Service Law – Appointment as Aanganwadi Worker – Eligibility for BPL Bonus Marks – Petitioner’s appointment was annulled by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, on the ground that she erroneously received 10 bonus marks for BPL Category – The petitioner relied on a BPL card issued in the name of her co-sister (Jethani), which was later found to contain overwriting – Held: BPL status must be proved by documents prior to the advertisement date, and the petitioner failed to establish eligibility at the relevant time – No interference warranted [Paras 10-16].

Service Law – BPL Category Proof – Acceptable Documents – As per guidelines dated 10.07.2007, an applicant must establish BPL status through (i) BPL Survey List, (ii) BPL Ration Card issued in the name of husband, father, or father-in-law, or (iii) certificate issued by SDM/Tahsildar – The petitioner’s reliance on a co-sister’s BPL card was not acceptable evidence under the guidelines – Held: Petitioner not entitled to bonus marks based on such a document [Paras 11-12].

Administrative Law – Overwriting in BPL Card – Credibility of Documents – The Scrutiny Committee initially denied BPL status to the petitioner due to overwriting in the BPL card – The Commissioner found that the modifications were suspicious and lacked official authentication – Held: Documentary manipulation cannot be the basis for claiming bonus marks [Paras 4-5].

Administrative Law – Validity of Documents Issued After Advertisement – As per Sunita Yadav (supra), documents generated after the advertisement date (06.10.2016) cannot be considered – The petitioner’s Samagra ID was updated post-advertisement (on 17.10.2016), making it ineligible for proving BPL status – Held: Selection committee correctly disqualified petitioner [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The order of the Commissioner, Rewa Division, is upheld – Petitioner not eligible for BPL bonus marks – Writ petition dismissed [Para 17].
 

Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Deemed Acceptance Under Rule 56(k), FRs – The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules, fulfilling all required conditions, but received no response from the respondents—Held: Rule 56(k) creates a right to voluntary retirement upon fulfilling the prescribed conditions, and if the employer does not reject or withhold permission before the expiry of the notice period, retirement is deemed to be effective—Employer's failure to communicate a decision results in deemed acceptance of retirement w.e.f. 17.04.2024—Petitioner entitled to all retiral benefits [Paras 11-15].

Withholding of Voluntary Retirement – Grounds under Rule 56(k) – Compliance Requirement – Respondents contended that a complaint of corruption and a Court of Inquiry (COI) were pending against the petitioner, justifying non-processing of his voluntary retirement request—Held: Proviso (c) to Rule 56(k) provides specific grounds to withhold retirement, such as suspension, pending charge sheet, or judicial proceedings—No charge sheet or formal disciplinary inquiry was pending against the petitioner—Respondents failed to communicate any decision withholding permission—Petitioner’s retirement could not be withheld merely based on an unverified complaint or COI [Paras 12-16].

Employer's Duty to Communicate Decision – Legal Consequences of Non-Communication – The employer is required to issue a written order withholding voluntary retirement within the notice period—Held: Failure to issue such an order results in automatic acceptance of retirement—Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions clarifying that voluntary retirement under similar statutory provisions is deemed effective upon expiry of the notice period unless a specific rejection order is issued [Paras 13-15].

Pensionary and Retiral Benefits – Right of the Retiring Employee – Since the petitioner is deemed to have retired from 17.04.2024, he is entitled to receive all pensionary and retiral benefits—Held: Respondents directed to process and release the petitioner’s pension and other retiral benefits within two months from the date of this order—Writ petition allowed with directions for compliance [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner deemed to have retired from 17.04.2024 – Respondents directed to release all pensionary and retiral benefits within two months – No costs awarded [Paras 17-19].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Adequacy of Awarded Amount – Financial Capacity of Husband – Petitioner-wife challenged the maintenance awarded by the Family Court on the ground that the husband earns more than ₹20,00,000 per month from multiple businesses, while she has no independent income—Held: The respondent-husband had suppressed his actual income and financial holdings—Court relied on admitted facts regarding husband's substantial income and determined that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was insufficient—Maintenance increased to ₹32,000 per month, as earlier awarded under Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 10-12, 28-30].

Standard of Living – Maintenance Based on Status – Wife contended that her husband owns multiple hotels and businesses and sought ₹2,00,000 per month to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with his earnings—Held: Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, considering financial capacity, income, standard of living, and reasonable expenses—Court modified the maintenance amount to ₹32,000 per month, finding it just and reasonable at this stage [Paras 16-17, 31].

Multiple Maintenance Proceedings – Adjustment of Amounts – Wife had been awarded maintenance under various legal proceedings, including under the Domestic Violence Act and Hindu Marriage Act—Held: All maintenance amounts are to be adjusted against each other to prevent double payment—Husband directed to continue paying ₹32,000 per month as ordered under matrimonial proceedings, which was upheld in previous revisions [Paras 20-22, 33].

Suppression of Income – Non-Disclosure by Husband – Husband initially claimed he earned only ₹18,000 per month but later admitted to owning shares in multiple companies and hotels—Held: Failure to disclose actual income in maintenance proceedings amounts to suppression—Court relied on cross-examination to conclude that the husband had significantly higher earnings—Husband obligated to pay fair maintenance based on true financial capacity [Paras 28-30].

Timely Payment – Arrears to be Cleared – Husband directed to clear all arrears within six months either in lump sum or installments—Future payments to be made regularly by the 15th of each month—Non-compliance may lead to legal consequences [Paras 33-34].

Decision: Maintenance enhanced to ₹32,000 per month – Adjustment with amounts awarded in other proceedings – Arrears to be cleared within six months – Family Court order modified to this extent [Paras 30-34].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment – Issuance of Notice to a Non-Existent Company – Violation of Legal Principles – Petitioner challenged notices under Section 148 issued by the Income Tax Department to Amanora Future Towers Pvt. Ltd. (AFTPL), which had ceased to exist post-merger with City Corporation Limited (CCL) under an NCLT order—Held: The issuance of reassessment notices to a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect, rendering the notices void ab initio—Reliance placed on PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC)—Respondents' argument that the issuance was a "technical glitch" is untenable—Notices quashed [Paras 8-17].

Jurisdictional Defect – Effect of Prior Knowledge by Tax Department – Estoppel Not Applicable – Revenue was informed on 27/08/2020 of the merger, effective from 01/04/2018, and endorsed this communication—Despite this, notices were issued in 2023 to AFTPL, a non-existent company—Held: Revenue cannot claim ignorance of the merger—The defect cannot be cured under Section 292B as it is a substantive illegality, not a procedural lapse—Participation of the merged entity in proceedings does not validate an illegal notice—Reliance placed on Uber India Systems (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, (2023) 150 taxmann.com 195 (Bom HC) and Alok Knit Exports Ltd. v. DCIT, (2023) 149 taxmann.com 387 (Bom HC) [Paras 13-19].

Failure of Tax Department’s Utility System – Cannot Justify a Non-Est Notice – Revenue attributed the error to a system-generated technical glitch, leading to notices being issued in the name of AFTPL instead of CCL—Held: This does not absolve the department of its responsibility—Revenue’s request to "treat the notice as issued to the correct entity" is rejected—Court refuses to validate fundamental errors on the ground of system inefficiencies [Paras 20-24].

Distinction Between Skylight Hospitality LLP and Present Case – Revenue relied on Skylight Hospitality LLP v. ACIT, (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Del HC) where the court upheld a notice issued to a merged entity due to a clerical mistake—Held: Maruti Suzuki (SC) distinguished Skylight as a case based on peculiar facts—In the present case, notice was issued despite full knowledge of the merger, unlike in Skylight, where the mistake was rectifiable—Anokhi Realty (P) Ltd. v. ITO, (2023) 153 taxmann.com 275 (Guj HC), Adani Wilmar Ltd. v. ACIT, (2023) 150 taxmann.com 178 (Guj HC), and PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd., (2023) 150 taxmann.com 449 (Del HC) reaffirmed this distinction [Paras 25-28].

Reassessment Proceedings – Revenue Not Precluded from Issuing Fresh Notice – While quashing the impugned notices, Court clarified that Revenue is not barred from initiating reassessment proceedings against CCL, provided they comply with statutory requirements and limitations—All contentions regarding reassessment left open [Para 30].

Decision: Impugned notices under Section 148, Income Tax Act, 1961, quashed and set aside as issued to a non-existent entity—Revenue directed to act in accordance with law—Rule made absolute.
 

Civil Law - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment of Pleadings – Post-Trial Amendment – Due Diligence Requirement – Plaintiffs sought amendment after trial commenced, contending that they discovered fraud in a prior decree only when documents were marked in another suit—Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish due diligence as the defendants had disclosed all relevant documents in their written statement filed in 2017—Amendment impermissible under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Paras 15-16].

Fraud Allegation in Pending Suit – Change of Cause of Action – Amendment sought to challenge the binding nature of a decree in O.S. No. 44 of 1984 on grounds of fraud—Held: The proposed amendment introduced a new dimension and changed the nature of the suit—Allowing such an amendment would prejudice the defendants and cannot be permitted under law [Paras 17, 19].

Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents on Amendments – Court referred to Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022) regarding conditions under which amendments can be allowed—Held: The amendment failed to satisfy the conditions as it raised a time-barred claim, changed the nature of the suit, and was sought belatedly without due diligence [Para 18].

Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Trial court’s rejection of amendment found to be proper—Held: No illegality or irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution—Civil Revision Petition dismissed [Para 20].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Trial Court’s rejection of amendment upheld – Amendment held impermissible due to lack of due diligence and introduction of a new cause of action [Paras 20-21].
 

Live-in Relationship – Right to Protection – Article 21 of the Constitution – Legal Recognition – Petitioners in live-in relationships approached the court for protection of life and liberty, citing threats from family members and society—Held: Live-in relationships are not illegal, as recognized in multiple Supreme Court judgments (S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma)—Right to live with a partner of choice falls under the ambit of Article 21—However, the law does not explicitly recognize such relationships—Need for statutory regulation and legislative intervention emphasized [Paras 4-7].

Legal Framework for Live-in Relationships – Need for Uniform Law – Role of State and Legislature – While courts have upheld constitutional rights in live-in relationships, lack of specific legislation leads to inconsistencies in judicial decisions—Noting the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code, 2024, the court urged Parliament and State Legislatures to enact a uniform law—Until such legislation is passed, competent authorities should be designated for live-in relationship registration and handling related disputes [Paras 13-20].

Conflicting High Court Decisions – Reference to a Special Bench – Co-ordinate benches of the Rajasthan High Court have delivered contradictory judgments on whether married individuals, without divorce, can seek protection in a live-in relationship—Some benches have granted protection, while others have denied it, citing immorality and public policy—Held: Judicial discipline requires that the matter be referred to a Special Bench for uniformity in precedent—Question framed for Special Bench:

"Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage, and/or whether two married persons with different spouses living in a live-in relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to protection orders from the Court?" [Paras 36-42].

Decision: Matter referred to a Special Bench for authoritative decision on live-in relationships involving married individuals—Chief Justice directed to constitute a Special Bench to settle the conflicting judgments.

FEMA – Omission of Section 6(3)(b) – Impact on Pending Proceedings – The petitioners argued that Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA was omitted by the Finance Act, 2015, and thus, no proceedings could be initiated for alleged violations under this section – Held: Omission of a statutory provision is equivalent to repeal, attracting the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act – Proceedings initiated for past violations under Section 6(3)(b) remain valid despite its subsequent omission [Paras 18-23].

Show Cause Notice – Delay in Issuance – Reasonableness of Time – Petitioners contended that the impugned notice was issued after an unreasonable delay of nearly 10 years – Held: Though FEMA does not prescribe a limitation period for initiating adjudication, proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time – Determination of what constitutes a "reasonable time" depends on the facts and circumstances and is within the adjudicating authority’s jurisdiction – No interference warranted at the show cause notice stage [Paras 31-36].

Natural Justice – Allegation of Bias in Adjudicating Authority – Petitioners argued that the Special Director had already made up his mind as the Enforcement Directorate had filed a counter-affidavit supporting the allegations – Held: The counter-affidavit was filed by a subordinate officer and not the adjudicating authority – Mere filing of a counter does not establish bias – Adjudication remains open for explanation and appeal, ensuring due process [Paras 24-27].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Petitioners challenged the show cause notice directly before the High Court, bypassing statutory appeal remedies – Held: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy is available, except in cases of fundamental rights violation, lack of jurisdiction, or breach of natural justice – Petitioners had the right to appeal under Sections 19 and 35 of FEMA – Writ petition dismissed on grounds of alternative remedy [Paras 12-15, 28-30].

Decision: The writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file their objections before the adjudicating authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order – The adjudicating authority shall consider the objections in accordance with law – No costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 39].
 

Bail – Offences Under BNS & JJ Act – Principles for Granting Bail – Petitioner accused of kidnapping a 15-year-old girl, taking her to different locations, and intoxicating her—Prosecution contended that petitioner was involved in an NDPS Act offence—Held: The only non-bailable offence alleged is Section 77 of the JJ Act, which carries a maximum punishment of 7 years—Considering Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, mere severity of allegations cannot justify continued detention without fulfilling the conditions required for arrest [Paras 3-6].

Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception – Right to Liberty Under Article 21 – The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 16 SCALE 870, reaffirmed that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment—Held: Courts should not hesitate to grant bail when statutory conditions are met—Petitioner in custody since 22.12.2024, no allegations of sexual assault, hence bail granted with conditions [Paras 8-9].

Conditions for Grant of Bail – Preventing Tampering & Flight Risk – Bail granted subject to:
(i) Execution of a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties.
(ii) Petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer as required.
(iii) No direct or indirect inducement to witnesses.
(iv) Travel restrictions – Petitioner not to leave India without permission.
(v) No commission of similar offences during bail period.
(vi) Prosecution and victim can move for cancellation if bail conditions are violated [Para 11].

Decision:
Bail granted with stringent conditions – Continued detention not justified – Petitioner to cooperate with investigation and adhere to conditions imposed by the Court [Para 11].
 

Limitation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Appeals filed after 33 years – Barred by limitation – Appeals against ORCs issued in 1981 and 1991 were filed in 2013 after an abnormal delay of 22 and 33 years – The appellate authority has discretionary power to condone the delay, but the respondents neither filed an application for condonation nor provided a reasonable explanation for the delay – Held: The appeals were barred by limitation, and the orders of the Additional Collector setting aside the ORCs were unsustainable [Paras 14-18].

Fraud – Pleading and Proof – Mere Allegation Insufficient – Burden on the Alleging Party – The respondents contended that the ORCs were obtained fraudulently without notice – However, fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved – No such pleading was made in the appeal, nor was any evidence led to establish fraud – Held: The order setting aside the ORCs based on fraud was erroneous as the respondents failed to prove their claim [Paras 19-22].

Res Judicata – Prior Civil Suit and Appeal – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondents had earlier filed a suit (O.S. No. 34/2004) for declaration and possession, which was dismissed on 31.12.2012 – Thereafter, they challenged the ORCs through appeals in 2013 – Having failed to succeed in the suit, they could not re-agitate the issue before the Revenue Authority – Held: The appeal against the ORCs was an attempt to circumvent the civil court's decision and amounted to an abuse of process [Paras 23-26].

Protected Tenancy – Rights of Legal Heirs – Section 40 of the Tenancy Act – The respondents claimed rights as legal heirs of a protected tenant – However, they failed to prove possession on the date of vesting (01.11.1973), which is a prerequisite for granting ORCs – The petitioners, on the other hand, established continuous possession – Held: The petitioners' ORCs were valid, and the respondents failed to establish any claim over the subject land [Paras 27-30].

Doctrine of Election – Approbate and Reprobate – Withdrawal of Suit and Subsequent Appeal on the Same Grounds Not Permissible – The respondents had withdrawn their suit against the petitioners in 2011, acknowledging the ORCs – Thereafter, they challenged the ORCs in appeal – Held: A party cannot accept a benefit under a proceeding and later challenge the same – The appeal was not maintainable [Paras 31-33].

Judicial Review – Quasi-Judicial Orders – Revenue Authorities Bound by Law of Limitation – The Additional Collector exercised jurisdiction without considering the bar of limitation and without proper appreciation of the facts – Held: The impugned order was liable to be set aside as being perverse and in violation of settled legal principles [Paras 34-36].

Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The orders of the Additional Collector setting aside the ORCs were quashed. Liberty was granted to the parties to raise their contentions in A.S. No. 7 of 2019 pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.