Criminal Revision – Maintainability Without Surrender – Permissible – Petitioner convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI challenged concurrent findings of guilt without surrendering – Held: In absence of specific High Court Rule mandating surrender, revision petition and application for suspension of sentence are maintainable even if convict has not surrendered – Rule of law does not permit judiciary to create procedural fetters where legislature is silent [Paras 9-12].

Suspension of Sentence – Discretionary Relief – Not Automatic – Although revision maintainable without surrender, Court clarified suspension of sentence is not a matter of right – Desirability depends on petitioner’s conduct, bona fides, and explanation for absence – Mere maintainability does not guarantee relief – Such petitions must pass test of judicial discretion [Paras 11-12, 14].

Judicial Discipline – Evading Process of Law – Court’s Discretion Critical – High Court emphasized distinction between “maintainability” and “entertainability” – A convict’s evasion or deliberate non-appearance to receive appellate judgment weakens case for suspension of sentence – Held: Admission of such petitions must not reward defiance or disrespect of judicial process [Paras 11-12].

Medical Grounds – Conditional Relief Granted – Petitioner claimed absence due to heart-related medical issues – Court accepted explanation and granted time to surrender – Directed petitioner to surrender before Trial Court by 18.08.2025 – Failure would authorize coercive steps – Petition to be listed thereafter for further hearing [Paras 13-14].

Final Directions – Time Granted to Surrender – Revision Petition Maintainable – Court allowed application seeking time to surrender and directed petitioner to do so by stipulated date – Matter to be listed for hearing on merits thereafter – No stay on sentence at this stage [Para 14].

Civil Writ - PIL - Solid Waste Processing – Prayer for Shifting Refused – Compliance with SWM Rules, 2016 Upheld – Petitioners sought direction to relocate waste processing activities of PCB and PMC at Hadapsar Industrial Estate, alleging pollution, foul odour, health hazards, and violation of previous governmental directions – Held: Processing facilities at the site are in accordance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and the State Government’s order dated 11.09.2018 – No mandatory order exists to shift or close processing at the current site – Petitioners’ reliance on direction for exploration of alternative site held only recommendatory, not binding – Shifting of all waste processing outside city limits not feasible for urban agglomerations like Pune – Existing facilities to continue with safeguards [Paras 21, 44-47, 55-56, 60-61].

Interpretation of State and Court Directions – Secretary, UDD’s Order of 11.09.2018 – Suitability for Waste Processing – After expert review and site visit, Secretary, UDD held the entire 28-acre land suitable for solid waste processing but prohibited further open dumping of mixed waste – Scientific processing, composting, bio-mining, and capping of legacy waste mandated – Direction to “look for alternative site” held as long-term recommendation, not as immediate order for relocation – Mere non-implementation of exploratory direction does not vitiate ongoing authorized operations [Paras 41-44, 45, 55-56].

Legal Duties of Local Bodies – Waste Management within City Limits – Under Rule 11(f) & Rule 15 of SWM Rules, 2016, local bodies must establish waste processing/disposal facilities for each area of 20 sq. km – Complete removal of all such facilities from city limits neither practical nor required under law – Mandate is to ensure scientific processing, compliance with environmental safeguards, and avoidance of mixed waste dumping – Individual inconvenience or ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome cannot override statutory duty for citywide waste management [Paras 29-31, 45-47].

Role of Pollution Control Board and Oversight – Authorization and Monitoring by MPCB – Facility authorized by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) with compliance to SWM Rules, 2016 – MPCB to monitor strict adherence to conditions, and to take legal action in case of any violation – No challenge to MPCB authorization in current petitions – Ongoing operation of facility remains subject to continuous regulatory compliance [Paras 33, 40, 57, 61(v)].

Joint Use by PCB and PMC – Validity of Collaboration – No legal bar against PCB and PMC jointly using the Hadapsar site for waste processing – Site within PMC limits but under PCB control; mutual arrangement to treat waste from both authorities found legal and longstanding – Petitioners’ objection to joint use rejected [Paras 53-54].

Safeguards and Environmental Protections – Directions to Minimize Health Impact – Both PCB and PMC directed to strictly prevent dumping of mixed waste and to ensure scientific processing, composting, and proper disposal of residual waste – Both bodies must adopt all feasible modern measures (including odour/dust suppression, enclosure, fogging/misting, increased boundary wall, etc.) to protect public health and minimize nuisance – Court issues further directions for compliance with SWM Rules, 2016 and State Government’s order dated 11.09.2018 [Paras 48-52, 59-61].

Decision – Relief for Shifting Facility Rejected – Both writ petitions and PIL dismissed – Prayer for shifting the waste processing facility from Hadapsar Industrial Estate to an alternate site refused – Directions issued for scientific and compliant management of facility, with liberty to PCB/PMC to seek more land if needed [Paras 60-62].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Executability of Eviction Decree – Multinational Company Sub-lessee – Jurisdiction Upheld – The petitioner, a multinational company, challenged the execution of eviction decrees on the ground that premises were exempt under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Held: The exemption is qua the premises let or sub-let lawfully – In the absence of lawful subletting, and where tenancy was terminated due to non-user and subletting by original tenant, the Small Causes Court retained jurisdiction – Executing Court rightly refused to declare decree null and void [Paras 6.4, 6.8, 31-35, 38-39].

Execution – Scope of Challenge – Nullity of Decree – Limited Grounds – The Court reiterated that executing courts can declare a decree null and void only when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction – Held: In this case, decree was passed by a court having jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters – Petitioner is barred from changing stance post-decree execution proceedings – No inherent lack of jurisdiction found [Paras 16-18, 39-40].

Tenant and Sub-tenant – Contradictory Stand – Estoppel – Petitioner Denied Protection Under Rent Act, Then Claimed Exemption – Not Permissible – Before the Trial Court, the petitioner had denied being in exclusive possession and claimed protection under the Rent Act – Later, in execution proceedings, sought to argue that the Act does not apply – Held: Petitioner estopped from raising contrary plea at belated stage – Such volte-face undermines judicial process [Paras 11, 33-34].

Interpretation – Exemption Under Section 3(1)(b) – Applies to Lawfully Let or Sub-let Premises – Cannot Be Used to Circumvent Rent Act – Held: Section 3(1)(b) applies only to premises let or sub-let lawfully – Allowing unlawful subletting to invoke exemption would render protections of the Rent Act meaningless – Such interpretation rejected [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Executing Court Order Sustained – Writ Petitions dismissed – No interference warranted with orders upholding decree and possession warrants – Rule discharged with no order as to costs [Paras 41-42].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 13(2), Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act - Section 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act - Cow Slaughter Allegations – Habitual Offender – Bail Denied – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR alleging transport of cows for slaughter in contravention of Haryana Cow Protection laws – Petitioner was apprehended at the spot, and cows were found tied in cruel conditions – Held: Seriousness of offence, moral implications, and criminal antecedents disqualify petitioner from discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Judicial Discretion – Anticipatory Bail Not Sanctuary for Repeat Offenders – Court stressed anticipatory bail is a protective remedy, not meant to shield habitual offenders – Past bail in three similar FIRs misused by petitioner – Supreme Court’s dictum in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) relied upon to deny relief where prior conduct showed disrespect for judicial leniency.

Social and Constitutional Context – Cow Protection – Public Morality – Citing State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, Court noted cow protection laws reflect constitutional directives and societal ethos – Offences of cow slaughter strike at constitutional morality and public order – Bail jurisprudence must balance liberty with social stability.

Parity Argument – Bail to Co-Accused Not Ground for Anticipatory Bail – Petitioner claimed parity with co-accused Aman who was granted regular bail – Rejected – Held: Co-accused was arrested, investigated, and released later – Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail with active involvement and prior record – No parity exists.

Decision – Grave Offence, Prior Record – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Considering petitioner’s role, seriousness of offence, and likelihood of reoffending, petition dismissed – No protection under Section 482 BNSS extended.

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Appointment Cancelled – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her appointment as Supervisor (Women) under ICDS on the ground that she had sufficient experience as an Anganwadi Worker – Court held that Advertisement No.03/2024 clearly stipulated eligibility for in-service Anganwadi Workers with 10 years of experience – Petitioner was serving as Forest Guard on the relevant date, thus not qualifying as “in-service” – Appointment found contrary to statutory rules – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Recruitment Process – Interpretation of Advertisement – No Ambiguity – Court held that the language of Advertisement No.03/2024 and Rule 23 of RICDS Rules clearly required the candidate to be an in-service Anganwadi Worker – The petitioner’s participation despite not being in service rendered her ineligible – There was no alteration or ambiguity in recruitment terms during or after the process [Paras 5, 9, 11].

Statutory Rules – Rule 23 & Schedule-II of RICDS Rules – Binding Force – Court emphasized that Rule 23 and Schedule-II mandate that 50% of Supervisor posts be filled from among in-service Anganwadi Workers – Appointment made in violation of statutory rules held void ab initio – Respondents acted within rights by cancelling appointment [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Precedents – Void Appointments – Relied Upon Supreme Court Rulings – Court relied on precedents such as Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh and State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan to reinforce that appointments made in breach of statutory rules are null from inception – Petitioner’s plea was therefore untenable [Paras 6, 12].

Misapplication of Advertisement – Fault of Applicant – No Relief – Court noted that petitioner was fully aware of eligibility criteria under Advertisement No.03/2024 yet chose to apply – It was not a case of misleading or changed conditions post-application – Her disqualification stemmed from her own ineligibility and not administrative unfairness [Para 13].

Final Judgment – Petition Lacked Merit – The writ petition was found devoid of legal merit and dismissed – Pending applications were disposed of accordingly [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Obstruction of Public Servant – Section 186, 353, 333, 34 of the IPC – Conviction Restored – The trial court acquitted the Respondent of charges of obstructing a public servant – Held: Testimony of the Complainant HC Rohtash and eye-witnesses including SHO and QRT staff clearly establish that the Respondent prevented the complainant from discharging his duties during helmet checking – Minor contradictions in police DD entries immaterial – Offence under Section 186 IPC proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction ordered [Paras 25-32, 39, 41].

Use of Criminal Force – Section 353 IPC – Public Servant Assaulted – Conviction Upheld – Respondent engaged in physical scuffle with HC Rohtash upon being stopped – Supported by testimonies of PW-11 (Complainant), PW-5 (SHO), PW-8 and PW-9 (Constables) – The scuffle qualifies as criminal force under Sections 349 and 350 IPC – Offence under Section 353 IPC also proved – Acquittal reversed [Paras 25-30, 42-45].

Grievous Hurt to Public Servant – Section 333 IPC – Acquittal Sustained – Medical record did not show external injury; MLC lacked final PTA report – Alleged hearing loss not corroborated by timely medical evidence – PW-11 did not revisit hospital post incident – Injury claimed not linked conclusively to the incident – Held: Offence under Section 333 IPC not established – Acquittal upheld [Paras 47-50].

Delay in Medical Certification – Evidentiary Gaps – PTA report missing – Although the MLC initially mentioned referral for ENT assessment, the final report indicating grievous hearing loss was never produced – HC Rohtash’s testimony did not describe specific ear injury – Such absence of material evidence led to doubt about grievous hurt claim [Paras 48-50].

False Defence – Allegation of Bribery by Accused – Found Baseless – Respondent alleged money was forcibly taken and FIR fabricated – Held: Recovery of ₹11,000 documented in personal search memo; if money had been illicitly seized, it would not have been officially recorded – Story of being let off and returning with mother found implausible – Defence rejected [Paras 33-36].

Final Decision – Acquittal under Sections 186 and 353 IPC Set Aside – Conviction Ordered – Respondent held guilty under Sections 186 and 353 IPC – However, acquittal under Section 333 IPC affirmed due to lack of conclusive medical proof – Matter listed for arguments on sentence [Paras 51-52].

Matrimonial Dispute – Return of Gold Ornaments – Wife’s Claim Not Proved – Decree Set Aside – The wife alleged that 81 sovereigns of gold were misappropriated by the husband, including 75 sovereigns received at marriage – Held: Husband admitted only 22 sovereigns and produced documentary evidence (RC extract, receipts, account statements) proving jeep was purchased on hire purchase – Ext.B7 photo relied upon by wife was found unreliable – Wife failed to prove misappropriation – Decree for return of gold ornaments set aside [Paras 6-12].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Petition Filed as Counterblast – Rejected – OP for restitution was filed by wife after receiving notice in divorce petition – Conduct and chronology indicate lack of bona fides – Wife lodged complaint to husband’s superior officer and remained at parental home since 2008 – Her conduct not consistent with desire to resume cohabitation – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights reversed [Paras 13-14].

Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Long Separation and Unjust Accusations – Divorce Granted – Parties had been living separately since 2008 with no cohabitation thereafter – Wife accused husband before military superiors, despite evidence of financial support – Letters by husband reflected cordiality and intent to continue relationship – Relationship had irretrievably broken down – Held: Husband entitled to divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion [Paras 13-14].

Appreciation of Evidence – Family Courts Act – Evidence Act Not Applicable – Family Court erred in rejecting Ext.A3 RC extract despite certification by RTO – Ext.A4 series and Ext.A5 account statements corroborated hire purchase – Court held that standard of proof in family proceedings is liberal – Documentary evidence accepted [Paras 8-10].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Marriage Dissolved – Wife’s Claims Dismissed – Held: Husband’s petition for divorce allowed – Wife’s petitions for return of gold ornaments and restitution of conjugal rights dismissed – Family Court’s judgment set aside [Para 14].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Attachment of Residential House – Section 60(c) CPC – Warrants Kept in Abeyance – Judgment debtor’s residential property earlier noted as exempt from attachment by Executing Court on 15.01.2025 – Subsequently, on 11.07.2025, same property ordered to be attached – Held: Once court had observed exemption, it could not review its own order in such manner – Petitioner directed to move recall application before Executing Court – Attachment order to remain in abeyance till next day if not already executed [Paras 4-10].

Procedure – Opportunity to Seek Recall – High Court refrained from adjudicating merits, leaving matter to Executing Court – Interim protection granted to prevent irreparable prejudice pending recall application [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Petition disposed of with liberty to seek recall; interim abeyance of warrants granted – No observations on merits [Paras 9-13].

Transgender & Intersex Persons Policy – Implementation & Reforms – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Court Directions Issued – In writ petition concerning rights of transgender persons, the Court noted with appreciation the State’s notification of the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons, 2025 – Considered community suggestions on horizontal reservation, representation in monitoring committees, marriage registration, recognition of domestic partnerships, and renaming of policy – Directed State to take early decision on reservation; ensure representation of trans women, trans men, and intersex persons in district/state committees; issue directions to Registrars for smooth marriage registration; and consider renaming policy to reflect transgender and intersex focus – Also urged framing of LGBQA+ policy at the earliest – Ordered relevant departments to file status reports on NCERT module and medical curriculum sensitisation – Matter posted for further orders [Paras 1-10, 14].

Reservation – Clause 3.7 of Policy – Court noted ambiguity on whether horizontal reservation in education and public employment is envisaged – Directed Government to decide to avoid repeated litigation [Para 4].

Monitoring Committees – Representation Mandated – Directed State to ensure district and state-level committees under the policy include at least one trans woman, one trans man, and one intersex person – Necessary notifications to be issued for effective functioning [Para 5].

Marriage of Transgender Persons – Apex Court Recognition – Directed State to issue instructions to Registrars for legal sanction and registration of such marriages in line with NALSA and Arunkumar rulings [Para 6].

Recognition of Domestic Partnerships – Suggested that State provide for deeds of familial association or civil unions to safeguard rights where succession laws are silent [Para 7].

Policy Title – Court observed that renaming to “Transgender and Intersex Persons Policy” may better reflect intent and community identity [Para 8].

Decision:Court issued directions to Government to consider and implement community suggestions, take decisions on reservation and policy amendments, ensure committee representation, and expedite framing of LGBQA+ policy – Status reports directed – Matter adjourned to 15.09.2025 for further orders [Paras 4-10, 14].