Mining Lease – Cancellation and Forfeiture – The court upheld the cancellation of the “In Principal Sanction Order” for the mining lease and the forfeiture of the deposited amounts due to non-compliance with the terms of the tender and delays in obtaining necessary clearances. The petitioner’s failure to execute the lease deed within the stipulated time and the ongoing illegal mining activities on the site were critical factors [Paras 21-26, 30-36].

Impossibility and Frustration of Contract – The court considered the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, ruling that the disappearance of the motorable road and illegal mining activities did not render the contract impossible or void, as the petitioner did not take timely action to address these issues [Paras 37-39].

Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection – The court emphasized the balance between economic development and environmental protection, directing the state to implement measures to prevent illegal mining and maintain sustainable development in mining activities, in line with Articles 48A and 51A of the Constitution [Paras 27-29, 40-42].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – The court affirmed the cancellation of the “In Principal Sanction Order” and the forfeiture of deposits, instructing the state to take measures against illegal mining and ensure the restoration of necessary infrastructure to support mining activities [Paras 41-42].

Family Law - Customary Divorce - Validity and Proof - Second Appeal: The appellant, Anarkali, contended that she was the legally wedded wife of Late Rampal until his death, arguing against the claim of customary divorce (Chhoda Chhutti) by the respondent no.1, Siyawati. The court held that the existence and recognition of the custom must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence. The first appellate court erred in accepting the customary divorce without adequate proof of its prevalence and recognition in the concerned community. The court reiterated that a Hindu marriage can only be dissolved in accordance with the statutory provisions or a well-established custom. The judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, restoring the trial court's decision. [Paras 13-34]

Validity of Marriage - Substantial Questions of Law - Burden of Proof: The appellant's marriage was held valid as the respondent no.1 failed to prove the customary divorce and her own marriage to Late Rampal in accordance with Hindu rites. The court underscored that the burden of proof lies heavily on the party claiming the customary divorce. The appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of a valid customary divorce, maintaining her status as the legally wedded wife. [Paras 21-25, 27-30]

Procedural Law - Appeal - Counter Claim: The court addressed the issue of whether a single appeal challenging the common judgment and decree passed in both the main suit and the counter-claim was maintainable. It held that the appeal was valid as it adequately covered both decrees, emphasizing the principle that one appeal is sufficient where there has been one trial and one decision, even if multiple decrees are drawn. The appeal process in such cases must ensure comprehensive adjudication to avoid piecemeal litigation. [Paras 37-48]

Decision: The Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Raibareli in Civil Appeal No.86/2009 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court is restored.

Criminal Law – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Factors Considered – Criminal petitions filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to private respondents in a case involving allegations under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, and 34 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act – Anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad – Petitioners argued non-recovery of dowry articles and misuse of bail – Court holds non-recovery of dowry articles not a sufficient ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail – Petitioner failed to demonstrate misuse of bail or influence on witnesses by respondents – Petitions dismissed.

Cancellation of Bail – Relevant Factors – Analysis – Held – To cancel bail, there must be evidence of misuse of bail, influence on witnesses, or violation of bail conditions by the accused – Court found no such evidence against the respondents – Emphasizes distinction between cancellation of bail and setting aside bail order based on supervening circumstances.

Decision – Petitions for Cancellation of Bail – Dismissed – Petitions seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissed due to lack of sufficient grounds such as misuse of bail or intimidation of witnesses – Non-recovery of dowry articles alone insufficient to warrant cancellation

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Departmental Enquiry – Criminal Charges – Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal from service based on a departmental enquiry – Petitioner alleged to have amassed assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Enquiry report based on FIR and suspension order without substantial evidence – Held, departmental proceedings conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and based on no evidence – Quashing of dismissal order and reinstatement of petitioner with full back wages and consequential benefits. [Paras 1-24]

Procedural Irregularity in Departmental Enquiry – Analysis – Enquiry conducted ex parte – Petitioner’s medical leave requests denied – No substantial evidence presented during enquiry – Prosecution relied only on FIR and suspension order – Enquiry Officer’s findings based on presumptions without concrete evidence – Violates principles of natural justice. [Paras 6-8, 14]

Decision – Quashing of Disciplinary Actions – Court quashes the enquiry report dated 02.05.2022, the dismissal order dated 10.05.2022, the appellate order dated 25.07.2022, and the memorial order dated 21.03.2023 – Orders reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages along with consequential benefits within three months. [Paras 21-24]

Public Interest Litigation – Allotment of Industrial Land – Absence of Public Auction – Challenge to GIDC’s allotment of developed industrial plots to respondent No.5 without holding public auction – Petitioner claimed illegal and unauthorized allotment leading to significant public exchequer loss – High Court found allotment violated GIDC's own policy mandating public auction – Exchange deed executed for lands of unequal value without proper valuation – Allotment set aside – Directed GIDC to reassess allotment process ensuring compliance with legal requirements and transparency. [Paras 1-37]

Administrative Law – Decision-Making Process – Flaws in Process – Court observed delegation of decision-making authority by GIDC Board to Vice Chairman and Managing Director was improper – Such significant policy decisions should be made collectively by the Board – Legal opinions obtained were found to be misplaced – Directed comprehensive reassessment of allotment. [Paras 19-35]

Land Acquisition – Compensation and Exchange – Mismatch in Valuation – Court highlighted disparity in valuation between agricultural lands and developed industrial plots – Required GIDC to properly evaluate and compensate for land exchanges to protect public interest – Recommended acquisition compensation based on historical valuations to avoid undue public loss. [Paras 30-33]

Decision: Held: Writ petition allowed – Allotment of industrial plots to respondent No.5 by GIDC without public auction quashed – Directed GIDC to re-evaluate and reprocess allotments in compliance with statutory requirements and transparent procedures – Ordered GIDC to ensure fair compensation for land exchanges based on proper valuations. [Paras 36-42]

Constitutional Law – Article 166 Compliance – Executive action taken without Governor’s name – Petitioners’ accrued right to pension and gratuity annulled by impugned resolution – Court examines validity of resolution not expressed in Governor’s name – Upholds principle that policy decisions affecting rights must be issued in the name of Governor – Resolution annulling earlier benefits quashed for non-compliance with constitutional requirement [Paras 13-19, 31].

Classification and Equality – Sub-classification within a Class – Validity of Resolution creating sub-classification among employees – Petitioners deprived of pension benefits due to annulling resolution – Court finds such sub-classification arbitrary and violative of equality principles – All employees appointed on or before cutoff date should be treated equally for pension benefits [Paras 22-23].

Legitimate Expectation – Protectable Interest – Pension and gratuity benefits – Petitioners’ legitimate expectation of receiving benefits based on earlier resolution – Impugned resolution negating such expectation held as unjust – Rights accrued under validly issued resolution cannot be unilaterally taken away [Paras 30-31].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Impugned Resolution No. 1773 dated 21.06.2018 quashed – Petitioners entitled to pensionery benefits and gratuity as per earlier valid resolution – Respondents directed to calculate and pay benefits within three months [Paras 31-32].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Bank employee accused of temporary misappropriation of Rs. 35,000 – Initial punishment of discharge from service by disciplinary authority – Central Government Industrial Tribunal modified penalty to reinstatement with 50% back-wages and stoppage of two increments – Single Judge partially upheld Tribunal’s decision, modifying penalty to reinstatement with 20% back-wages and stoppage of five increments – Appeals filed by both delinquent employee and Bank Management [Paras 1-3, 10-14].

Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act – Tribunal’s power to modify punishment – Tribunal's discretion in modifying penalties must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of the misconduct and the employer's loss of confidence in the employee – High Court held that Tribunal’s interference with the disciplinary authority’s penalty of discharge was unjustified given the proven misconduct and breach of trust by the employee [Paras 6-13].

Decision – Appeals by Bank Management allowed – Appeals by delinquent employee dismissed – Original penalty of discharge from service upheld – Tribunal’s and Single Judge’s orders modifying the punishment set aside [Paras 14].

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaints – Grounds for Quashing – Petitioner contended that the complaints should be quashed due to the absence of partnership deed and authorization, and lack of requisite license under the Money Lenders and Accredited Loan Providers Act – High Court held that authorization and partnership deed issues should be examined during trial, not at the stage of quashing – Complaints not quashed, petitions dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Partnership and Authorization – Prima facie acceptance of authorization for filing complaint – Complaints not quashed solely due to absence of partnership deed or specific authorization documents – Relevant during trial [Paras 7-10].

Money Lenders Act – Registration Requirement – Petitioner’s contention on lack of registration under the Money Lenders and Accredited Loan Providers Act rejected – Nature of financial support not clearly established as a loan – Issue to be examined during trial [Paras 11-13].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Not exercised to quash complaints where facts are disputed and require trial – Importance of trial in establishing material facts and evidence emphasized [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Petitions dismissed – Complaints and proceedings under Section 138 NI Act allowed to proceed – Issues regarding authorization and registration under Money Lenders Act to be examined during trial.

Dowry Prohibition Act – Conviction under Section 4 – Petitioner convicted for demanding dowry from his wife and her family, including Maruti car, color TV, and fridge – Trial court sentenced him to 6 months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 – Appellate court upheld the conviction but modified the default sentence to one month’s imprisonment [Paras 1-24].

Matrimonial Cruelty – Evidence and Witness Testimony – Informant’s testimony supported by her family members – Consistent evidence of dowry demands and cruelty – Acquittal of co-accused based on lack of specific incidents of cruelty – Conviction of petitioner upheld due to his primary responsibility and consistent evidence of dowry demands [Paras 15-30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court emphasizes limited scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction – Revisional court’s role to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions, or apparent harshness [Paras 35-37].

Medical Examination for Sentencing – Petitioner’s psycho-medical condition raised as ground for leniency in sentencing – Court directed medical examination by a team including Civil Surgeon and experts from Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi – Sentence to be reconsidered based on medical report [Paras 38-44].

Decision – Conviction upheld – Sentence reconsideration pending medical report – Petitioner directed to undergo medical examination on specified date [Paras 41-44].