Public Interest Litigation – Health Hazards from Mobile Towers – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners sought removal of telecommunication towers from residential areas on the ground of adverse health impacts including cancer, high blood pressure, and sleep disorders – Court held that apprehensions of health hazards due to electromagnetic radiation are not supported by conclusive scientific evidence – Reiterated that field is governed by detailed statutory and scientific safeguards and regulatory norms – Dismissed plea for removal of towers on health grounds [Paras 12–18].

Telecommunication Regulation – Validity of Installations Without Local Permissions – Statutory Framework Prevails – Court held that as per the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and Right of Way Rules, 2024, development permissions from local planning authorities under the MRTP Act are not required – Towers can be installed by providing intimation and structural safety certification – Public entities cannot demand property tax or obstruct operation unless permitted by the Central Government [Paras 19–25].

Precedent – Reliance on Scientific Standards – Division Bench Binding – Court relied on earlier decision in Biju K. Balan v. State of Maharashtra, holding that radiation norms in India are stricter than international standards – Also referred to judgments of Himachal Pradesh High Court and other Division Benches confirming absence of conclusive health risk from mobile tower radiation – Petitioners failed to produce credible contrary evidence [Paras 13–18].

Telecom Towers and Article 21 – No Violation Established – While right to health is part of Article 21, Court held that vague and unsubstantiated claims of harm cannot override statutorily compliant infrastructure – Upheld the necessity and legality of mobile towers for national connectivity and public interest [Paras 13–18, 25].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Relief for removal of mobile towers and formation of grievance redressal committees declined – No costs imposed considering nature of litigation [Paras 25–26].

Civil Law - Eviction Suit – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Sections 5, 8, and 21 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001 – Eviction Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs sought eviction on grounds of default, nuisance, and reasonable requirement – Trial Court decreed eviction without considering statutory jurisdictional bar – Held: The civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction as the issue of Thika tenancy was pending and later conclusively decided by the Thika Controller – Civil Court's decree is a nullity – Suit liable to be dismissed for lack of inherent jurisdiction [Paras 21–26, 45–54, 68–72].

Striking Out of Defence – Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – No Automatic Bar – Defence not struck out before final adjudication – Trial Court proceeded to decide all issues on merits – Held: In absence of prior order under Section 7(3), defence remains – Jurisdictional issues had to be decided before proceeding to trial – The failure vitiated the trial court’s decree [Paras 29–32, 42–44].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Disputed Relationship – Effect on Section 7 Compliance – Dispute raised on existence of tenancy – Held: A defendant who denies tenancy may not be required to comply with Section 7(1) or (2) as the provision applies to 'tenant', not 'defendant' – Court must decide landlord-tenant relationship before invoking Section 7(3) – View supported by binding Division Bench judgment in Synthetic Plywood Industries case – Ratio unchanged under 1997 Act [Paras 36–41].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Thika Controller's Order Considered – Appeal Allowed – During appeal, certified order of Thika Controller adjudicating defendant as Thika Tenant was produced – Held: Court can look into such evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – The order reinforces bar under 2001 Act and nullifies civil court’s jurisdiction [Paras 62–67].

Applicability of Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 vs. 2001 – Section 27 of 2001 Act – 2001 Act Applies – Plaintiffs claimed rights accrued under 1981 Act – Held: 1981 Act did not confer right of eviction – Such rights flow from tenancy laws like 1997 Act – Section 27 only protects existing liabilities or privileges – Since eviction suit filed in 2013, 2001 Act applies [Paras 57–61].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Civil Court Decree Set Aside – Eviction Suit Dismissed – The trial court acted without jurisdiction – Remand order of First Appellate Court also erroneous and academic – Decree and remand order set aside and eviction suit dismissed outright for want of jurisdiction [Paras 70–73].

Civil Law - Impleadment in Specific Performance Suit – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC -  Appeal against Addition of Third Party – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged an order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 4) in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell – Held: A third party not privy to the contract and claiming independent title cannot be impleaded – Such impleadment would enlarge the scope of the suit into a title dispute – Appeal allowed and impleadment set aside [Paras 1–3, 16–26].

Appealability – Order Not Enumerated Under Order XLIII CPC – Maintainability Under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Upheld – The respondent objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Held: Even if not appealable under Order XLIII, the impugned order qualifies as a “judgment” under Section 10 of DHC Act as it affects valuable rights and changes the character of the suit – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–15].

Impleadment Test – Necessary and Proper Party – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Satisfied – Court reiterated that only those parties whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the issues in the suit can be impleaded – Respondent No. 4, claiming co-ownership but not being a party to the contract, failed the test – His dispute lies in a separate title suit, not in a specific performance suit [Paras 17–20, 24–25].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Judgments in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra – Applied – The Court relied on established law that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the contract cannot be added merely because of a claimed interest in the property – Doing so alters the nature of the suit and is impermissible [Paras 19–21].

Distinguished Cases – Sumtibai and Rajesh Kumar Arora – Not Applicable – Respondent No. 4 cited judgments where impleadment was permitted – Held: These cases were fact-specific and do not dilute the general bar on impleading third parties in specific performance suits – Those decisions did not form ratio applicable to present case [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Respondent No. 4’s impleadment struck off – Liberty granted to pursue independent remedy – Suit to proceed without alteration of scope [Paras 27–28].

Civil Law – Recovery and Mortgage Suit – Loan of ₹50 Lakhs – Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Preliminary Decree Passed – Defendant borrowed ₹50 lakhs and created equitable mortgage by depositing original title deeds – Defendant acknowledged debt through reply notice agreeing to repay within 30 days – Upon failure, suit filed for recovery and sale of secured property – Held: Plaintiff proved loan and security through oral and documentary evidence – Defendants failed to contest post demise of original borrower – Suit decreed with liberty to seek sale of mortgaged property [Paras 2, 8, 12].

Limitation – Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Article 62 of Limitation Act – Suit Held Within Limitation – Though loan transaction dated 12.04.2011, limitation extended by acknowledgment of liability in reply dated 27.12.2017 – Mortgage suits governed by 12-year limitation – Suit filed in 2021 held within time – Plea of limitation rejected [Paras 12(b), 13(a)].

Admissibility of Evidence – Mortgage Agreement on Insufficient Stamp – Admitted – Reliance on judicial precedents supporting minimal stamping for evidentiary purpose in recovery suits – Original title deeds, agreement and acknowledgment admitted and proved – Defendants’ contention of blank signed papers not supported by evidence – Held: No bar to admissibility of loan agreement and deposit letter [Paras 9, 12(c), 13].

Decision – Preliminary Decree Granted – Defendants directed to pay ₹1,21,25,000 with interest at contractual rate within 8 weeks – In default, plaintiff permitted to apply for final decree and sale of suit property – Costs awarded to plaintiff [Para 15].

Income Tax – Section 80IA – Interest Income from Fixed Deposits – Deduction Allowed – The appellant, operating a port terminal under a BOT agreement with JNPT, placed funds in fixed deposits to meet mandatory obligations for crane replacement under the License Agreement and to hold disputed tariff collections as per a High Court order – Held: Since the deposits were made out of business compulsion and closely linked to the infrastructure facility's operation and maintenance, the interest earned qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA [Paras 5-9, 20-26, 40-53].

Income Tax – Interest on TDS Refund – Deduction Permitted – The appellant received interest on tax deducted at source by its customers, which formed part of port usage charges – Held: The interest was incidental to the business and directly linked to the appellant’s operations – The Court held that interest on delayed refunds of such business receipts is an accretion to business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA [Paras 6-7, 30-31, 46-47].

Statutory Interpretation – “Derived from” – Direct Nexus Required – Interpretation of Section 80IA must recognize that business receipts linked directly to the operation and maintenance of an eligible infrastructure facility fall within its ambit – Mere labeling of interest income as "income from other sources" not justified when business compulsion dictates such deposits [Paras 42-50].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of ITAT and CIT(A) set aside – The appellant is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act on both (i) interest earned on fixed deposits made for business obligations and (ii) interest received on income-tax refunds arising from business receipts [Paras 52-55].

Service Law – Writ - Paramilitary Discipline – Proportionality of Punishment – Section 11(1) CRPF Act – Dismissal Quashed – Petitioner, a long-serving constable, failed to report for second guard shift and did not immediately comply when roused – Misconduct held proved, but punishment of removal from service under a charge framed under Section 11(1) (minor misconduct) held shockingly disproportionate – Court applies doctrine of proportionality and holds that discipline is not synonymous with harshness – Orders of dismissal, appeal, revision and mercy rejection quashed [Paras 2-5].

Charge Framing – Duplication of Charges – Same Transaction Split into Two – Impermissible – Authorities split a single episode into “absence from duty” and “disobedience of orders,” both arising from the same factual nucleus – Such duplication unfairly magnifies the misconduct and vitiates the penalty analysis – Held: improper splitting underscores disproportionality in awarding removal [Para 4].

Judicial Review – Scope over Quantum of Punishment – Proportionality Standard – Though choice of punishment lies with disciplinary authority, courts will interfere where sentence is an “outrageous defiance of logic” – Reliance placed on Ranjit Thakur – Court reiterates that punishment must suit the offence and the offender – Removal for a single lapse here fails the proportionality test [Para 4].

Past Record – Use at Penalty Stage – Article 311(2) – Prior Adverse Material Must Be Disclosed – Past lapses already punished cannot be resurrected to aggravate penalty without putting the delinquent on notice – Following K. Manche Gowda and Bimal Kumar Pandit – Undisclosed reliance on past record taints the decision on punishment [Para 4].

Sensitive Duty (Magazine Guard) – Standard of Care vs. Human Factors – No Intoxication Proved – Context Considered – Petitioner was in barracks, earlier duty performed, stress due to mother’s serious illness noted – Absence not from station and magazine not left unguarded – These contextual factors must inform proportionality of penalty [Paras 2-4].

Decision – Writ Allowed – Impugned orders of dismissal, appellate, revisional and mercy rejection quashed – Misconduct stands, but penalty held excessive and unsustainable in law – Consequence: departmental dismissal orders annulled [Para 5].

Service Law - Fraudulent Appointment – Use of Forged Documents – Appointment Cancelled - The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 but his appointment was cancelled in 2022 on the grounds that forged educational documents and identity were used – The Court found discrepancies in the petitioner’s PAN, Aadhar, B.T.C. Certificate, and academic documents, indicating impersonation – Verification by police revealed that no person by petitioner’s claimed name resided at the stated address – Held: Petitioner’s appointment was obtained through fraud, hence void ab initio, and liable to cancellation without need for departmental enquiry [Paras 2-4, 24-34].

Natural Justice – Scope in Fraudulent Appointment Cases – No Enquiry Required - The petitioner alleged non-service of show cause notice and violation of principles of natural justice – The Court held that where fraud is evident, principles of natural justice need not be applied rigidly and no detailed departmental enquiry is necessary – Citing various precedents, it was reiterated that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and appointments based on fraud cannot be sustained [Paras 18-23, 26, 33].

Eligibility and Misrepresentation – Name Discrepancies Across Records – Fraud Proven - The petitioner failed to explain discrepancies in his name across different records such as “Kamlesh,” “Kamlesh Kumar,” and “Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari” – Misuse of another individual’s certificates was established through investigation – Held: The mismatch and impersonation confirm fraudulent entry into service, disentitling petitioner to any equitable relief [Paras 28-32].

Relief – Appointment Void Ab Initio – No Protection or Reinstatement - The petitioner was not entitled to salary or reinstatement – Court reaffirmed that fraudulent appointments do not confer any right, and disciplinary proceedings under Article 311 or service rules are unnecessary in such cases – Held: Impugned order cancelling appointment and recovery of salary is lawful and does not warrant interference [Paras 35-37].

Land Acquisition  – Reference under Section 18 – Rejection by Reference Court Reversed – Compensation Enhanced – The appellant challenged the rejection of a reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that it was time-barred and also questioned the compensation determined by the Collector at ₹479.15 per acre – The High Court held that the appellant had no actual or constructive knowledge of the award until February 1989 and filed the reference within six months thereafter – It further held that the Collector erred in relying on the lowest exemplar – Compensation was revised to ₹8,784.77 per acre – Appellant also found entitled to statutory benefits under the Amending Act No. 68 of 1984, including solatium at 30%, additional compensation at 12% p.a., and enhanced interest at 15% p.a. – Appeal allowed – Reference Court’s judgment set aside [Paras 1, 19-24, 35, 38, 40, 42].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act – Reference held within limitation – Appellant proved that he had no notice or knowledge of the award before February 1989 – Respondents failed to lead any evidence to prove otherwise – Held: Reference made on 03.03.1989 was within limitation under Section 18 as interpreted by the Supreme Court – Dismissal by the reference court was erroneous [Paras 19-24].

Compensation – Determination based on Exemplar – Preference for Highest Exemplar – Held: Collector’s reliance on lowest exemplar dated 20.07.1979 unjustified – Exemplar dated 29.09.1977, though two years prior, showed higher per acre consideration of ₹8,784.77 and was for a similar area and type of land – Appellant held entitled to compensation at that rate – Collector and reference court both erred in their approach [Paras 25-31, 35].

Soil Quality and Land Use – Irrigation and Proximity – Evidence showed appellant's land was fertile, irrigated, and yielded multiple crops – Collector failed to consider productive nature and comparable market value – Held: Land's true value not reflected in award – Compensation revised accordingly [Paras 30-31, 34].

Statutory Benefits – Amending Act No. 68 of 1984 – Additional Benefits Granted – Though Collector’s award was passed prior to the amendment, reference court's decision was post-amendment – Held: Appellant entitled to solatium @30%, additional compensation @12% per annum, and enhanced interest @15% per annum under Section 28 of the Act – Benefits applicable to enhanced compensation awarded by the Court [Paras 39-40].

Appeal Allowed – Judgment and Order of Reference Court Set Aside – Held: Reference was filed within limitation – Compensation enhanced to ₹8,784.77 per acre – Appellant entitled to statutory benefits under amended provisions – Respondents failed to disprove appellant’s claims – No order as to costs [Paras 42-43].

Criminal Law  – Conviction for Repeated Rape of Minor – Testimony of Prosecutrix Reliable – Conviction Upheld – The prosecutrix, minor step-daughter of the appellant’s live-in partner, alleged repeated acts of rape over two years at two residences – The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on her consistent and credible testimony – Held: Her version was corroborated by medical evidence (torn hymen), FIR, and statements – The defence theory of consensual relationship and false implication was rejected – Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 1–13].

Evidentiary Value – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – No Corroboration Required – The Court reiterated that a conviction under Section 376 IPC can be based solely on the unimpeached, consistent testimony of the prosecutrix – Cited Supreme Court rulings affirming that corroboration is a matter of prudence, not law – Absence of injuries not fatal – The prosecutrix’s evidence found trustworthy and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10.1, 11–12].

Sentence Reduction – Mitigating Factors Considered – Long Pendency, Family Hardship, Good Conduct – Though conviction was upheld, sentence reduced from 10 years to 6 years RI – The Court noted: (a) 21 years had passed since the incident, (b) appellant is sole earner with three minor daughters, (c) nearly 5 years of sentence already undergone with no misuse of liberty and satisfactory jail conduct – Held: Sentence modified in light of mitigating factors, while emphasising that offence remains serious [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified to 6 Years RI – Appellant directed to surrender within 3 days – Trial Court to ensure compliance – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 16–19].