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].

Service Law – Seniority – Challenge after Long Delay – Acquiescence and Laches – Petitioner challenged seniority list of Senior Assistants issued in 1995 by filing representation only in 2006 and writ petition in 2008, shortly before retirement – Seniority list had been duly circulated and acted upon for promotions – Held: Challenge raised after more than a decade is barred by delay, laches and acquiescence – Settled seniority cannot be unsettled at the fag end of service [Paras 5, 5(i), 5(ii), 5(iv)].

Service Law – Seniority Lists – Reopening of Settled Position – Impermissibility – Seniority list remained unchallenged for over 10–14 years – Petitioner had accepted the position and earned promotion to Superintendent Grade-II based on same seniority – Held: Fence-sitters cannot be permitted to reopen settled seniority causing administrative chaos – Reliance placed on Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and allied Supreme Court precedents [Paras 5(iv), 5(vii)].

Delay and Laches – Representation – No Fresh Cause of Action – Mere filing of representation after long lapse of time does not revive a stale or dead claim – Rejection of representation does not furnish fresh cause of action – Held: Limitation and laches must be examined from original cause of action i.e. issuance of seniority list in 1995 [Paras 5(v), 5(viii)].

Service Law – Knowledge of Wrong – Plea of Subsequent Discovery Rejected – Plea that petitioner came to know of alleged illegality only in 2005 held misconceived – Petitioner had knowledge of seniority placement since 1995 and had accepted promotions based on it – Held: Plea is an afterthought to overcome delay and laches [Para 5(iii)].

Military Service Benefit – Seniority on Re-employment – Delay in Challenge – Allegation that private respondent was wrongly granted benefit of approved military service for seniority – Held: Even if such plea is assumed, it ought to have been raised when seniority list was issued – Instructions of 1983 cannot retrospectively negate rights flowing from statutory Rules of 1972 – Belated challenge not maintainable [Para 7].

Judicial Review – Discretion under Article 226 – Self-Imposed Restraint – Writ court will decline interference where unexplained delay, negligence and acquiescence are established – Equity disfavors unsettling crystallized rights of third parties in service matters [Paras 5(ix), 5(x)].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Rejection order dated 21.11.2007 upheld – Challenge to seniority list of 1995 rejected on ground of delay, laches and acquiescence – Parties to bear own costs [Para 8].

Civil Law – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 853 days in filing restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC – Applicant, daughter and power of attorney holder of deceased appellant, failed to respond to repeated notices for bringing LRs on record – Held: No “sufficient cause” shown for prolonged inaction – Medical records produced were sporadic and did not establish incapacity – Ignorance of proceedings not believable in view of her active role in earlier litigation – Application dismissed [Paras 5–14]

Limitation – Restoration of Dismissed Petition – Power of Court – Delay must be justified with reasonable and bona fide cause – Court distinguished between a mere “excuse” and a valid “explanation” – Absence of diligence and sustained inaction for over two years disentitles the applicant to discretionary relief – Reliance placed on Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81; Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, SLP (C) No.17575/2023; Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531 [Paras 8–11]

Civil Procedure – Power of Attorney Holder – Legal Knowledge Presumed – Applicant acted as POA in trial and first appeal – Acknowledged by deceased appellant to have been responsible for filing Regular Second Appeal – Held: Applicant’s plea of lack of awareness is untenable and contrary to record – Plea rejected [Paras 6–7, 13]

Public Policy – Finality of Litigation – Delay in challenging settled decisions disrupts legal certainty – Court held that parties must not be allowed to reopen concluded issues after inordinate delay – Public interest and judicial discipline require finality in litigation [Paras 14–15]

Decision: Delay of 853 days not condoned – Applicant failed to establish “sufficient cause” for prolonged inaction – Restoration application held to be devoid of merit and dismissed – No grounds made out to recall dismissal of CMP(M) No. 695 of 2020 – Litigation deemed concluded [Para 16]

Senior Citizens Act vs. PWDV Act – Right to Shared Household – Interim Protection – Petitioner-daughter-in-law challenged eviction order passed under Rule 22 of Delhi Rules, 2009 under Senior Citizens Act – Cited S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner where Supreme Court held that rights of women under PWDV Act must be harmoniously construed with Senior Citizens Act – Held: Prima facie case made out that petitioner's rights under PWDV Act not adequately considered by the authorities [Paras 1–2, 4].

Domestic Violence Act – Interim Protection – Petitioner already granted interim protection in DV proceedings on 18.08.2022, restraining respondents from interfering with her possession in shared household – Magistrate had found mutual instigation but declined to oust her – Held: Existing DV order supports prima facie right to reside – Impugned orders fail to consider its impact [Paras 3–4].

Constitutional Law – Harmonious Construction – Both PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act are special legislations enacted for vulnerable groups – Supreme Court in S. Vanitha (2021) 15 SCC 730 held that residence rights under PWDV Act cannot be nullified by summary eviction under Senior Citizens Act – Held: Both statutes must be read in harmony to uphold justice and social welfare goals [Para 2].

Interim Relief – Possession Protection – Considering the pending appeal and subsisting interim protection, Court directed parties to maintain status quo regarding title and possession of property – Held: Interim protection warranted in interest of justice pending reply from respondents [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Notice issued – Status quo regarding title and possession to be maintained – Matter to be listed on 03/02/2026 for further hearing [Paras 5–8].

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.

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].

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].