Passport Application – Rejection on Grounds of Family’s Criminal Antecedents – Fundamental Rights Violated - The Court examined the rejection of passport applications on the ground of criminal records of the petitioner’s husband and father-in-law – Held: Criminal antecedents of family members cannot influence assessment of the petitioner’s character or eligibility for issuance of a passport. Respondents directed to reassess the applications based solely on the petitioner’s character [Paras 13-14].

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Fresh Application Ordered in W.P. No. 10154/2021 – Repeated Rejection on Same Grounds - Respondents were previously directed to disregard grounds of earlier rejection in fresh assessments. Non-compliance with this direction led to rejection on identical grounds – Held: Such non-compliance amounts to a cavalier approach, warranting quashing of the impugned orders [Paras 12-13].

Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – Fundamental Rights – The petitioner enjoys the same fundamental rights as other citizens, and extraneous considerations based on family connections infringe upon her constitutional rights – Held: Reassessment ordered, and if eligible, the passport must be issued without delay [Para 14].

Decision:

The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the passport applications are quashed. Respondents are directed to reassess the applications within four weeks, solely on the petitioner’s character, and issue the passport within six weeks if found eligible.

Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Medical Grounds and Lack of Notice from Counsel – Petitioners sought condonation of delay, citing medical complications following knee surgery of petitioner No. 1 and lack of communication from counsel – Court noted medical records substantiating the health issues and lack of timely notification as valid reasons for delay – Held: Technicalities should not hinder substantive justice; delay condoned, appeal to be decided on merits [Paras 5-8].

Compensation for Delay – Undertaking to Avoid Further Adjournments – Petitioners compensated respondent with ₹50,000 for the delay – They further undertook not to seek adjournments in the appellate proceedings, ensuring no further delay – Held: Compensation and undertaking considered sufficient; appeal remanded for expeditious disposal [Para 10].

Decision: The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.09.2024 is set aside, and the First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits, ensuring prompt disposal.

Customs Act – Show Cause Notice – Limitation under Section 28(9) – The appellant argued that the adjudication proceedings initiated under Show Cause Notice dated 28/09/2022 were barred by limitation as per Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings had to be concluded by 27/09/2023, and the extension granted on 07/05/2024 was belated and invalid. – Held: The limitation period under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act can only be extended after the expiry of the initial limitation period. In this case, the extension was validly granted by a senior officer under the proviso to Section 28(9) before the final expiry. The proceedings were not barred by limitation. [Paras 24–28, 47–49].

Failure to Adjudicate within Time – Abatement of Proceedings – Under the second proviso to Section 28(9), if proceedings are not concluded within the extended period, the show cause notice is deemed to have abated. – Held: The time taken before various forums, including this Court, stands excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act. The adjudicating officer is now required to conclude proceedings within the remaining extended period. [Paras 58–59].

Customs – Procedural Irregularities – Disciplinary Action – The Customs Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against two officers for lapses that delayed adjudication. However, the Court observed signs of systemic fraud and complicity among senior officers. – Held: The Customs Department is directed to conduct a comprehensive vigilance probe and initiate disciplinary and anti-corruption proceedings against all officers involved. A status report is to be filed within six months. [Paras 57, 61–62].

Cross-Examination in Customs Proceedings – Premature Request – The appellant requested cross-examination of witnesses without submitting a reply to the show cause notice. – Held: Applications for cross-examination should only be entertained after submission of a reply on merits in customs proceedings. [Para 60].

Jurisdiction of CESTAT – Appeal Against Improper Officer’s Order – The appeal to CESTAT against the Deputy Commissioner of Customs’ rejection of cross-examination was entertained erroneously as the officer was not competent to adjudicate the show cause notice. – Held: The CESTAT’s interim order allowing cross-examination was without jurisdiction and a nullity. [Paras 39–41].

Decision: The High Court upheld the validity of the extended adjudication period under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act. It dismissed the appeal and emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards, including timely adjudication and proper oversight within the Customs Department. The Court also directed a vigilance probe to address systemic lapses and ensure accountability among officials.
 

Matrimonial Law – D.V. Act - Interim Maintenance – Modification by Appellate Court – Quantum Justified Under Beneficial Legislation – The petitioner challenged the award of ₹5,000 per month as interim maintenance to his estranged spouse under Section 23 of the D.V. Act, arguing that the couple had been separated since 2003, and no recent domestic violence had occurred. The appellate court, however, modified the original order to include this maintenance amount, recognizing the relief as essential under the beneficial nature of the D.V. Act – Held: The award of interim maintenance is within the discretion of the appellate court to provide interim relief in alignment with the Act’s protective intent, warranting no interference [Paras 5-8].

Separation Period and Eligibility for Relief – Applicability of D.V. Act Provisions – Despite the prolonged separation, the appellate court’s provision of interim maintenance reflects the ongoing protective scope of the D.V. Act, ensuring minimal sustenance for the aggrieved party until final resolution. The court noted that the statute’s objective extends to providing interim relief for financial security, regardless of the period of separation [Paras 7-9].

Expedited Trial Directive – Conclusion Within 6 Months – In disposing of the revision, the court directed that the trial court expedite the conclusion of Misc. Case No. 65 of 2018 within six months from this order, thereby ensuring timely finality in line with the D.V. Act’s objective [Para 10].

Revision petition disposed of; interim maintenance upheld. Trial court instructed to expedite case resolution within six months, uninfluenced by appellate findings.

Decision: CRR 38 of 2022 dismissed, upholding interim maintenance of ₹5,000 as ordered by the appellate court.

NDPS  – Bail Application for Intermediate Quantity Offense – Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 – Sole accused in Crime No. 578/2024 sought bail after five months in custody, with contraband recovery already made and investigation completed – Prosecution alleged prior criminal involvement and argued against bail, citing risk of reoffending – Court considered the intermediate nature of contraband quantity, completion of investigation, and time in custody – Held: Intermediate quantity does not invoke the stringent Section 37 NDPS Act requirements; bail granted due to investigation completion and no compelling reason for continued detention [Paras 1, 5, 6, 8].

Prior Criminal Record – Insufficient to Deny Bail in Intermediate Quantity NDPS Cases – Prosecution cited petitioner’s antecedents to oppose bail, but Court emphasized that previous accusations alone cannot justify denial without concrete evidence of risk to public safety – Held: Previous record insufficient for denying bail in absence of aggravating factors, with conditions imposed to mitigate potential risks [Paras 7, 8].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner to be released on bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions: regular court appearances, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, prohibition from committing any offense, passport surrender, and compliance with all bail conditions – Jurisdictional court authorized to revoke bail upon condition violation [Para 8].

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Applicability in Appellate Court – The appellants contended that the appellate court’s decree, allowing the plaintiffs’ cross-objection for Plots Nos. 544 and 545, violated res judicata since the prior ruling in RFA No.16/2004 dismissed claims over these plots without further challenge – Held: The issue had been conclusively determined, thus the appellate court lacked authority to re-adjudicate on these plots due to res judicata under Section 11 of CPC [Paras 18-24].

Cross-Objection Filing – Appellate Procedure – The respondents argued that a single appeal challenging both the main decree and cross-objection decrees was permissible under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC – Held: A combined challenge against both the primary and cross-objection decrees is legally permissible, negating the need for separate appeals in such cases [Paras 25-28].

Adverse Possession – Defendants' Claim Over Suit Property – Defendants asserted adverse possession over Plot No.369/2169 and disputed plaintiffs’ title based on long-standing possession – Held: Defendants failed to demonstrate continuous, hostile possession as required under law; concurrent findings of title and possession in favor of plaintiffs upheld as based on credible evidence and legal standards [Paras 31-35].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Appellate Review Limitations – Appellants sought re-evaluation of factual findings concerning Plot No.369/2169 – Held: Concurrent factual findings by trial and appellate courts are typically immune from second appellate scrutiny unless shown to be perverse or legally untenable, which was not established in this case [Paras 36-38].

Final Decision – The appeal was partially allowed – The appellate decree in favor of plaintiffs over Plots Nos. 544 and 545 was set aside, while the decree over Plot No.369/2169 was confirmed [Conclusion].

Service Law – Financial and Pensionary Benefits – Work Charge Employee – Entitlement to Pension and ACP – Petitioner sought financial and pensionary benefits, claiming that her deceased husband’s services should be regularized from 2003, making her eligible for benefits like ACP, medical allowance, leave encashment, LTC, etc. – The Court held that as a work charge employee, the deceased was not entitled to benefits available to regular employees, as neither the ACP nor LTC applied to work charge employees without regular service status – Held: Family pension not permissible as per policy; the request for benefits dismissed due to non-applicability of cited benefits to work charge cadre [Paras 6-16].

Administrative Law – Scope of Judicial Review – Delay and Procedural Non-Compliance – The petitioner’s claim, made several years post her husband's demise, was dismissed as it failed to establish valid grounds for delayed claim; delay and procedural grounds further barred entitlement – Held: Writ relief unavailable due to excessive delay and failure to meet eligibility requirements [Paras 7, 10].

Decision: Petition dismissed. Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the petitioner was ineligible for the claimed benefits under applicable rules for work charge employees and due to procedural deficiencies.
 

Labour Law - Scope of the BOCW Act – Statutory Welfare Measures – Model Code of Conduct Implications – The Petition impugned a Circular dated 17 October 2023 issued by the Maharashtra Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, which suspended registrations, renewals, and other welfare measures for construction workers based on the Model Code of Conduct for elections – Held: The Model Code of Conduct does not impede pre-existing statutory welfare measures – Suspension of registration and renewals was not justified as these are ongoing statutory activities under the BOCW Act, unrelated to election influence [Paras 5-12, 17-21].

Implementation of Welfare Schemes – Continuation of Statutory Benefits – The Court held that the suspended welfare activities such as registrations, renewals, and disbursal of benefits under pre-existing schemes should continue without interference from the Model Code of Conduct – The Model Code is intended to prevent election-influencing activities but does not cover statutory entitlements – Suspension quashed; welfare activities directed to resume immediately [Paras 23-27, 29-33].

Decision – Quashing of Circular – The Circular dated 17 October 2023 was declared void and ultra vires the BOCW Act – The Court directed the Respondents to restore the registration process and resume disbursal of benefits under the existing welfare schemes without political influence or promotional events, while prohibiting any introduction of new schemes or benefits during the election period [Paras 35-39].
 

Electricity Law – Privatization of U.T. Chandigarh Electricity Wing – Validity of Bidding Process – The petitioners challenged the privatization process of the U.T. Chandigarh Electricity Wing, alleging that the transfer scheme under Section 131 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was neither finalized nor approved before the issuance of bids, and that no company was incorporated to undertake the functions prior to bidding – Held: The Court found that Section 131 does not necessitate a finalized transfer scheme before bids are issued; the transfer scheme is only required after identifying the transferee – The Court emphasized statutory interpretation should avoid assumptions absent express language [Paras 1.1, 1.3, 3.1].

Employee Rights – Continuity of Employment Terms Post-Privatization – Petitioners contended that privatization could adversely affect employment conditions of the U.T. Electricity Department employees – Held: Section 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003, protects employees by ensuring no change in service terms post-transfer – The Court confirmed employees’ conditions would not be negatively affected under the transfer scheme [Paras 2.2, 3.6].

Policy Decision – Scope of Judicial Review in Economic Matters – The petitioners argued for judicial intervention on policy grounds, claiming that privatization was unnecessary and contrary to the public interest – The Court, citing Supreme Court precedent, ruled that judicial review of economic policy decisions is limited unless there is clear violation of statutory or constitutional limits – Policy decisions, especially in economic reforms, involve complex considerations beyond judicial purview [Paras 3.7, 4].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The Court dismissed the petitions, finding that the process followed was legally compliant, and that policy decisions regarding privatization were within the executive's domain, thus beyond judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary or illegal [Para 4].