Public Interest Litigation – Construction and Management of Cattle Pounds – Petitioner seeks direction for the construction and maintenance of cattle pounds with requisite infrastructure to confine stray animals – State of Punjab, in response, submits status reports highlighting existing measures, financial assistance to Gaushalas, and relevant By-laws – Court concludes that the State’s measures address the petitioner’s concerns, emphasizing the need for adherence to By-laws to mitigate accidents and injuries caused by stray cattle [Paras 1-4].

Urban Local Bodies – Implementation of By-laws – Affidavits by Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh detail measures taken, including construction of cattle pounds, imposition of fines, and vaccination programs – Court recognizes these steps as sufficient redressal, with an advisory for States to consider uniform By-laws to enhance efficacy in handling stray cattle issues [Paras 5-9].

Decision – Writ petitions disposed of – Court mandates strict adherence to By-laws by State Authorities to ensure safe urban environments – States encouraged to adopt best practices from other jurisdictions for uniformity in stray cattle management [Paras 4, 9].

Civil Procedure – Eviction of Tenant – Bona Fide Need – Landlord sought eviction of tenant based on personal necessity – Tenant contested need and claimed sufficient accommodation existed – Appellate Authority reversed Rent Controller’s decision, upheld bona fide requirement – Long duration of proceedings, landlord’s death, and transfer of rights to legal heirs did not negate original need – Tenant cannot dictate landlord’s requirement [Paras 27-39].

Customary Law – Right of Pre-emption – Tenant’s Claim – Plaintiff sought to pre-empt sale based on alleged tenancy and custom of pre-emption in Narnaul – Trial and appellate courts found no custom proved – Concurrent findings dismissed claim – State notification abolished pre-emption rights post-filing suit – Tenant’s claims of continuous custom unsupported by substantial evidence [Paras 7-25].

Limitation – Cross Objections – Significant Delay – Defendant’s cross objections filed after over 30 years – Plea for condonation of delay dismissed – Original trial court and first appellate court decisions on transaction nature and market value upheld without fresh evidence [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Appeals and Cross Objections Dismissed – Both RSA No. 3244 of 1987 and RSA No. 953 of 1988 dismissed – CM No. 7671-C of 2019 and XOBJS No. 15 of 2019 dismissed for limitation – Eviction ordered on grounds of bona fide necessity upheld – Plaintiff’s pre-emption claims and tenancy status rejected [Para 39].

Civil Procedure – Non-filing of Written Statement – Defendants failed to file written statement despite court orders – Case proceeded as undefended suit due to non-compliance [Paras 1-2].

Property Ownership and Tenancy – Plaintiff established ownership of multiple properties constituting “Karnani Mansion” – Plaintiff’s right to issue car parking stickers and collect rent from tenants recognized [Paras 3-6].

Circulars Challenged – Plaintiff contested two circulars issued by defendants concerning collection of rent and maintenance – Defendants lacked authority under court orders to issue such circulars post payment of municipal dues by plaintiff [Paras 10-13, 28-31].

Court Orders and Compliance – Historical orders reviewed including Division Bench orders from 2002, 2006, and 2011 – Compliance by plaintiff in paying dues, resulting in No Outstanding Certificate from Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Defendants misinterpreted and misrepresented court orders to collect charges [Paras 7-9, 27-31].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Defendants accused of misleading tenants and misrepresenting their authority based on outdated court orders – Plaintiff successfully proved payment of dues and compliance with municipal requirements [Paras 13-15, 30].

Special Officer Appointment – Special Officer appointed to collect rent and maintenance charges due to disputes – Court directed Special Officer to report collections and expenditure, eventually to handover accounts to plaintiff [Paras 32-34, 37].

Final Relief – Circulars issued by defendants declared null and void – Defendants restrained from collecting rent or charges and from issuing parking stickers – Defendants directed to provide accounts of collected rents to plaintiff [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Suit decreed in favor of plaintiff – Defendants’ circulars declared null and void – Directions issued for proper handover of accounts and discharge of Special Officer [Para 38].

Termination of Contractor License – Proportionality and Reasonableness – Writ Petition challenging the termination of a contractor’s license without a hearing and on grounds not related to the performance of contractual duties – High Court quashed the termination order, applying the principles of proportionality and Wednesbury reasonableness, highlighting the need for a reasoned decision and consideration of relevant facts.

Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness – Judicial review of administrative decisions – Court held that the termination of the petitioner’s license was disproportionate and failed to consider the petitioner’s consistent satisfactory performance and the irrelevance of the alleged misconduct to his contractual duties – Impugned order quashed [Paras 1-17].

Proportionality – Test of proportionality applied – Court emphasized that administrative actions should not exceed what is necessary to achieve desired results – Termination of license for a single incident of alleged misconduct, with no connection to the petitioner’s work performance, deemed excessive [Paras 12-16].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order dated 26^th February 2024 terminating the petitioner’s license quashed and set aside – High Court mandates proper adherence to principles of proportionality and reasonableness in administrative decisions [Paras 17-18].

Narcotics – Discharge of Accused – Trial Court Order Set Aside – Trial court discharged the respondent based on the inadequacy of evidence aside from co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – High Court emphasized admissibility of CDRs and additional evidence – Statements under Section 67 inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act alone but CDRs and frequent jail visits establish prima facie involvement – Trial court’s discharge order set aside, charge to be framed [Paras 1-19].

Evidence – Admissibility of CDRs – CDR details of accused, showing mobile location in Central Jail, and evidence of meetings between accused justify trial examination – Statements under Section 67 coupled with CDRs provide sufficient material for presumption of offence – Trial court to reassess based on combined evidence [Paras 9-10, 17-18].

Legal Precedents – Applicability – Referred cases highlight the insufficiency of Section 67 statements alone but endorse CDR evidence – CDR details of accused to be considered at trial, ensuring comprehensive examination – Reiterates need for corroborative evidence alongside statements under Section 67 for conviction [Paras 10-16].

Decision – Petition allowed – Order discharging respondent set aside – Trial court directed to frame charges and proceed in accordance with law – Proper assessment of CDRs and other collected evidence mandated [Paras 18-19].

Surplus Land – Permissible Area – Non-utilization – The Court held that the land declared as surplus cannot be utilized by the State until the permissible area and surplus area of the plaintiff have been separated and distinctively identified as per Section 14(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, must first be completed before declaring any land as surplus under the 1972 Act [Paras 14-17].

Pending Proceedings – Separation of Shares – The Court noted that the holding of the plaintiff, her father, and other co-sharers is still joint, and the permissible area and surplus area have not been separated. The State is directed to complete the proceedings under the 1953 Act regarding the declaration of land as surplus and then proceed under the 1972 Act by considering the plaintiff as an independent unit due to her marriage [Paras 14-17].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – The Court confirmed that the civil court has jurisdiction in this matter, as per the precedent set by the Five Judge Bench judgment in State of Haryana and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others, 1986 (1) PLR 222 [Para 10].

Injunction Against Dispossession – An injunction is issued restraining the State from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land transferred to her by her father until the proper legal proceedings are completed and specific surplus land is identified [Paras 16-17].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the decree of the first appellate court is set aside. The trial court's decree is restored, directing the State to complete the proceedings under the 1953 Act and then under the 1972 Act. The State is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff until these proceedings are completed.

Special Provisions for Enforcement of Claims – Applicability of Section 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 – Court held that no decree could be passed under Section 31 of the Act for enforcement of the liability of surety – Execution petition for such a decree is not maintainable – Proceedings should follow the enforcement procedure outlined in Sections 31 and 32 [Paras 13-16].

Procedure for Recovery from Sureties – Section 31 enables recovery from guarantors through court order rather than a decree – Requiring court investigation and specific enforcement orders instead of direct execution as a money decree – Adherence to prescribed procedural steps essential [Paras 17-19].

Non-maintainability of Execution Petition – RFC’s execution petition based on an improperly issued decree declared non-maintainable – Court’s role limited to enforcement actions per statutory provisions without issuing money decrees – Relevant judgments reaffirming procedural compliance cited [Paras 15-21].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated September 11, 2006, set aside – Execution petition by RFC declared non-maintainable – RFC permitted to revive or re-initiate proceedings under Section 31 of the Act, subject to legal objections by petitioner [Paras 21].
 

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Trial Court discharged respondent for lack of material evidence beyond co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Revision petition filed by Union of India challenging this discharge – High Court emphasized the need for sufficient material to form a prima facie case [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Call Detail Records (CDRs) – CDRs of mobile phones showing contact between co-accused and respondent, while in jail, considered significant – High Court highlighted CDRs and physical meetings as material evidence that must be examined during trial – Reaffirmed by Supreme Court’s stance in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.; CDR details admissible and should be scrutinized at trial [Paras 9-10, 12].

Confessional Statements – Section 67 of NDPS Act – Statements made to NCB officers are inadmissible as per Section 25 of Evidence Act and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu – Additional material evidence required to support such statements for charges to sustain [Paras 8, 14-15].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Held – Order of trial court set aside – Directed to frame charges against respondent and proceed with trial – Importance of CDRs and other corroborative evidence underlined for establishing prima facie case [Para 18].

Rape and Criminal Intimidation – Conviction of Grandson for Raping Grandmother – Appellant challenged conviction for rape and criminal intimidation – Prosecution provided consistent evidence from the victim and corroboration from her daughter and neighbors – Appellant’s history of substance abuse considered – Delay in filing FIR deemed justified due to familial relationships and threats – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1-10].

Victim Testimony – Reliability and Corroboration – Court upheld victim’s testimony despite delay in reporting and absence of immediate medical evidence – Family dynamics and threats explained delay – Victim’s statement supported by daughter’s corroboration and neighbor’s testimony [Paras 4-7].

Evidence – Delay in FIR and Non-seizure of Victim’s Clothes – Court accepted delay in FIR citing Supreme Court precedents on rape case reporting delays – Non-seizure of clothes not detrimental due to victim’s immediate bathing – Medical report indicated possibility of sexual assault [Paras 6-7].

Mental Health of Accused – Request for Psychiatric Evaluation – Appellant’s habitual substance abuse and past behavior cited – Court found no necessity for psychiatric evaluation given the evidence and nature of offenses [Para 2].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentences for life imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n), and two years under Section 506, IPC upheld – Sentences to run concurrently with fines imposed [Para 8-9].