Family Law - Legal Guardianship – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Comatose Patient – Petitioner-wife sought appointment as guardian of her husband who has been in vegetative state since February 2025 due to intracranial haemorrhage – Medical Board confirmed 100% disability and vegetative state – SDM's inquiry verified personal, financial, and familial details – Held: In absence of statutory framework under RPWD Act or Mental Healthcare Act, High Court can invoke parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 to protect the welfare of a person incapable of decision-making [Paras 1–13, 16–19, 22].

Guardianship – Consent of Legal Heirs – Respondents No. 2 and 3 (children of the petitioner and the comatose person) filed affidavits of no objection and appeared virtually to support petition – SDM report confirmed no conflict of interest or adverse circumstances – Held: Petitioner-wife found suitable and eligible for appointment as guardian [Paras 14–15, 17–18].

Property Management – Court Authorization – Court authorized petitioner to manage all movable and immovable assets of comatose husband, including bank accounts, mutual funds, insurance, and residential properties – Direction issued to use assets towards medical and daily expenses of the patient – Held: Court empowered to issue such directions in absence of legislation, guided by best interest and wishes of incapacitated person [Para 22].

Decision: Petition allowed – Prof. Alka Acharya appointed as legal guardian of Mr. Salam Khan – Authorized to manage all movable and immovable assets of the comatose patient for his care and benefit – Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 22–23].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Elderly widow landlady aged 84 years sought eviction of tenants from outhouse premises for accommodating full-time domestic help – Held: Requirement of domestic help is legitimate and included in bona fide need of landlord – Landlord has full discretion over how and with whom to reside – Courts cannot dictate standards of living or preferred residential arrangements [Paras 1–3, 6–10]

Rent Control – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 24(5) of HP Urban Rent Control Act – Power of High Court under revision is narrower than appellate power – Cannot reappreciate evidence or reassess findings of fact unless findings are perverse, illegal or based on no evidence – Reliance placed on SC decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 – Interference with concurrent findings not warranted where findings are supported by evidence and grounded in law [Paras 4–5, 14]

Bona Fide Requirement – Domestic Help – Validity – Courts across jurisdictions including Delhi and Allahabad High Courts have recognized that accommodation for drivers, servants, maids, etc., can form part of landlord's bona fide need – Where landlord is aged or has lifestyle requiring support staff, need cannot be termed fanciful or excessive [Paras 7–10]

Landlord's Intention to Sell – Allegation by Tenants – Mere attempt to sell property in past or bald statement of witness not sufficient to defeat bona fide requirement – In absence of documentary evidence proving intent to evict for resale, eviction cannot be denied – Supported by SC ruling in Krishna Kumar Rastogi v. Sumitra Devi, 2015 (1) Civil Court Cases 464 (SC) [Paras 12–13]

Landlord’s Autonomy – Standard of Living – Law recognizes landlord’s right to decide how to use property – Bona fide requirement must be judged from landlord’s perspective, not through subjective standards of court – Supported by SC in Pravita Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, 1987 (2) RCR 581 (SC) [Paras 6, 11]

Decision: All three revision petitions dismissed – High Court upheld concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority – Eviction orders sustained – Need for domestic help held to be part of landlord’s bona fide residential requirement – Alleged intention to sell held irrelevant and unsupported by evidence – Pending miscellaneous applications also dismissed [Para 15]

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax – Refund – Limitation – Inverted Tax Structure – Right to Refund Preserved – Petitioner engaged in edible oil business filed refund claim on 02.02.2021 for accumulated ITC under inverted tax structure for period July 2017 to March 2019 – Refund rejected as time-barred – Held: For period July 2017 to December 2018, refund claim was within limitation owing to exclusion of period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 under Notification No. 13/2022 – Refund for January to March 2019 also not time-barred – Rejection solely on limitation grounds not sustainable [Paras 6, 11, 14, 23].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Operation of Law – Vested Rights – Amendment to Section 54(1) CGST Act redefining “relevant date” effective 01.02.2019 held to be prospective – Cannot divest or curtail accrued right to refund under unamended provision – Amendment affects substantive rights and therefore presumed prospective in absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary [Paras 15–22].

Limitation – Application of New Limitation Period – Refund Claims Prior to Amendment – Refund right arising prior to amendment governed by earlier definition of “relevant date” – Two-year limitation from end of financial year applicable – Rejection of refund claims for July 2017 to January 2018 as time-barred held unsustainable since limitation period extended under COVID-19 relaxation – Notification No. 13/2022 applies [Paras 14–16, 20–21].

Refund Rejection – Non-Speaking Order – Lack of Reasoning – Refund for January to March 2019 rejected on ground of ineligible inputs without giving specific reasons – Held: Order cryptic and unsustainable – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 8, 23–24].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 30.09.2022 quashed – Matter remanded to respondent authority for fresh determination in accordance with law.

Civil Law – Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Co-sharers – Status Quo – Reversed – Plaintiff-petitioner sought injunction to restrain co-sharer defendants from raising construction on joint land – Trial Court granted interim relief of status quo – Appellate Court reversed order, holding no formal partition proved and mere separate possession did not establish exclusive rights – Held: Law does not permit injunction against co-sharer unless construction amounts to ouster, prejudice, or violation of legal rights – No case of prejudice or easement pleaded – Construction alone not a ground for injunction [Paras 5–10].

Co-ownership – Construction by Co-sharer – No Injunction Permissible Absent Prejudice – Appellate Court relied on settled legal position that co-owner cannot be restrained from raising construction over joint property unless act amounts to ouster or demonstrable injury – Held: Plaintiff had also raised construction over joint land and did not plead specific injury, damage, or easement – Mere apprehension of damage or loss of privacy not actionable – Findings of Appellate Court upheld [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Easement – No Right on Joint Land – Plaintiff claimed construction by co-sharer threatened retaining wall and house – No easement pleaded or proved – Held: No right of easement arises on joint property between co-sharers – Claim of damage or privacy violation not maintainable in absence of proven easement – Appellate Court correctly rejected plaintiff’s plea [Paras 26–33].

Civil Procedure – Interim Relief – Equity and Conduct – Plaintiff who constructed on joint land himself cannot seek to restrain co-owner from similar acts – Held: Equitable relief not available to party acting in similar manner and suppressing material facts – Conduct of petitioner disentitles him to injunction – Appellate Court order does not suffer from infirmity [Paras 21–24].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Order of Appellate Court upheld – Trial Court’s status quo order set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with the suit uninfluenced by any observations in this judgment – Interim relief vacated [Para 11].

Electricity Law – Provisional Assessment under Section 126 – Procedural Non-compliance – Quashed – HPSEBL issued provisional assessment of ₹4.55 crores alleging tampered meter and unauthorized use of electricity from August 2014 to May 2015 – Order based solely on MRI data available with the Board – No inspection of consumer premises or records maintained by petitioner – Held: Section 126 mandates inspection of premises or consumer-maintained records – Provisional assessment based only on Board’s internal data violates statutory procedure – Order held void ab initio and set aside [Paras 1–3, 20–24].

Electricity Act – Interpretation of ‘Records Maintained by Any Person’ – Includes Only Consumer's Records – Provisional assessment must be based on inspection of records maintained by consumer, not internal documents of Board – Held: Interpretation urged by HPSEBL that Board's own data suffices for initiating action under Section 126 is untenable – Legal threshold for invoking Section 126 not met [Paras 18, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Premature Petition – Maintainability – Provisional Order Arbitrary – Petition filed before final assessment under Section 126 – HPSEBL objected on ground of prematurity – Rejected – Held: Writ lies where statutory power is exercised arbitrarily and in breach of law – When procedural violation is writ large on the face of record, intervention justified at provisional stage itself [Paras 6, 21].

Statutory Compliance – Supply Code 2009 – Mandatory Inspection – Breached – Clause 6.1.1 to 6.1.7 of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code requires inspection, preparation of report, and notice to consumer – No inspection or report produced by Assessing Officer despite Court’s direction – Held: Statutory obligations under Supply Code are sacrosanct – Failure renders provisional assessment illegal [Paras 17–19].

Precedent – Supreme Court Interpretation – Inspection a Mandatory Step – Referred to Executive Engineer, Southco v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 1 SCC 108 – SC held inspection by Assessing Officer a necessary precondition for invoking Section 126 – Applied – Held: Absence of inspection renders initiation of proceedings under Section 126 impermissible [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Petition allowed – Provisional Assessment Order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure P-10) quashed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed [Para 24].

Preventive Detention – Delay in Passing Detention Order – Live-Link Doctrine – Detenu involved in three FIRs under NDPS Act and enlarged on bail in all – Last prejudicial activity allegedly on 18.09.2024, but detention order passed only on 01.03.2025 – Held: Delay of nearly six months snapped the live link between alleged activities and purpose of detention – No exceptional explanation offered for delay – Detention order unsustainable [Paras 10-13, 22-23].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Bail Not Violated – Detaining authority failed to show how normal criminal law was insufficient – No allegation of bail misuse or any attempt to seek cancellation – Non-application of mind and lack of subjective satisfaction evident – Held: Detention order passed without necessity or inevitability [Paras 10, 23-25].

Preventive Detention – Non-supply of Documents – Violation of Article 22(5) – Contradictory execution receipts (dated 05.03.2025) indicate uncertainty regarding service of full detention record to detenu – Documents not explained in vernacular language – Detenu not informed of right to represent – Held: Failure to communicate grounds and supporting documents in language understood by detenu violates Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of PITNDPS Act [Paras 14-16].

Preventive Detention – Representation Not Considered – Detenu's representation dated 27.03.2025 not placed before Advisory Board which gave its opinion on 17.03.2025 – Representation also not considered by Government before confirmation of detention – Held: Denial of constitutional right to make timely and effective representation renders detention order invalid [Paras 17-21].

Preventive Detention – Detention Based on Dossier – Grounds of detention found to be verbatim reproduction of police dossier – Held: Reflects mechanical exercise without independent application of mind by detaining authority – Detention order vitiated [Paras 2, 25].

Preventive Detention – Constitutional Safeguards – Preventive detention must be exercised with caution – Non-application of mind, procedural lapse, and lack of proximity between alleged conduct and detention found to violate Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of PITNDPS Act – Held: Detention order liable to be quashed [Paras 24-26].

Decision: Petition allowed – Detention order dated 01.03.2025 quashed – Petitioner directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith [Para 26].

Service Law – UPSC Recruitment – Shortlisting Criteria – Petitioners challenged shortlisting for ADA recruitment where UPSC increased experience criteria from 2 years (as advertised) to 6 years (UR/OBC) and 5 years (EWS), citing large number of applicants – Held: UPSC has authority to adopt rational shortlisting methods as per advertisement clauses; enhancement does not alter eligibility but filters applicants for interview – Such shortlisting upheld as valid [Paras 3–9, 12].

Recruitment – Eligibility vs. Selection Criteria – Distinction clarified between basic eligibility (which remains 2 years’ practice as per advertisement) and selection-stage filtering (6 years' practice for interview) – Held: Shortlisting does not violate rights of eligible candidates; experience-based cut-off serves administrative efficiency and is not arbitrary [Paras 6, 10–12].

Precedents – Shortlisting Permissible – Supreme Court in MPPSC v. Navnit Kumar Potdar, (1995) 1 SCT 50 and Union of India v. T. Sundararaman, (1997) 4 SCC 664 held that shortlisting via enhanced criteria is part of the selection process and valid if rational and transparent – Applied to present facts – Petitioners not entitled to interim relief or direction to appear in interview [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Review – No Interference Warranted – Tribunal’s order refusing interim relief found to be reasoned and justified – High Court declined interference under Articles 226/227 – No prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of petitioners [Paras 12–13].

Decision: All three writ petitions dismissed – Tribunal’s refusal to stay UPSC interview process upheld – UPSC’s enhanced experience criteria for interview stage found reasonable and lawful [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Bail – Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Distinction Between Offences – Misappropriation of Government Funds – BNS, 2023 – Petitioner, a 63-year-old retired Superintendent from the Forest Department, was arrested for misappropriating ₹19.25 lakhs through unknown accounts – Final charge sheet filed but not yet numbered – Petitioner has been in judicial custody for 110 days – No custodial interrogation sought – Held: As offences under criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot co-exist on the same facts, and in view of Apex Court rulings, bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 3–7].

Interpretation of Statutes – BNS and BNSS – Scope of Bail under New Criminal Codes – Court applied Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023 to consider bail – Referred to case law under corresponding IPC provisions to interpret analogous offences – Emphasized the legal incompatibility between entrustment (breach of trust) and inducement (cheating), citing Delhi Race Club and Arshad Neyaz Khan [Paras 4–6].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Granted Based on Length of Custody and Absence of Risk – Bail with Conditions – Petitioner voluntarily surrendered and has fixed residence – No evidence of risk of flight – No request made for custodial interrogation – Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted bail on condition of regular appearance before police and personal bond [Paras 3, 7–8].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Atmakur – Directed to report before Station House Officer every Saturday from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm until filing of charge sheet [Para 8].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Delay in Invoking Arbitration Clause – Rejected – Petitioner company supplied furniture under multiple contracts to various Block Development Offices in 2020 – After pursuing civil suits before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction, petitioners invoked arbitration clause in March 2024 and filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Respondents objected on grounds of limitation and maintainability – Held: Delay not ex-facie unreasonable – Invocation of arbitration not demonstrably time-barred – Issue of limitation to be decided by Arbitral Tribunal – Appointment of Arbitrator warranted [Paras 19-23].

Arbitration Law – Limitation – Distinction between limitation for claims and for Section 11 petition – Cause of action for claim arises on breach; limitation for Section 11 petition runs from failure to appoint arbitrator – Though arbitration was invoked after more than three years of supply, the petitioner was pursuing civil suits in a court that lacked jurisdiction – Held: Period spent in bona fide litigation can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Not a case of dead or non-arbitrable claim [Paras 17-21].

Scope of Section 11(6) – Limited Judicial Review – Referral Court should not conduct elaborate enquiry at appointment stage – Where issue of limitation is not manifestly clear, matter to be left to Arbitral Tribunal – Held: Referral court’s role is confined to prima facie scrutiny – Doubt as to time-barred nature of claim must be resolved by Arbitral Tribunal and not by the court [Paras 8-13, 21].

Decision:

Petitions allowed – Ms. Asifa Padroo, Advocate, appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Arbitrator to examine limitation as preliminary issue – Arbitration to proceed on merits – Costs to be shared equally by parties, subject to final award [Paras 23-24].