Service Law – Pay Scale Parity – Appellants challenged the Single Judge’s order granting higher pay scales and benefits to the respondents, similar to those awarded to another set of petitioners in a prior case – Appellants argued the respondents were “fence sitters” and their claims were time-barred due to delay, waiver, and acquiescence – High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the respondents failed to approach the court in a timely manner and were not entitled to claim benefits granted in previous proceedings involving different parties – Appeal allowed, writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Delay and Laches – Applicability of Arvind Kumar Srivastava Principle – Court held that although similarly situated employees should normally be treated alike, the respondents’ significant delay in approaching the court disqualified them from claiming benefits granted to others in earlier judgments – Cited Tarsem Singh and T.T. Murali Babu to emphasize the importance of promptness in seeking legal redress [Paras 20-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No costs awarded [Paras 27-28].

Tender Process – Judicial Review – Kerala High Court quashed the award of tender due to preferential treatment: Challenge to the award of a tender by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation to the sixth respondent. The petitioner, the only technically qualified bidder initially, argued that the fifth respondent unlawfully granted the sixth respondent additional time to submit required documents, resulting in the award of the contract to the sixth respondent. The Kerala High Court held that the tender process was vitiated by arbitrariness and preferential treatment. It quashed the award and directed the fifth respondent to negotiate with the petitioner or initiate a new tender process to avoid further delays. [Paras 1-10]

Judicial Scrutiny – Fairness in Public Contracts – Adherence to Tender Conditions: The Kerala High Court emphasized the importance of fairness and adherence to tender conditions in public contracts. The court reiterated that judicial review of tender processes focuses on the decision-making process, ensuring that public authorities do not act arbitrarily or with favoritism. The case highlighted the necessity of applying essential conditions uniformly and justifiably, leading to the quashing of the tender awarded to the sixth respondent due to deviations from these principles. [Paras 9-10]

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Tender Award Quashed: Held – The writ petition is allowed, quashing the tender awarded to the sixth respondent. The court directed the fifth respondent to consider the petitioner’s bid or restart the tender process while adhering to all relevant specifications and legal standards. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appeal against conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appellant, a storekeeper in the ESI Department, was accused of demanding ₹1000 as a bribe for supplying a Botex injection prescribed by NIMHANS hospital to the complainant – Prosecution relied on evidence from the complainant, shadow witnesses, and trap proceedings – Court held that the demand and acceptance of the bribe were proved beyond reasonable doubt based on corroborative evidence, including the recovery of tainted money and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1-78].

Evidence Law – Reliability of Witness Testimony – Cross-examination of Shadow Witnesses – The appellant claimed that the money was forcibly put into his pocket by the complainant – Court rejected this argument, noting that the shadow witnesses consistently corroborated the demand and receipt of bribe during the trap – Minor contradictions in witness testimony did not shake the prosecution’s case, and the evidence from the trap operation was found to be reliable [Paras 32-55].

Sentencing – Modification of Sentence Due to Passage of Time – The trial court sentenced the appellant to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Considering the appellant’s superannuation and the time elapsed since the incident in 2007, the Court reduced the sentence to three months under Section 7 and six months under Section 13(2), maintaining the fine imposed by the trial court – Set-off allowed for the time already spent in custody [Paras 60-78].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act confirmed – Sentence reduced to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and six months under Section 13(2) – Fine imposed by the trial court remains unaltered – Set-off granted under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period of custody already undergone.

Criminal Law – Quashing - NDPS Act - Vicarious Liability of Property Owner - The petitioner was implicated under the NDPS Act for allegedly allowing his property to be used for a drug-related event without his knowledge. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which requires conscious knowledge for the owner to be held liable. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the prosecution must prove that the owner had "knowingly permitted" the use of the property for illegal activities. In the absence of such evidence, vicarious liability under Section 25 cannot be imposed. [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Review - Quashing of Proceedings - Abuse of Process - The court underscored that continuing proceedings against the petitioner without prima facie evidence of his knowledge would result in an abuse of the legal process and a miscarriage of justice. The court quashed the FIR and related proceedings against the petitioner, noting that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts required to invoke Section 25 of the NDPS Act. [Paras 9-11].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the FIR registered in Crime No. 329 of 2024 at Hebbagodi Police Station was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner. The court clarified that the observations made were limited to the petitioner's case and should not influence the ongoing investigation against other accused persons. [Paras 10-11].

Bail – Regular Bail – Conspiracy and Murder Charges – Petitioner sought regular bail, claiming false implication and lack of direct evidence. The petitioner was not named in the original FIR and was arrested based on the co-accused’s disclosure. The court noted the petitioner’s prolonged detention, absence of a direct role in the crime, and the bail granted to co-accused. Emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Bail granted subject to furnishing of surety bonds [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Right to Speedy Trial – Reaffirmed the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial as integral to criminal jurisprudence. The court stressed that pre-conviction detention should be limited and that bail should generally be granted unless there are compelling reasons for denial [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Regular bail granted – The petitioner is to be released upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The decision does not reflect on the merits of the case [Para 5].

Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings due to Delay in Drug Analysis Report – Violation of Statutory Rights – Right to Challenge the Government Analyst’s Report Nullified Due to Delay – Petitioners challenged the prosecution initiated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, alleging that the delay of more than 20 months in testing the drug sample deprived them of their right to challenge the Government Analyst's report. The court held that the statutory rights of the petitioners were violated as the shelf life of the drug had expired before the report was furnished, rendering the prosecution futile. The impugned proceedings were quashed. [Paras 56-106].

Legislative Intent and Procedural Requirements – Timely Conduct of Drug Tests Mandatory – The court emphasized the importance of prompt testing and reporting by Government Analysts to prevent harmful drugs from remaining in circulation. Rule 45 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (as amended in 2017) mandates that the Government Analyst must conduct tests and submit reports within 60 days of receiving the drug sample. Failure to comply with these timelines defeats the statutory purpose. Directions were issued to streamline the testing process to avoid undue delays. [Paras 107-121].

Vicarious Liability – Allegations Against Directors of Company Insufficient – The complaint against the Chairman, Managing Director, and Executive Director of the petitioner company was held unsustainable due to the lack of specific averments detailing their role in the manufacturing or distribution of the substandard drug. General allegations were insufficient to establish their vicarious liability. [Paras 72-97].

Prosecution of Company Officials – Inadequate Allegations – The complaint lacked the necessary details to establish how the company's senior officials were responsible for the manufacturing of the alleged substandard drug. The court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Brij Lal Mittal and Lalankumar Singh, quashing the proceedings against the company's higher management for failure to state specific facts. [Paras 77-97].

Delay in Drug Testing and Shelf Life Expiration – Prejudice to the Accused – The petitioners were deprived of their right to challenge the report due to the delayed analysis, which occurred after the shelf life of the drug had expired. The court held that this delay resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioners and vitiated the proceedings. [Paras 59-66, 98-105].

Compliance Directions – Prompt Drug Analysis and Reporting – The court directed the Drugs Controller General (India) to ensure that all drug samples are analyzed within the statutory 60-day period and that a real-time online system is developed for the monitoring of test reports to prevent unnecessary delays. [Paras 110-121].

Decision – Prosecution Quashed – The criminal petitions were allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed due to the statutory violation of their right to defend themselves. Directions were also issued for reforms in drug testing procedures to prevent future delays. [Paras 106-123].

Criminal Law – Conviction under NDPS Act – Appellant convicted for possession of small quantities of heroin – Trial court’s conviction based on police testimony, despite minor inconsistencies in witness accounts – Appeal dismissed, with the court affirming the conviction and sentence, noting that procedural lapses and the absence of independent witnesses did not significantly undermine the prosecution’s case [Paras 26-32].

NDPS Act – Procedural Safeguards – Non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act – Court finds that while there were procedural lapses, such as not informing the appellant of their right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate, these did not invalidate the conviction as the core facts were corroborated by credible police testimony [Paras 8-12, 17-20].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were upheld, with no legal or factual errors found to warrant interference by the appellate court.

Family Law – Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Application for transfer of Marriage Petition filed by the Respondent Husband from Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, by the Applicant Wife – Application allowed – High Court emphasized the convenience of the wife, especially considering her employment transfer to Pune and lack of accommodation in Mumbai – Dismissal of Respondent's objections, which included reference to Supreme Court judgments, on the grounds that the Applicant's situation and facts of the case warranted transfer under Section 24 of the CPC – Court held that the wife's convenience is of paramount importance in matrimonial matters [Paras 5-10].

Legal Principles – Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The High Court clarified that while considering transfer petitions in matrimonial matters, the court must focus on the ends of justice, considering various factors including the socio-economic context and the convenience of the wife – Supreme Court's general observations on the filing of transfer petitions by wives were distinguished as obiter dicta and not binding as ratio decidendi – Court relied on the precedent from N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha to justify the transfer in favor of the wife [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Application Allowed – Held – Marriage Petition No. 85 of 2024 is ordered to be transferred from Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, to Family Court, Pune – The Respondent's objections were dismissed, and the Application was allowed on the basis of the wife's convenience and the principles governing matrimonial transfers under CPC [Para 11].

Family Law – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appellant sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion – Family Court dismissed the suit – High Court found that the long separation of over a decade and the absence of communication between the parties constituted mental cruelty – Respondent’s refusal to live with the appellant and her lack of interest in the relationship evidenced desertion – Divorce granted [Paras 21-27].

Mental Cruelty – Prolonged Separation – Court emphasized that prolonged separation between spouses, where reconciliation is impossible, constitutes mental cruelty – Even without intention, such circumstances warrant dissolution of marriage [Paras 21-23].

Desertion – Intention to Abandon – The respondent’s prolonged absence and lack of interest in marital cohabitation indicated an intention to abandon the marital relationship, satisfying the requirement of animus deserendi under law [Paras 22-24].

Decision:

Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree of the Family Court dismissing the suit for divorce were set aside. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce.