from date of suit till possession handed over – Held: Concurrent findings upheld, no substantial question of law arises; appeal without merit [Paras 3-11].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellant's claim of tenancy and allegations of fraudulent execution of license deed rejected by both Courts below. Findings affirmed; appeal held meritless and accordingly dismissed [Paras 10-11].