Land Acquisition – Due Process – Sections 3A, 3D & 3G(3) of National Highways Act – Gazette Notification issued in 2022 under Section 3A did not include all petitioners’ properties – Declaration under Section 3D dated 03.07.2024 and subsequent compensation proceedings initiated – Petitioners allege interference with possession without due acquisition – Held: Respondents directed to follow due process before acquisition – Acquisition without compliance violates Article 300-A [Paras 2–2.2, 9]

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Right to Property – Seven essential rights recognised by Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) 10 SCC 533 form core of Article 300-A – Includes rights to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, fair compensation, expeditious process, public purpose and conclusion – Held: Absence of these renders law vulnerable to challenge – These principles now part of administrative law jurisprudence [Paras 5–7]

Property Law – Completion of Acquisition – Mere compensation not sufficient – Possession of property is essential for valid acquisition – Court reiterates that unless physical possession is taken, acquisition remains incomplete [Para 8]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of with direction to follow due process of law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Motor Vehicles Act – Claim under Section 163-A – Borrower of Vehicle – Tortfeasor – Not Third Party – Claim Not Maintainable – Deceased, who died in a self-accident, had borrowed the vehicle from his brother and was driving it in a rash and negligent manner – Held: Once the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner, he ceased to be a third party – Claim under Section 163-A is not maintainable against insurer by borrower/tortfeasor – Tribunal erred in awarding ₹3,93,500 as compensation – Award set aside [Paras 13–19].

Insurance Law – Liability of Insurer – Borrower Driving Vehicle – No Coverage – Deceased was neither a paid driver nor a third party – Policy did not cover owner’s relatives or gratuitous users – Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. [(2020) 2 SCC 550] relied upon – Held: No liability on insurer for self-inflicted accident by borrower of vehicle – Deceased, being tortfeasor, not entitled to compensation [Paras 15–16].

Motor Accident Claim – Tribunal's Failure to Determine Negligence – Perverse Award – Tribunal failed to determine culpability despite clear evidence (FIR and claimant’s admission) that deceased was driving negligently – Award granted without proper reasoning or findings on responsibility – Held: Award unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside [Paras 17–19].

Appellate Review – Error in Applying Multiplier – Irrelevant in Present Case – Though appellant argued Tribunal applied incorrect multiplier (16 instead of 15), Court found issue moot since claim itself was not maintainable [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.696 of 2012 dated 03/12/2012 set aside – Claim petition dismissed – Appellant insurer entitled to recover any amount deposited before Tribunal by filing appropriate application – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 19–20].

Civil Writ - Disability Rights – Accessibility of Currency and Digital Banking – Public Interest Litigation – Petitioners sought directions for RBI and Union of India to withdraw inaccessible banknotes, redesign currency (esp. ₹50 note) with tactile/identification features, and ensure accessibility of coins, ATMs, digital platforms, and future e-rupee – High Powered Committee constituted by Court recommended phased replacement of inaccessible notes, improved tactile features, accessibility audits, standards for cards, cheques, and digital currency – RBI highlighted existing features, cost implications, long cycle of new series introduction, and ongoing efforts – Held: RBI and GoI must scrupulously monitor and implement Committee recommendations; mandatory six-monthly compliance reports to be obtained from banks – For new series of currency, concerns of visually impaired must be factored before introduction – Court cannot issue mandamus directing immediate redesign/withdrawal of existing currency as it is a policy matter – PILs disposed of with directions [Paras 8-12].

Currency Notes – ₹50 Denomination – Petitioners argued lack of identification features – Court noted RBI’s stand that redesign of notes is a long and costly process, done once in 8–10 years, and current notes already contain intaglio, bleed lines, size variations, colour features, and supported by MANI app – Withdrawal/redesign now would cause economic disruption – Direction issued to ensure High Powered Committee’s recommendations considered at time of next series design [Paras 9-10].

Digital Currency – e-Rupee – Committee and petitioners flagged accessibility concerns – RBI assured accessibility to be incorporated before final launch; pilot projects ongoing – Court accepted assurance, directed monitoring to ensure accessibility standards complied with [Paras 6, 8].

Judicial Review – Policy Domain – Court emphasized that issues of redesigning banknotes or issuing new series involve technical, financial, and security considerations within RBI/GoI policy-making – Judicial intervention limited – Court can direct monitoring and implementation of accessibility measures but not dictate immediate design changes [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – RBI directed to ensure scrupulous implementation of Committee recommendations and obtain six-monthly reports from banks – GoI and RBI directed to consider accessibility concerns of visually impaired persons before introducing new series of notes or digital currency [Paras 8-12].

Family Law – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Jurisdictional Error – Consent Requirement – Fault-Based Petitions – Section 13 vs. 13B HMA – Family Court suo motu passed decree under Section 13B of HMA despite pendency of separate contested petitions under Section 13 filed by husband and wife on grounds of cruelty and adultery – Held: Statutory precondition under Section 13B of mutual consent through a joint petition and second motion was not met – Court lacked jurisdiction to recharacterise fault-based proceedings as mutual consent divorce – Impugned decree set aside [Paras 17–27, 32–33, 36–37, 46–47].

Family Courts Act – Scope of Sections 9 and 10 – Procedural Discretion vs. Substantive Law – Family Court erred in invoking procedural flexibility under Sections 9 and 10 of Family Courts Act to bypass mandatory requirements under Section 13B of HMA – Held: Procedural provisions cannot override express substantive statutory safeguards – Mutual consent must be explicit, contemporaneous, and continuous – Mere separate prayers for divorce do not establish mutuality [Paras 39–45].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Limits on Judicial Power – Role of Supreme Court – Family Court assumed plenary jurisdiction analogous to powers under Article 142 of Constitution to mould relief in absence of statutory compliance – Held: Only Supreme Court has authority under Article 142 to grant relief beyond statute – Reliance on Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain affirmed – Decree passed by Family Court ultra vires [Paras 50–52].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 13B of HMA – Substance vs Form – Consent as Jurisdictional Fact – Section 13B not a mere procedural shortcut but a substantive provision requiring mutual, ongoing, voluntary consent by both spouses – Fault-based proceedings cannot be retrofitted into mutual consent divorce – Decree passed without jurisdiction, nullity in law [Paras 21, 25–27, 36–38, 42–44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 18.07.2024 passed by Family Court set aside – Divorce petitions remanded to Family Court for adjudication on merits – No order as to costs [Paras 53–56].

Service Law – Notional Promotion – Delay in Issuance of Promotion Order – Grant of NFU – High Court sets aside Tribunal Order directing notional promotion with retrospective effect – Respondent promoted to the post of Deputy Director General only on 21.07.2016 despite DPC held on 22.01.2016 and vacancy arising on 01.04.2016 – Tribunal held delay unjustified and allowed notional promotion from 01.04.2016 – High Court disagrees – Held: Promotion becomes effective only upon assumption of duties, not from date of vacancy or DPC recommendation – No mala fide or arbitrariness found in administrative delay – Mere pendency of vacancy and DPC recommendation does not confer enforceable right to promotion from earlier date – Tribunal’s direction unsustainable [Paras 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 26-29, 39-41].

Administrative Delay – Priority to Earlier DPC Panel – Valid Justification – Officers recommended by Supplementary DPC for year 2015-16 were accorded priority – Delay in issuing promotion orders to 2016-17 panel including respondent was due to administrative practice – High Court holds such prioritization is not mala fide or unreasonable – No evidence produced to show that delay was intentional or designed to deprive respondent of NFU – Petitioners’ action not arbitrary [Paras 4, 14-15, 25, 30, 34, 37].

Promotion – Right to Be Considered vs. Right to Promotion – DPC Recommendation – No Vested Right – High Court reiterates settled law that promotion does not automatically follow recommendation by DPC – It becomes effective only from date of actual appointment and assumption of charge – Respondent retired before completing requisite one year in promotional post to qualify for NFU – Therefore, claim of retrospective notional promotion and NFU unsustainable [Paras 13, 29, 39].

Distinction from Earlier Precedents – Krishna Kumar Sinha & Others – Inapplicable – Bombay High Court case distinguished on facts – In that case, competent authority failed to process promotions despite available vacancies and DPC recommendations – Present case involved administrative sequencing based on policy – Hence, benefit of retrospective promotion not attracted – Parity cannot be claimed mechanically without establishing factual similarity [Paras 19-20, 30-32].

State’s Conduct – No Mala Fide Established – Delay Not Attributable to Ill-Will – High Court finds no evidence to suggest the delay in promotion was due to bias, negligence or mala fide action – Mere delay per se without adverse motive does not justify retrospective promotion – Principle that State cannot take advantage of its own wrong applies only where delay is culpable – Not applicable here [Paras 18, 25, 36, 38].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal’s Order dated 29.05.2024 quashed – No entitlement to notional promotion from 01.04.2016 – No financial or NFU benefits payable – Respondent’s claim rejected – No costs awarded [Paras 41-43].

Tenancy Law - Civil Procedure – Partnership Dispute – Order 30 Rule 8 CPC – Eviction Petition – Respondents filed eviction petition against M/s Indian Furniture Store through alleged partner Satish Grover – Petitioner filed application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, contending that his appearance be treated as under protest and Court must first determine whether he was a partner – Rent Controller, instead of deciding the application, directed petitioner to disclose partnership details on affidavit – Held: Impermissible – Rule 8 CPC envisages preliminary adjudication – Person disputing partnership cannot be compelled to furnish details before Court determines his status as partner – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-7].

Civil Revision – Rent Controller’s Jurisdiction – Rent Controller must first adjudicate application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC before proceeding with eviction petition – Only upon deciding petitioner’s status as partner can he be compelled to disclose partnership particulars – Impugned order contrary to the scheme of the Code – Civil revision allowed – Rent Controller directed to decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC in accordance with law [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Rent Controller directed to first decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC and then proceed with eviction petition [Paras 8-10].

Bail – Fraudulent Availment of Input Tax Credit under CGST Act – Compliance with BNSS – Bail Order Set Aside – Accused allegedly availed fraudulent ITC of ₹8.27 Cr and ₹8.26 Cr respectively – Petitioner challenged bail granted by CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, based on omission of Section 47 and 48 headings in Arrest Memo and Notice to Relatives – Held: Arresting authority substantially complied with BNSS mandates – Grounds of Arrest provided and acknowledged – Relative was served with arrest notice containing essential details – No demonstrable prejudice to accused – Bail order held legally unsustainable [Paras 3, 39–41, 49–50, 57–59, 61].

CGST Act – Section 132 Offence – Authorization to Arrest – Valid Arrest – Commissioner had “reasons to believe” based on prima facie material that accused fraudulently availed ineligible ITC – Arrest Authorization and Grounds of Arrest provided in writing – Offence cognizable and non-bailable – Arrest compliant with Section 132 and CBIC Guidelines dated 17.08.2022 – Admission of wrongdoing by accused noted – Held: Arrest justified [Paras 45–46, 49].

BNSS – Sections 47 and 48 – Compliance vs Technical Omission – Prejudice-Oriented Test Applied – Absence of headings in arrest and relative’s notices does not ipso facto vitiate arrest – Apex Court decisions in Vihaan Kumar and Sri Darshan reconciled – Prejudice test applied – Held: No failure of justice or denial of legal remedy – Arrest not illegal for want of headings when substance was disclosed [Paras 50–56].

Criminal Revision vs Bail Cancellation – Jurisdiction Distinguished – Petition filed to set aside bail order as perverse and illegal, not for cancellation based on post-bail conduct – Held: Courts can annul perverse or unsustainable bail orders under Section 528 BNSS – Judicial power properly invoked [Paras 33–35].

Judicial Review under Special Acts – Liberal Construction Discouraged – Court emphasized that liberal interpretation of procedural mandates under special fiscal statutes may undermine their purpose – Minor lapses not fatal where statutory safeguards are substantively met – Reiterated principles from Radhika Agarwal case [Paras 47–49].

Decision: Impugned order dated 07.06.2025 granting bail set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Respondents at liberty to seek fresh bail before appropriate forum [Paras 63–65].

Motor Accident Claim - Compensation – Permanent Disability – Functional Disability – Appellant, a Patwari by profession, sustained 65% permanent disability including hemiparesis and knee stiffness – Tribunal awarded ₹1,30,000 under this head – High Court held that functional disability should be considered at 50% considering nature of employment – Monthly income ₹2700, annual loss ₹16,200 – Applying multiplier of 17 (age 30 years), total disability compensation assessed at ₹2,75,400 – After adjusting Tribunal's award, enhancement of ₹1,45,400 granted [Paras 6–9].

Tort Law – Negligence – Cross-objection by driver dismissed – Driver had been convicted in criminal proceedings related to the same accident – Court upheld MACT's finding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 – Finding of negligence affirmed [Paras 5–6].

Interest on Compensation – Rate of Interest – Enhanced compensation of ₹1,45,400 awarded with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization – No enhancement under other heads claimed [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – MACT award modified – Enhanced compensation of ₹1,45,400 with 7.5% interest p.a. granted – Cross-objections dismissed.

Criminal Law – Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered by police under Section 13 of the D&C Act pursuant to Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Held: Only authorities specified under Section 32 of D&C Act (Drug Inspector etc.) can initiate prosecution – Police has no jurisdiction to register FIR – FIR under D&C Act quashed as without authority [Paras 40-44, 88]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Sections 274 and 275 IPC – Held: Though FIR under IPC is maintainable, ingredients of offences not made out – Allegation of adulteration not supported by material – Joint inspection found product of standard quality at time of dispatch – Adulteration, if any, occurred after delivery to complainant – FIR under IPC also quashed [Paras 45-60, 66-85, 89]

Criminal Procedure – Limitation – FIR registered in 2019 for offences punishable with up to six months – No charge sheet filed within one year – No justification for delay – Bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C. applicable – Investigation continuation amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed on this ground as well [Paras 86-87, 89]

Drugs Law – Loan Licencee – Manufacturing Responsibility – Petitioner only provided manufacturing facility under Loan Licence to Respondent No. 2 – Held: As per Rules 75A, 69A of D&C Rules and judicial precedents, Loan Licencee (Respondent No. 2) is deemed manufacturer and responsible for drug quality – Petitioners not liable under D&C Act [Paras 64-70]

Commercial Dispute – Civil Nature Given Criminal Colour – Allegations arose from failure of Respondent No. 2 to sell drugs in market – Parties had arbitration agreement – Nil award given holding likely tampering by Respondent – Held: Dispute purely civil/commercial – Criminal proceedings abuse of process [Paras 20-21, 82-84]

Decision:

FIR No. 053/2019 under Sections 274/275 IPC and Section 13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, registered at PS Okhla Industrial Area, quashed – Observations confined to FIR proceedings only – Petition allowed [Paras 90-91]