Civil Writ - Maternity Leave – Third Pregnancy – Second Wedlock – Interpretation of Rule 101(a) of Fundamental Rules – Petitioner, a staff nurse in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, was denied maternity leave for her third pregnancy on the ground that she already had two surviving children from her first marriage—Held: Petitioner had not availed maternity leave for her first two children due to contractual employment at that time—Right to maternity leave should be considered based on service period and not biological order of childbirth—Limiting maternity leave based on the number of children, without considering prior leave usage, violates the intent of maternity benefits [Paras 10-12].

Doctrine of Purposive Interpretation – Maternity Leave as a Right – Population Control Policy Consideration – While Rule 101(a) limits maternity leave to two surviving children, its purpose is to regulate population control, protect financial resources of the State, and ensure women’s health—However, the rule should not be applied mechanically to deprive a woman of maternity benefits she never availed before—Relying on Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2023) 13 SCC 681, maternity benefits should be granted twice in service tenure, irrespective of biological childbirth sequence [Paras 12-15].

Medical Board Report – Denial of Medical Leave – Arbitrary Decision – Petitioner applied for alternative leave after rejection of maternity leave—Medical Board declared her fit for duty five days before her expected delivery date—Held: Such a decision is arbitrary, lacks medical justification, and violates the principle of fairness—Authorities directed to grant maternity leave as per service regulations [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders rejecting maternity leave set aside – Authorities directed to grant maternity leave for 365 days as per Rule 101(a) of Fundamental Rules within 12 weeks [Para 16].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating and Money Laundering – Ingredients Not Satisfied – The Applicants challenged the issuance of process under the PMLA and IPC, arguing that no criminal act was involved and the dispute arose solely due to delays in obtaining an Occupation Certificate (OC). The Court held that the contractual obligations between the parties were fulfilled, barring minor unfinished works, and payments were made as per mutual agreement. The dispute was deemed civil, not criminal. – Held: No cheating or money laundering established; process quashed. [Paras 17–38]

Territorial Jurisdiction – Invalid Order by Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri – The Court found that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the transactions and subject premises were situated in Malad. The complainant’s alleged meeting at Hotel Orchid, Vile Parle, was an afterthought to bring the case within the jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station. – Held: Orders passed by Andheri Magistrate and actions by Vile Parle Police Station null and void. [Paras 42.3–42.7]

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Absence of Proceeds of Crime – The Enforcement Directorate’s claim of "proceeds of crime" was rejected, as the amounts received by the Applicants were payments under contractual agreements that were substantially fulfilled. The Court criticized the ED for failing to consider evidence of compliance with agreements and acting without due diligence. – Held: No proceeds of crime or money laundering; ED’s attachment order set aside. [Paras 16–39]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Abuse of Process – The Court observed that the dispute was purely contractual, concerning delay in possession due to lack of an OC. The complainant filed civil suits for recovery of amounts, reinforcing the civil nature of the case. Criminal proceedings were deemed a misuse of the legal process. – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed; exemplary costs imposed on complainant and ED. [Paras 36–42.10]

Decision: Criminal proceedings quashed. Process issued under IPC and PMLA is set aside. Attachment of properties by ED is cancelled. Exemplary costs imposed on the complainant and ED.
 

Service Law – Discrimination in Allowances – Parity with Police Personnel – Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioners, Warders and Head Warders under the Home (Jail) Department, were initially granted Kit Maintenance Allowance and Ration Money Allowance under the 15th June 2017 notification, similar to police, fire, and forest personnel – However, subsequent enhancement of these allowances for police personnel was not extended to them – The matter was reviewed in a meeting chaired by the Chief Minister on 7th October 2021, wherein uniformity in allowances was recommended – Despite this, the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, rejected the proposal without assigning any reason – Held: Such exclusion is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Direction issued to extend the revised allowance benefits to all Warders and Head Warders with immediate effect [Paras 8-11] – Writ petition allowed.

Service Law – Retrospective Benefits – Claim for Arrears – Rejected – Petitioners sought arrears of enhanced allowances from 18/01/2020 and 26/04/2022 – Court held that since they approached belatedly, they were not entitled to arrears – However, direction issued for future implementation by February 2025 [Paras 12-14] – Held: No arrears shall be granted, but enhanced benefits to be implemented prospectively – Writ petition partly allowed.

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed with Directions – Government directed to extend revised Kit/Dress Allowances (₹7,500/- per annum) and Ration Money Allowance (₹2,000/- per month) to all Warders and Head Warders by end of February 2025 – No arrears granted as petitioners approached belatedly – Judgment declared as Judgment in rem, ensuring benefits to all similarly situated personnel [Paras 15-16].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Recovery of Possession – Arrears of Rent – Suit Allowed – Plaintiff, a registered Sangam, sought recovery of possession of a marriage hall and movables (furniture and utensils) leased to the defendant, along with arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profits – Defendant admitted tenancy but failed to pay fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal and did not vacate the premises despite termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Plaintiff proved ownership and entitlement to possession through oral and documentary evidence – Defendant failed to rebut claims of arrears or establish the existence of a valid lease – Civil suit allowed with costs, ordering ejectment and payment of arrears and damages [Paras 18–24].

Fair Rent – Use and Occupation – Damages and Interest Awarded – Plaintiff claimed arrears of ₹2,17,000/- for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022 and sought damages of ₹1,50,000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of immovable and movable properties – Defendant failed to prove payment of rent or justify continued possession – Held: Fair rent of ₹1,00,000/- per month for the building, as fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal in prior proceedings, accepted as damages for unauthorized occupation – Additional rent of ₹25,000/- for movables allowed – Plaintiff entitled to arrears with 6% interest and mesne profits [Paras 23–24].

Lease Agreement – Termination Notice – Applicability of Rent Control Act – Lease initially governed by written agreements, later continued orally after expiry in 2010 – Rent Control proceedings initiated by both parties were nullified on technical grounds as the lease was composite (building and movables) – Plaintiff subsequently issued termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Termination notice valid, and defendant had no right to continue possession post-expiry of the lease [Paras 20–23].

Procedural Delays – Defendant’s Conduct – Applications to Reopen Evidence Dismissed – Defendant sought to reopen and recall plaintiff's witness after multiple opportunities were granted for cross-examination – Defendant repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to file evidence or produce documents despite adjournments – Held: Defendant’s conduct amounted to abuse of process, justifying rejection of applications to reopen evidence – Plaintiff’s evidence remained uncontroverted [Paras 17, 19].

Decision: The Civil Suit is allowed with costs - Defendant directed to vacate and deliver possession of the schedule ‘A’ property (immovable property) and return the schedule ‘B’ property (movables) to the plaintiff immediately - Defendant directed to pay ₹2,17,000/- as arrears of rent for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization - Defendant directed to pay ₹1,50,000/- per month (₹1,25,000/- for the immovable property and ₹25,000/- for the movables) from the date of the suit till delivery of possession.
 

Criminal Writ - Challenge to the opening of Class-B history sheets – Regulation 228 of U.P. Police Regulations – Procedural Irregularities – Impugned Order Quashed – Petitioners challenged the opening of Class-B history sheets approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida – The Court found that the order was passed without applying mind, merely approving the report of the Station House Officer, without assigning reasons or affording the petitioners an opportunity to object – Held: Opening of history sheets against the petitioners violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the impugned history sheets are quashed [Paras 19, 22-27].

Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement of Fair Hearing – Violation of Article 14 – Even where natural justice is not explicitly provided under law, it must be read into provisions affecting personal liberty and rights – Opening of history sheets without providing an opportunity to object constitutes a violation of the right to equality under Article 14 – Held: Police authorities must provide citizens an opportunity to present objections before deciding to open history sheets [Paras 23-24, 26].

Surveillance and Fundamental Rights – Violation of Articles 19 and 21 – Class-B history sheets and resultant police surveillance were found to infringe upon the petitioners' rights to freedom of movement and privacy – Held: Mere implication in criminal cases, without evidence of habitual or professional criminality, does not justify subjecting individuals to perpetual surveillance under the pre-independence U.P. Police Regulations [Paras 25-26].

Constitutionality of History Sheet Provisions – Need for Guidelines – The Court emphasized that provisions under the U.P. Police Regulations were framed during the colonial era and do not align with the modern constitutional framework – Directed the State to amend guidelines to provide for mandatory opportunity of objection and annual review of history sheets [Paras 26-28].

Final Decision – Impugned history sheets against the petitioners quashed – State directed to issue revised guidelines for opening and reviewing history sheets to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 19, and 21 [Paras 27-28, 32].

Eviction Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act – Appellant alleged that proceedings under the PP Act were not maintainable due to the existence of bona fide disputes regarding lease renewal – High Court held that the Estate Officer has jurisdiction under the PP Act as the property is public premises and no ownership dispute exists – Dismissed petition challenging the eviction order [Paras 10, 13, 19].

Bona Fide Dispute – Ownership and Lease Renewal – Petitioner argued that unresolved disputes regarding the renewal of a 10-year lease constituted bona fide disputes – High Court rejected the claim, holding that mere pendency of requests or litigation regarding lease renewal does not amount to a bona fide dispute as per Kaikhosrou (CHICK) Kavasji Framji v. Union of India [Paras 6-7, 15-16].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal under PP Act – High Court emphasized the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 9 of the PP Act – Dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority with lenient consideration of delay due to prior writ proceedings [Paras 18, 22].

Bias Allegations – Estate Officer as a Captive Tribunal – Petitioner contended bias and lack of independence of the Estate Officer – High Court rejected the claim, citing absence of pleadings or evidence of bias and reliance on Supreme Court rulings upholding the PP Act's framework [Paras 11, 15].

Jurisdictional Bar – Applicability of Civil Court – High Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Sections 10 and 13 of the PP Act – Upheld the finality of orders passed under the PP Act unless appealed through prescribed mechanisms [Paras 10, 17].

Decision: The writ petition (WPA 29578 of 2024) was dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under the PP Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within 12 days, with the Appellate Authority directed to consider the delay leniently. No costs were imposed.
 

Taxation Law – Disallowance of Input Tax Credit – Section 73 of the CGST Act – Petitioner challenged the denial of ITC on works contract services used for constructing shopping malls, citing inconsistency with the Supreme Court's ruling in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax v. M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd. – High Court held that the assessment order failed to consider the declaratory nature of the ruling in Safari Retreats and directed a fresh reconsideration of ITC eligibility based on the functionality test [Paras 6-8].

Declaratory Nature of Judicial Pronouncements – Application to Pending Cases – Safari Retreats judgment clarified the scope of "plant or machinery" under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act – High Court observed that as the judgment is declaratory, it applies to assessments concluded before its pronouncement, warranting reconsideration of ITC claims [Paras 7-8].

Procedural Compliance – Hearing and Reconsideration – High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and directed a de novo determination by the respondent, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and consideration of all issues raised [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Impugned order (Ext.P3) dated 30/08/2024 was set aside. The respondent was directed to reconsider the matter de novo in light of Safari Retreats and all other contentions raised by the petitioner. The reconsideration must be completed within three months, following due hearing and procedural compliance.
 

Specific Relief – Grant of Specific Performance – Discretion under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act – Pre-Amendment Position – Appellant contended that the court was bound to grant specific performance if statutory conditions were met – High Court clarified that under the unamended Section 20 of the Act, courts retained discretion in granting specific performance, exercised judiciously – Appeal dismissed as the respondent had no title in the property, precluding performance of the agreement [Paras 18-21].

Partial Specific Performance – Applicability of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act – Appellant argued for part performance regarding residual rights – High Court rejected the claim, stating that the respondent lacked ownership, making the agreement unenforceable – Section 12 inapplicable as no part of the agreement could be lawfully performed [Paras 26-28, 30-31].

Possession and Protection under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act – Appellant sought relief under Section 53-A, claiming possession as part performance of the contract – High Court held that Section 53-A provides only a defense against eviction and does not establish a basis for specific performance – Relief denied [Paras 22-24].

Limitation – Clause in Agreement Allowing Deed Execution on Demand – Suit filed in 2007 based on refusal by the respondent to perform the agreement – High Court held that the cause of action arose in 2007, making the suit within limitation – Appellant's delay in asserting rights did not bar the suit [Paras 10, 17].

Alternative Relief – Claim for Damages – High Court observed that the appellant did not seek damages as an alternative relief, despite possession of the property for three decades – Failure to pursue this claim rendered the discussion academic [Para 32].

Decision:

The appeal (F.A.T. No. 47 of 2018) was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017 by the Sixth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 3500 of 2007. No costs were awarded.

Bail Application – Conditions for Granting Bail to Foreign Nationals – The petitioner, a foreign national facing charges under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 174-A IPC, was granted regular bail. The Court imposed conditions including a personal bond of ₹50,000, surrendering her passport, and restrictions on leaving the Delhi NCR without permission. The petitioner was deemed not to pose a flight risk due to her cooperation and absence of any valid passport   Paras46,47.

Judicial Custody vs. Executive Detention – Separation of Powers – The Court clarified that granting bail relates only to judicial custody and cannot address executive detention under the Foreigners Act. Actions by the Central Government or the FRRO regarding visa violations are independent of the Court’s bail order and fall within the domain of executive powers  Paras34−41.

Foreigners Act – Sovereign Authority of the Central Government – While the petitioner argued against potential detention after release on bail, the Court held that the Central Government retains the power under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act to impose conditions, including detention, on foreign nationals violating visa rules. Judicial interference in such sovereign matters was deemed beyond the scope of bail proceedings Paras43−45.

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – The petitioner was granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including a ban on travel outside Delhi NCR, surrendering her passport, and providing sureties. The Court emphasized that the Central Government retains the authority to address visa violations and other immigration matters separately Paras46−49.