Adoption under Muslim Personal Law – Non-Recognition of Adoption – Petition dismissed – Petitioners, a Muslim couple, sought registration of an adoption deed under the Registration Act, 1908 – Court held that Mohammedan Law does not recognize adoption as a mode of filiation – Adoption, where valid, must adhere to regulations under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Adoption deed not compulsorily registerable under the Registration Act [Paras 11–18].

Registration of Adoption Deed – Lack of Legal Sanctity – Petition denied – Registration of adoption deed not recognized under any governing law – Held: Registration of such a deed does not confer legal validity or rights and is a futile exercise – Direction sought by petitioners cannot be granted [Paras 16–18].

Juvenile Justice Act – Enabling Provisions for Adoption – Applicability to Muslims – Adoption permissible under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, regardless of personal law – Court advised petitioners to pursue adoption under Adoption Regulations, 2017 [Paras 13–15, 19].

Directions to Registrar – Restraint on Registration – Circular to be Issued – Court directed the Inspector General of Registration to issue a circular restraining registration of adoption deeds unless mandated under governing enactments – Held: Registration authorities cannot register adoption deeds that bypass procedural mandates [Para 20].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners directed to comply with the Adoption Regulations, 2017, under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Inspector General of Registration instructed to issue a circular restraining registration of adoption deeds without adherence to respective enactments [Paras 19–20].

Eviction – Admission of Notice to Quit – Judgment on Admission Upheld – The Trial Court passed an eviction decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on the defendant’s written statement admitting receipt of a notice to quit dated January 17, 2019 – Held: The admission regarding receipt of notice was unambiguous, satisfying the conditions for granting eviction under Order XII Rule 6 – The Trial Court’s decree on this aspect was affirmed [Paras 8-10, 13].

Eviction and Arrear Rent – Segregability of Claims – Eviction Decree Modified – The Trial Court erred in postponing eviction till final adjudication of arrear rent claims – Held: Entitlement to arrear rent is independent of the right to eviction, and the plaintiff is not required to await adjudication of rent arrears to enforce the eviction decree – Immediate eviction ordered [Paras 20-21].

Effect of Subsequent Notice – Waiver of Prior Notice – Unfounded – The defendant argued waiver of a prior notice dated September 22, 2018 due to service of a subsequent notice dated January 17, 2019 – Held: While service of subsequent notice may imply waiver of earlier notice, the admitted receipt of the latter was sufficient for eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 14-16].

Decision:

FAT 194 of 2020 was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises.

FAT 191 of 2020 was allowed, modifying the Trial Court’s decree to direct immediate eviction without waiting for final adjudication of arrear rents.

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity and Statutory Compliance – Bail Granted – Petitioner was apprehended with 38 vials of intoxicant ONREX syrup and 250 Carisoprodol tablets, both falling under the category of commercial quantity – Court observed the absence of criminal antecedents and prolonged custody as factors warranting bail, while emphasizing the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act [Paras 16-20].

Statutory Provisions – Non-compliance Alleged – Prima Facie Analysis – Petitioner argued non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding recording of information prior to the search – The Court noted that procedural lapses, if any, would be determined during trial and do not preclude bail at this stage [Paras 11-13].

Clean Antecedents – Benefit of Prolonged Custody – Bail Granted – Petitioner demonstrated no prior criminal involvement – Noted that custody exceeded one year and further incarceration would cause irreparable harm without expediting justice [Paras 18-21].

Conditions Imposed – Protection of Evidence and Society – Bail granted with stringent conditions, including prohibition on tampering with evidence, cooperation with trial, and surrendering firearms to ensure public safety and fair trial progress [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The Court granted bail to the petitioner under strict conditions, emphasizing adherence to trial procedures and community safety measures. All pending applications were disposed of.

Service Law - Judicial Review in Departmental Inquiries – Limited Scope – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of termination and related orders, alleging non-consideration of evidence and bias – Court held that judicial review under Articles 226/227 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or interference unless proceedings are vitiated by perversity, procedural irregularities, or violation of natural justice [Paras 7-10].

Natural Justice – Adequacy of Opportunity – No Procedural Violations Found – The managing committee’s inquiry provided the petitioner adequate opportunity to present his case, including responding to the charge sheet and inquiry findings – Court found the inquiry conducted in compliance with established procedures [Paras 8-9].

Interference in Administrative Actions – Criteria for Review – Relying on precedents, the Court reiterated that interference is warranted only where findings are arbitrary, perverse, or influenced by extraneous considerations – Petition failed to meet these criteria [Paras 9-10].

Principles from Supreme Court Judgments – Applicability Reaffirmed – Referred to State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran to emphasize that adequacy and sufficiency of evidence are not grounds for interference unless findings are unsupported by any evidence [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the termination orders as being legally valid and procedurally sound, with no violation of principles of natural justice [Para 10].
 

Labour Law – ESI Act – Principal Employer Liability for Contract Workers – Petitioner contended that contract workers, engaged via petty contractors with no direct supervisory control by KSEB, should not be covered under the ESI Act – The Court highlighted that under Section 2(12), establishments employing more than 10 workers are covered, and principal employers bear responsibility for ensuring ESI contributions – Held: KSEB’s liability as principal employer includes contract workers engaged indirectly through contractors [Paras 14-20].

ESI Contribution Demands – Exemption for High Earners and Contract Workers – The petitioner argued exemption for employees earning above ₹21,000/month and claimed that ESI demands were incorrectly calculated based on exaggerated worker numbers – Held: Court found that ESI dues assessment must consider eligible employees and should re-evaluate worker count and wages under Section 45A; erroneous assessments warrant reconsideration [Paras 21-25].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Hearing and Fair Assessment – Noting discrepancies in assessments and lack of consultation, Court ordered a fresh determination of ESI liabilities after a hearing – Held: Demand notices quashed; respondents directed to reassess KSEB’s contributions following fair procedure [Paras 26-30].

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed in part. Demand notices (Exts.P4, P7, P9, and P10) are quashed. Respondents are directed to conduct a reassessment after giving the petitioner an opportunity for hearing.

Judicial Immunity – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – The petitioner argued that actions performed under Section 165 of the Land Revenue Code were judicial in nature, entitling him to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act – The Court noted that Additional Collectors are empowered to perform judicial functions per Section 17 of the Code – Held: Petitioner’s quasi-judicial actions fall within the ambit of “judge” under the Act, granting immunity from disciplinary proceedings based on such actions [Paras 5-12, 30-36].

Administrative Law – Competence of Additional Collector – The Court reviewed the petitioner’s authority to grant permissions under the work distribution order and found his exercise of powers as Additional Collector lawful – Prior High Court rulings confirmed that work distribution does not limit judicial functions to the Collector exclusively – Held: Petitioner’s authority under the work distribution order was valid, making the disciplinary action baseless [Paras 18-23].

Malafide Disciplinary Action – Impact on Career Advancement – The Court observed that initiating disciplinary proceedings after a prolonged delay, without findings of personal gain or misconduct, suggests malicious intent to impede petitioner’s promotion to IAS cadre – Held: Chargesheet quashed; proceedings deemed punitive and lacking in legal grounds [Paras 38-42].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The chargesheet dated 29.04.2019 and subsequent inquiry orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to IAS cadre, if otherwise eligible.

Right to Information Act – Disclosure of Candidate Marks – Petitioner, a candidate for Junior Clerk post, was denied information regarding marks obtained by other candidates on grounds of confidentiality under Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, and under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of RTI Act – Petitioner contended that public interest and transparency required disclosure of all candidates' marks – Held: Disclosure of marks obtained in a public recruitment process does not constitute an "unwarranted invasion of privacy" as it is related to a public activity – Disclosure justified by larger public interest, promoting transparency and accountability in recruitment process [Paras 5-7, 24-29, 35-38, 50-52, 54].

Confidentiality and Public Interest – Applicability of Rule 13(e) of Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules – Rule 13(e) exempts information affecting examination confidentiality – Court clarified that once an exam concludes, disclosure of marks does not affect confidentiality but rather enhances transparency – Prior disclosure by another district court (Wardha) found relevant though not binding, affirming transparency practices in public recruitment [Paras 43-46, 51-52].

Privacy Concerns – Section 8(1)(j) and Privacy – Marks in public exams not deemed personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) – Court distinguished between genuinely private information and information relevant to public recruitment – Found that disclosure serves public interest by ensuring recruitment fairness and transparency, which outweighs privacy concerns of individual candidates [Paras 25-28, 30-34].

Precedent Analysis – Supreme Court Precedent in Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal – Petitioner relied on Supreme Court’s clarification that disclosure of information related to public functions and transparency aligns with RTI Act objectives – Rationale of public interest and accountability reinforced need for disclosure in cases involving public selection process [Paras 31-37].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Orders denying petitioner access to other candidates' marks set aside – Direction issued to furnish marks obtained by candidates from serial nos. 1 to 363 in written/screening test, Marathi and English typing test, and interview within six weeks upon payment of prescribed costs – Promotes public confidence in recruitment process and aligns with RTI's goal of transparency [Paras 54-56].

Bail Application – Custodial Detention – Section 439 CrPC – Bail Granted - The petitioner sought bail, asserting prolonged detention and lack of specific evidence linking him to the alleged offences of wrongful confinement, assault, and murder – The State opposed bail, citing witness statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the chargesheet naming eight accused, including the petitioner – The Court noted that despite completed investigation, the petitioner’s specific involvement was unclear, and extended detention was unjustified given the remote likelihood of early trial commencement – Held: Petitioner granted bail with conditions to avoid tampering with evidence or witness intimidation [Paras 1-3].

Conditions of Bail – Appearance and Conduct – Compliance Mandated - The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including restriction from entering the jurisdiction of the Nagrakata Police Station, regular reporting to the local police, and a warning that any breach would enable the trial court to cancel bail without further reference – Held: Bail conditional on compliance to ensure fair trial proceedings [Paras 4-5].

Decision: The bail application is allowed, subject to a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, one local. The petitioner must adhere to stipulated conditions, including staying outside Nagrakata Police Station limits and regular reporting, to retain bail.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Breach of Trust – Prima Facie Case for Summons – Petitioner challenged the order setting aside summons issued against Educomp and associates for alleged fraud and misrepresentation in a joint venture – Court found that allegations involved a contractual dispute lacking evidence of fraudulent intent at inception, dismissing claims under Sections 420, 406 IPC – Held: Mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless deceitful intent exists from the start, as required for offenses under Section 420 IPC [Paras 8-12, 24-28].

Civil vs. Criminal Liability – Contractual Disputes and Penal Provisions – The Court emphasized that allegations arising solely from contract performance disputes should proceed through civil channels, with criminal liability reserved for clear deceit or misrepresentation – Relying on precedents, the Court stressed that invoking criminal process to resolve civil disputes constitutes abuse of law – Held: Civil remedies sufficient; penal proceedings inappropriate for the presented allegations [Paras 30-33].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The Court upheld the Sessions Court’s order quashing the summoning order, concluding the dispute was civil and did not justify criminal proceedings.