Property Law – Unauthorized Occupation and Eviction – Petitioners’ predecessors were given land on a temporary lease in 1962 on humanitarian grounds after being evicted from Indraprastha Estate – No extension or renewal of lease since 1964 – Petitioners have no title documents – DDA’s consistent stand of possession since 1991 supported by historical records [Paras 1-14, 18-21, 23-24].

Lease and Allotment – Non-renewal and Payment Defaults – Initial lease offer was for one year only, ending in 1963 – No subsequent lease deeds or rent payments recorded – Petitioners’ claim of continuous cultivation unsupported by rent receipts or lease renewals – Court emphasizes the temporary nature of the original allotment and lack of legal title for continued occupation [Paras 18-19, 21].

Environmental Law – Encroachment on Yamuna Floodplains – Land falls under Yamuna floodplain “Zone O” – Subject to Supreme Court and NGT orders for removal of encroachments and restoration of ecological balance – DDA’s project for Yamuna Vanasthali includes demarcation and reforestation – Court underscores public interest and environmental protection as overriding factors [Paras 26-37].

Judicial Review – Public Premises Act Proceedings – Eviction orders quashed in 1995 deemed non-binding on title issues – Appellate authority’s findings in summary proceedings do not confer title or permanent rights to petitioners – Petitioners held to be rank encroachers with no legal claim to land [Paras 22-24].

Procedural Validity – Show Cause Notices and Eviction Orders – Appellate authority found procedural defects in eviction process under PP Act – No valid show cause notice specifying land details – Court recognizes procedural lapses but maintains that they do not grant title or continued possession rights to petitioners [Paras 13, 16].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners have no legal right to claim possession of the land – Encroachments to be removed in public interest – Costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on each petitioner to be paid to the DDA [Paras 37-38].

Criminal Law – Conviction – Appeal – Validity of Evidence – Appellant convicted for repeated rape and criminal intimidation of step-daughter, aged 12, leading to pregnancy – Defense argued on grounds of improbable prosecution narrative, unreliable evidence, delay in FIR, and manipulated documents – Prosecution relied on consistent and corroborated testimonies, medical evidence, and timely police action – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-17].

Sexual Offenses – Minor Victim – Testimonies and Corroborative Evidence – Victim’s detailed account of abuse supported by mother’s testimony and medical confirmation of pregnancy – Delay in FIR deemed reasonable under circumstances – Appellant’s behavior patterns supported credibility of allegations – Court found no merit in arguments of unreliable evidence or manipulated documents [Paras 12-16].

Preventive Measures – DNA Test – Considerations for Victim’s Safety – Inquiry on absence of DNA test during pregnancy – Prosecution cited risks to victim and fetus – Court found explanation reasonable, emphasizing safety and well-being of victim and unborn child [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt [Para 17].

Civil Procedure – Recovery on Promissory Notes – Defendant appealed against trial court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of sums due on two promissory notes – Defendant claimed notes were forged and plaintiff lacked capacity to lend – Trial court’s judgment upheld, appeal dismissed – Defendant’s plea that her name was misstated as Saroja instead of Sarojamma found baseless – Evidence confirmed that defendant signed as Saroja in various official documents [Paras 1-20].

Burden of Proof – Negotiable Instruments – Trial court properly applied presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Plaintiff demonstrated execution of promissory notes and capacity to lend – Defendant failed to rebut presumption or provide substantive evidence against consideration – Apex Court precedents emphasized presumption of consideration unless adequately disproved by defendant [Paras 12-18].

Defendant’s Identity and Signature – Plea of Forgery – Defendant’s contention regarding incorrect name and forgery dismissed – Documentary evidence confirmed defendant’s use of the name Saroja – Scribe of promissory notes corroborated plaintiff’s case, while defendant failed to present credible counter-evidence [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Decree and judgment of the trial court affirmed – No costs awarded – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 19-20].

Search and Seizure – Compliance with Legal Provisions – The appellants contended non-compliance with Sections 42 and 100(4) Cr.P.C. – Court held that since the search was conducted at 7:30 AM, during sunrise, there was no requirement for a warrant or recording the grounds of belief – Proper procedure under Section 42 of the NDPS Act was followed – Conviction upheld [Paras 10-14, 16-18].

Procedure under Section 42 of NDPS Act – Legal Obligations – Section 42 is in two parts: the first part allows searches between sunrise and sunset without a warrant if information is taken down in writing; the second part requires recording grounds of belief for searches between sunset and sunrise – Court found compliance with Section 42, as the search occurred in the morning based on prior written information [Paras 12-14, 18].

Witness Testimony – Minor Discrepancies – Appellants argued inconsistencies in the statements of police witnesses regarding the search and seizure – Court held minor contradictions do not affect the core of the prosecution case – Independent witnesses, PW3 Sanjeev Kumar and PW4 Dev Raj, did not support the prosecution, but this was not prejudicial to the appellants [Paras 26-28, 42].

Possession of Contraband – Conscious Possession – Appellants were found in possession of 70.340 kg of poppy husk – Court noted the large quantity and high cost of the contraband, making it unlikely to be planted – Prosecution proved conscious possession through credible police testimony and documentation [Paras 41-43].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Appellants pointed out inconsistencies regarding the mode of receiving secret information and how the vehicle was intercepted – Court found such contradictions did not undermine the prosecution’s case – The substantial evidence supported the conviction [Paras 29-32, 33-36].

Weighing Scale – Alleged Procedural Lapses – Appellants argued there was no explanation for calling weighing scales from Kolar despite availability at Bohlion – Court found no merit in this contention, as the prosecution was not obligated to offer explanations on such points – Appellants did not cross-examine witnesses on these aspects [Paras 37-40].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence by Special Judge affirmed – Prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt – No interference warranted as findings do not suffer from any perversity or illegality – Appeal dismissed along with any pending applications [Paras 44-45].

Service Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition – Availability of Alternative Remedy – Existence of alternative remedy not an absolute bar against maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 – Statutory appeal against order by President barred by Rule 15 of All India Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1969 – Memorial under Rule 25 not equated to statutory appeal – High Court’s plenary powers under Article 226 not fettered by mechanical retreat due to alternative remedy – Learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the OA based on non-exercise of right to prefer a memorial [Para 20].

Violation of Natural Justice – Supply of Documents – Failure to supply Preliminary Inquiry Report (PIR) and related documents to the petitioner during disciplinary proceedings – Decision to penalize petitioner before considering his reply to the Inquiry Report constitutes violation of principles of natural justice – DA’s formation of mind on punishment prior to consideration of petitioner’s reply invalid [Paras 3-7, 22].

Disproportionate Punishment – Misconduct – Charges proved against the petitioner did not cause financial loss to employer – Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service unduly harsh and disproportionate to alleged misconduct – High Court applied doctrine of proportionality considering petitioner’s service record and the nature of charges [Paras 24, 28, 30].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 limited to assessing decision-making process and reasonableness, not reappreciation of evidence – Review of DA’s decision to impose dismissal focused on procedural fairness and proportionality of punishment [Paras 26, 29].

Final Relief – Reinstatement and Benefits – Order of dismissal dated 12^th February, 2013 set aside – Respondents directed to impose lesser punishment of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay from date of original punishment until retirement – Petitioner reinstated with continuity in service without back-wages but entitled to retirement benefits for notional continuity [Paras 31-32].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Orders of dismissal set aside – Respondents directed to reinstate petitioner with reduction in pay scale as lesser punishment – Petitioner entitled to notional continuity in service for retirement benefits.

Employees’ Compensation – Liability of Principal Employer – Appeal against the award of compensation by the Commissioner Employees Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Doda, in favor of the respondent widow – Appellant contended that the deceased was employed by a contractor, not directly by the appellant – High Court held appellant liable as the principal employer under Section 12 of the Act – Award of compensation with interest upheld [Paras 1-18].

Principal Employer’s Liability – Section 12 of the Employees’ Compensation Act – High Court emphasized that principal employer is liable for compensation even when the worker is employed by a contractor – Appellant liable for compensation due to the death of a worker during execution of work contracted by the appellant [Paras 17-18].

Assessment of Compensation – Calculation of compensation based on provisions of Section 4 read with Schedule IV of the Act – Interest awarded under Section 4-A(3) – High Court found no illegality or perversity in the award – Compensation and interest calculations upheld [Paras 14-15].

Non-joinder of Necessary Party – Contractor not joined as a party in the proceedings – High Court held that the appellant, as the principal employer, remains liable for compensation even if the contractor is not joined – Reference to Section 12(1) of the Act confirming the principal employer’s liability [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Award of compensation with interest upheld – Directions for release of deposited compensation amount to the respondent – Liberty granted to respondent to seek execution of the award for any unpaid compensation [Paras 22-23].

Electricity Regulation – Limitation – Refund of Excess Charges – Petitioner (MSEDCL) challenged CGRF orders directing refund of excess AEC and FAC charged – Contention that claims were barred by limitation – High Court held that the cause of action arose upon MERC’s clarification order and complaint filed within two years was timely – Regulation 6.6 of MERC Regulations was held to be directory, not mandatory – Appeal dismissed [Paras 61-70].

Regulation Compliance – Refund of Excess AEC and FAC – MERC orders permitted AEC and FAC recovery within specific periods – MSEDCL recovered charges outside permitted periods – High Court upheld CGRF’s order for refund with interest for excess recovery – Emphasized adherence to regulatory orders and consumer protection [Paras 43-50].

Interest on Refund – Applicability of Section 62(6) of Electricity Act – CGRF directed refund with interest for non-compliance of MERC orders – High Court affirmed, noting failure to comply with MERC directions justified interest under Section 62(6) [Paras 52-55].

CGRF Jurisdiction and Procedure – Reasoned Orders – MSEDCL contended CGRF did not provide reasoned findings – High Court found CGRF orders sufficiently detailed, supported by regulations and evidence – Rejected claims of unjust enrichment by respondents [Paras 56-60].

Decision:

Writ Petitions Dismissed – CGRF orders directing MSEDCL to refund excess AEC and FAC charges with interest upheld – Court stayed judgment for eight weeks to allow appeal** [Paras 75-77].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging manipulation of tender documents leading to overpayment – Accused involved in printing contract awarded by GCERT – Accusations of conspiracy, forgery, and causing wrongful loss to government – Court examined prima facie evidence of fraudulent activities, unauthorized communications, and tampering of documents – Held allegations sufficient to justify continuation of investigation – Petitions dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Forgery and Cheating – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 IPC – Petitioner accused of altering tender documents post-approval to secure higher payments – Investigation revealed unauthorized changes and misleading representations – Court highlighted the need to establish wrongful gain and intent to deceive for these offenses – Court determined prima facie case was made out [Paras 8.1-8.6].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 409 IPC – Petitioner, a public servant, accused of colluding with contractor to misappropriate funds – Court noted high standards expected from public servants – Accusations of breach of trust supported by evidence of tampered documents and unauthorized actions [Para 8.6].

Decision – Applications dismissed – FIR and ongoing investigation upheld – Court emphasized the importance of allowing the investigation to proceed to uncover full extent of alleged misconduct [Para 9].

Service Law - Judicial Review – Departmental Enquiry – Second Enquiry Not Permissible – Petitioner challenged the initiation of a second disciplinary enquiry on the same charges after the first enquiry was completed – Court held that a second enquiry is impermissible under law if the first enquiry decided the allegations on merits – Second enquiry deemed void [Paras 14-16].

Natural Justice – Cross-Examination – Violation – Petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses during the second enquiry – Court emphasized the importance of cross-examination to ensure a fair trial – Inquiry conducted without allowing cross-examination held to violate principles of natural justice [Paras 17-20].

Personal Hearing – Decision Making – Decision of Board of Directors challenged as it was made by members who did not hear the petitioner personally – Court held that the authority that hears the arguments must be the same authority to pass the decision – Decision made by members who did not hear the petitioner deemed invalid [Paras 21-26].

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Prejudice – Court noted the 14-year delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings caused significant prejudice to the petitioner, including mental distress and financial loss – Delay attributed to the Opposite Party [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order of compulsory retirement set aside – Opp. Party directed to settle retirement dues and pay interest on delayed payments – Proceedings deemed legally untenable due to multiple violations of natural justice [Paras 31-33].