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].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – High Court finds conviction under Section 420 IPC not sustainable due to lack of evidence of dishonest intention at the inception of transaction – Complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act found to be premature – Convictions set aside with liberty to complainant to file fresh complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act within two months [Paras 1-26, 31-38].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court observed that the lower courts failed to consider the necessary ingredients of Section 420 IPC, particularly the requirement of proving dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction – Statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not include questions on intention to cheat – Conviction under Section 138 N.I. Act premature as complaint was filed before the cause of action arose – Based on Supreme Court ruling in Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey [Paras 22-26, 31-36].

Decision – Revision allowed – Held – Conviction under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 N.I. Act set aside – Complainant permitted to file fresh complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act within two months – Both lower courts’ judgments reversed due to procedural and evidentiary errors, emphasizing necessity of proving intent in criminal convictions [Para 39-40].

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].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Bail Conditions – Revisionist challenged the order directing him to deposit 20% of the fine amount for bail – Contention that the deposit is not mandatory but directory – Additional Sessions Judge’s order considered lawful and not mechanical – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Judicial Discretion – Emphasized the court’s discretion in ordering deposit under Section 148 – Referenced Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari cases to underline that deposit conditions can be relaxed in exceptional cases – Held that the lower court appropriately exercised discretion, requiring no interference [Paras 7-14].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – Held – Conditions imposed for bail justified – Revisionist’s previous attempts to delay proceedings noted – Appeal for reduction in pre-deposit amount rejected – Order of lower court upheld [Paras 15-16].

Divorce – Cruelty – Allegations of Dowry Demands and Physical Abuse – Appellant-wife alleged physical and mental harassment by the respondent-husband and his family due to unmet dowry demands – Family Court dismissed divorce petition citing lack of evidence – High Court referred to Supreme Court judgments on irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Held that prolonged separation and lack of cohabitation constitutes cruelty – Appeal allowed, marriage dissolved [Paras 1-11].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation – Supreme Court precedents on granting divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown – High Court emphasized that continuous separation for 7 years indicated an emotionally dead marriage – Referenced Supreme Court cases Rakesh Raman v. Kavita and Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar, highlighting the importance of recognizing irreparable marital breakdown as grounds for divorce [Paras 8-10].

Permanent Alimony – Not Claimed – Appellant-wife stated no interest in permanent alimony, seeking only dissolution of marriage – High Court considered both parties’ employment and financial independence – Decreed divorce without alimony provision [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce. The Court acknowledged the prolonged separation and lack of marital harmony as grounds for granting divorce. No order as to permanent alimony given appellant’s express statement of disinterest in such claims.
 

Criminal Law – Bail in Rape and POCSO Case – Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Allegations included following the victim, expressing intent to marry, forcibly taking her to a lodge, committing rape, and issuing threats – Victim’s age contested by petitioner based on school certificate used as age proof without birth/matriculation certificate – High Court granted bail citing lack of definitive age proof and delay in lodging complaint [Paras 1-7].

Evidence – Proof of Victim’s Age – Prosecution relied on school certificate to establish minor status of victim – No birth or matriculation certificate provided – Court acknowledged the need for authentic age verification documents, impacting the application of POCSO Act [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Bail granted with conditions: Petitioner to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount. Petitioner to avoid tampering with or influencing prosecution witnesses. Petitioner to attend all court hearings and cooperate with the investigation.