Tenancy Law - Lease Rent Demand – One-time Lease Rent – Delay in Payment – Petitioner deposited one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 annual instalments on 08.01.2007 in accordance with prevailing GNIDA policy – Lease rent was payable by 16.01.2007, and payment made on 08.01.2007 was within the stipulated period – Held: There was no default attracting penal consequences – Authority’s subsequent demand in 2025 for lease rent dues is legally untenable and arbitrary [Paras 14–17, 24–25]

Natural Justice – No Prior Notice or Explanation – Impugned demand letter dated 10.07.2025 issued without any show-cause notice or opportunity to respond – Held: Violative of principles of natural justice – Arbitrary quantification without calculation details renders the demand unsustainable [Paras 19–20]

Promissory Estoppel – Issuance of No Dues Certificates – GNIDA had issued No Objection Certificates in 2010 and 2020 and also granted mortgage permission in 2024 – Held: Authority is estopped from raising lease rent dues in 2025 after a long period of inaction – Such reversal of stand violates principles of promissory estoppel and fairness [Paras 21–23]

Legitimate Expectation – Consistency in Administrative Conduct – Repeated certifications by GNIDA confirming no dues and subsequent permission to mortgage created legitimate expectation that no lease rent remained unpaid – Held: Sudden reversal of position violates doctrine of legitimate expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Demand letter dated 10.07.2025 quashed – Direction issued to GNIDA to process petitioner’s pending applications for permission to mortgage dated 08.10.2024 and 02.01.2025 within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order [Paras 26–27]

Administrative Law – Re-engagement of Self Help Group – Disengagement Order Quashed – Petitioner (Maa Santoshi WSHG) was earlier disengaged without being given a hearing – High Court quashed the disengagement and directed fresh inquiry – Inquiry Committee found the Petitioner compliant and recommended re-engagement – Director deferred action citing subsisting contract with another WSHG – Held: Petitioner to be re-engaged post-expiry of contract period with current service provider, subject to compliance with formalities and government guidelines [Paras 2, 5, 9, 12, 14]

Contract Law – No Vested Right from Interim Arrangements – Maa Chandi WSHG received 7 Gram Panchayats only as a stop-gap measure following disengagement of the Petitioner – Court held that this did not amount to a vested or permanent right – Right to supply THR restricted to duration of contract expiring 31.12.2025 [Paras 10–12]

Natural Justice – Principles Violated in Initial Disengagement – Disengagement of Maa Santoshi WSHG was without notice or hearing – Court found this contrary to natural justice and ordered fresh inquiry – Based on favourable report, re-engagement found justified [Paras 4, 7, 9(v), 10, 14]

Eligibility Criteria – Requirement of Valid Food License – Possession of a food license is mandatory under the scheme guidelines – Court noted Petitioner claims to hold a valid license till 2026 – Re-engagement conditional upon compliance with all formalities including valid license [Paras 8, 13–14]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of – Maa Santoshi WSHG directed to be re-engaged only after the expiry of current contract on 31.12.2025 – All interim orders stand vacated [Paras 14–15]

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Denial of No Objection Certificate to government employee on ground of pending disciplinary proceedings – Held: Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 – Executive instruction dated 28.01.2014 cannot override fundamental rights – Rejection of NOC amounts to unconstitutional restriction on liberty – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 10–14, 18–19]

Service Law – Government Employee – Pending Departmental Proceedings – Presumption of Innocence – Mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or vigilance cases cannot be treated as conclusive of guilt – Held: Presumption of innocence must prevail until proven guilty – Executive circular cannot justify refusal of NOC without due process of law [Paras 10, 15, 17]

Administrative Law – Executive Instructions vs. Enacted Law – Letter dated 28.01.2014 by State Government is not statutory law – Cannot be treated as lawful basis to restrict passport issuance – Any restriction on fundamental rights must be supported by enacted law – Held: Administrative circular lacks legal authority to infringe personal liberty [Paras 10, 14]

Passport Law – Passport Manual and NOC Requirement – Clauses 4.23 to 4.25 of Passport Manual, 2020 make NOC mandatory for government employees – However, such requirement must align with constitutional rights – Held: NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, and the Manual must be read in conformity with fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 11–12]

Judicial Precedents – Maneka Gandhi Case – Right to go abroad is part of personal liberty – Denial must follow fair procedure established by law – Applied in present case to quash refusal of NOC based on non-statutory executive communication [Para 13]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Impugned rejection orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 quashed – State directed to issue No Objection Certificate to petitioner within six weeks from date of judgment [Para 19]

Criminal Law – Discharge – Allegation of Fraudulent Property Valuation – 5th accused challenged rejection of discharge plea, contending that his property valuation was genuine and that disparity with subsequent valuations was not sufficient to impute criminal intent – Held: Significant discrepancy in valuations shown by independent valuers and bank-commissioned reports raises triable issues – Discharge cannot be granted at the threshold when prima facie case exists and evidence requires examination at trial [Paras 4, 5, 8, 9, 13].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Conspiracy and Abuse of Position – Accused bank officials allegedly colluded with petitioner valuer to overvalue properties and facilitate fraudulent loan sanctions – Held: Overvaluation forming basis for unlawful gain and wrongful loss is sufficient for attracting provisions of the PC Act – Issue of conspiracy and abuse of office must be tested during trial and not at discharge stage [Paras 3, 4, 9].

Evidentiary Value of Valuation Reports – Competency and Scientific Validity – Petitioner relied on earlier decisions to argue that unless valuation methodology is proven scientific, criminal liability cannot follow – Held: Comparative valuation is not conclusive at discharge stage – Whether overvaluation was deliberate and fraudulent is a factual issue requiring trial – Court disagreed with earlier precedents to the extent they discouraged trial on valuation-based fraud allegations [Paras 7, 9, 13].

Judicial Interference at Pre-trial Stage – Parameters for Discharge – When prosecution materials disclose plausible involvement in criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, High Court cannot usurp trial function by evaluating credibility or sufficiency of evidence – Held: Discharge rightly denied by Special Court and revision dismissed – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 9, 13, 14].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Discharge rightly refused by Special Court – Trial to be completed within three months – Observations made in order to have no bearing on merits during trial.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Set Aside – Section 306 IPC – Accused convicted for abetment of suicide based on allegations of continuous mental and physical harassment – Dying declaration inconsistent and general in nature – No proximate or specific act of instigation proved – Accused not relatives and not residing with the deceased – Trial court had acquitted them under Section 498A IPC – Held: Mere general allegations of harassment without proof of a direct or immediate provocation not sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 306 IPC [Paras 1, 3, 5.2, 12.14].

Mens Rea – Requirement under Section 306 IPC – No evidence to show that accused intended or consciously instigated the deceased to commit suicide – Children accused were shown to be at exams and not present at the time of incident – Accused No.1 was acting in official capacity as Talati in a prior unrelated land dispute – Held: Prosecution failed to establish mens rea or any act amounting to instigation or aiding suicide [Paras 3.9, 5.2, 12.12, 12.13].

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Reliability – Contradictions – Dying declaration lacked medical endorsement – Deceased unable to read due to burn injuries – Statement implicated only one accused (Jayantibhai Talati), not consistent with trial of five accused – No corroboration by independent witnesses – Held: Statement not reliable for conviction [Paras 3.6, 9.1, 12.13].

Proximate Cause – Abetment Not Made Out – No evidence of specific act immediately preceding the suicide – Courts reiterated that continued harassment must culminate in a final inciting act to sustain conviction under Section 306 – Observations from Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal followed – Alleged harassment lacked intensity or proximity to amount to abetment [Paras 11, 12.1–12.10].

Acquittal – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC set aside – No direct or indirect act of incitement or provocation established – Benefit of doubt extended – Accused acquitted of all charges [Paras 12.14, 13].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal – Appellant filed complaint against accused for dishonour of cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs – Cheque returned with endorsement "Drawer’s Signature Differs" – Legal notice claimed to be sent, but original acknowledgment card not produced – Trial Court refused to mark photocopy and acquitted accused holding statutory notice not proved – High Court held non-service was not disputed by accused in cross-examination and disagreed with Trial Court's reasoning on notice –However, loan transaction of Rs. 40 lakhs alleged to be given without any written document – Complainant admitted in cross-examination that cheque was filled by her husband and that husband used to collect blank cheques from chit subscribers including accused – No mention in complaint or notice about authority to fill cheque – These admissions supported defence version that cheque was issued blank during chit dealings – Held: Accused’s version found probable – No perversity in acquittal – Appeal against acquittal dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld – Findings held reasonable and not perverse.

Service Law – Coast Guard Dismissal – Summary Trial – BOI – Rule 28(d) – Petitioners challenged dismissal orders following alleged recovery of 1,512 bottles of illicit liquor on ICGS Sarthak – 15 petitioners were initially subjected to summary trials with minor punishments under Section 57(g), which were later set aside by DIG citing legal infirmities including destruction of evidence and procedural bias – Held: Officer possessing authority to approve punishment under Rule 28(d) can set aside punishments even where prior approval is not statutorily required – No bar under Section 68 or Article 20(2) to initiate fresh proceedings [Paras 41–51]

Disciplinary Proceedings – Board of Inquiry – Rule 39(4) Compliance – Procedural Safeguards – Non-supply of BOI Records – All petitioners subsequently faced BOI proceedings under Rule 39 – Held: BOI proceedings did not comply with Rule 39(4) as petitioners were not afforded meaningful opportunity to cross-examine, defend, or access adverse material including Offence Report, Abstract of Evidence, BOI minutes – Typed “admissions” lacking signatures insufficient to establish participation – Violation of audi alteram partem principles renders dismissal unsustainable [Paras 52–66]

Natural Justice – Vagueness in Show-Cause Notices – Non-application of Mind – Show-cause notices under Section 11(b) were vague, lacked specifics of alleged misconduct (dates, locations, witnesses), and were unsupported by evidentiary documents – Petitioners’ replies were dismissed as “unsatisfactory” without substantive reasoning – Held: Notices violated Rule 23 and failed to provide effective opportunity to defend – Material relied upon must be disclosed to enable proper reply [Paras 63–64]

Constitutional Law – Article 311 – Not Applicable to Coast Guard Personnel – Article 310 Applies – Petitioners’ claim of protection under Article 311 rejected – Held: Indian Coast Guard personnel serve at the pleasure of the President and are governed by special legislation – Reaffirmed principle laid down in UOI v. Major S.P. Sharma [Paras 56–57]

Administrative Law – Due Process – Setting Aside Dismissals – Direction for De Novo Proceedings – Court held BOI and dismissal proceedings vitiated by non-compliance with natural justice and statutory procedure – Dismissal orders set aside with direction to conduct fresh proceedings within 8 weeks in accordance with law – Reinstatement ordered to the extent of setting aside of dismissal, subject to outcome of re-conducted BOI [Paras 66–69]

Decision: Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – Dismissal Orders dated 28.02.2024 Quashed – Fresh BOI Proceedings Directed in Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice – No Order as to Costs

Criminal Revision – Framing of Charges – Attempt to Murder – Nature of Injury Not Decisive – At Charge Stage Court Not to Conduct Mini Trial – Victim’s Statement Alleging Knife Blow Aimed at Neck Creates Grave Suspicion – Injury Report Showing Deep Muscular Cuts with Bleeding – Charges under Sections 109(1) & 351(3) BNS Properly Framed – Revision Dismissed [Paras 7–11, 14–18].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope under Section 250 BNSS (Section 227 CrPC) – Judicial Principles Reiterated – Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charges the Judge may sift material only to see whether a prima facie case exists – Court must frame charge where material discloses grave suspicion – Mini trial not permissible – Precedents in P. Vijayan (2010) 2 SCC 398 and Sajjan Kumar (2010) 9 SCC 368 referred and applied [Paras 7–11].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Nature of Injury Not Determinative – Court reaffirmed that causing injury is not sine qua non for Section 307 IPC – Intention/knowledge to cause death and overt act toward its commission are essential ingredients – Nature of injury is only one factor but not conclusive [Paras 12–16].

Framing of Charges – Knife Assault – Aim at Neck – Deep Incised Wounds on Arm – Grave Suspicion Made Out – Victim Rahul stated that petitioner threatened to kill him and aimed knife at his neck; injuries intercepted by arm – Medical record notes deep incised wound with torn muscles, fat plane exposure, excessive bleeding and cut veins/arteries – Such material discloses grave suspicion sufficient to frame charges under Sections 109(1) and 351(3) BNS – Discharge rightly refused [Paras 17–18].

Medical Opinion – Arguments on Non-dangerous Injury – Not a Ground at Charge Stage – Doctor’s opinion that injuries were not dangerous to life does not negate prosecution case at pre-trial stage – Nature of injuries not decisive to Section 307 IPC and cannot be basis to quash charges under Section 250 BNSS [Paras 14–18].

Decision – Criminal Revision dismissed – Order framing charges upheld [Para 18].

Food Safety – FSSA vs IPC – Overriding effect of Section 89 FSSA – Police cannot register FIR for food adulteration offences – Prosecution must follow Section 42 mechanism – Ingredients of IPC offences (Ss. 420, 270, 272, 273, 308) not made out – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 2–5, 7, 8, 10].

Food Safety Law – Special Statute Prevails – Section 89 FSSA – Complete code – FSSA overrides IPC in matters concerning adulterated, misbranded, sub-standard or unsafe food – Held: offences under IPC Ss. 272 & 273 cannot operate simultaneously where field covered by Section 59 FSSA [Paras 24–32].

Jurisdiction – Police Power – Registration of FIR – Police not competent authority to initiate prosecution for offences under the Food Safety Act – Only Food Safety Officer/Designated Officer/Commissioner can proceed as per Section 42 FSSA – FIR lodged by police without jurisdiction – Void ab initio [Paras 3, 4, 26–27, 32].

IPC Offences – Sections 420, 270, 272, 273, 308 – Cheating under S. 420 absent – No allegation of inducement, dishonest intention or wrongful gain/loss – Ingredients of Ss. 270, 272, 273 covered by special statute – Consequential charge under S. 308 unsustainable – Held: No IPC offence made out [Paras 8, 28].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Stage of proceedings – Quashing permissible even after filing of chargesheet and framing of charge where proceedings constitute abuse of process – Reliance on Mukesh v. State of U.P., SC (2024) [Para 9].

Decision – FIR No. 679/2019 and all proceedings quashed – Petition allowed [Paras 10–12].