Civil Writ - Unauthorized Construction – Conversion of Parking Space – Demolition Upheld – Sanctioned Plan Violated – The appellants contested the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation's demolition order of a flat constructed on land designated as parking space in the sanctioned plan – The Court held that neither the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 nor the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007 permits conversion of parking spaces into residential flats – Demolition order found lawful and properly reasoned [Paras 11-16].

Natural Justice – Hearing Provided – Order Valid – The appellants were heard before the Commissioner passed the demolition order – Inspections were also conducted – Held: No breach of principles of natural justice was established [Paras 11, 16].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal Mechanism Available – Writ Not Maintained – Appellants bypassed the statutory appeal process and approached the writ court – The Court emphasized that appellate proceedings allow a broader scope for evidence reappraisal than writ petitions – Held: The appellants’ writ petition was rightly dismissed [Para 17].

Parking Spaces – Common Area Protection – Legal Prohibition on Conversion – Referring to Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 536, the Court reiterated that parking areas are common facilities under housing regulations and cannot be converted to residential use [Para 15].

Relief Granted – Time to Vacate – The Court granted the appellants two months to vacate the premises before demolition, considering the peculiar facts of the case [Later portion].
 

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Agreement – Clause 70 of Contract – Disputes Arising During the Currency of the Contract – Arbitrator Appointed – Disputes arose due to changes in the scope and design of the project by the respondents, delaying project completion and increasing costs – Clause 28.1.4(c) of the MES Manual allows arbitration during the contract period under exceptional circumstances – Held: The contention of respondents that arbitration cannot proceed until project completion is unsustainable in light of contractual provisions permitting arbitration during the contract’s pendency – Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate disputes [Paras 5-8].

Delay in Work Completion – Attribution of Responsibility – Respondents at Fault – 70% of the contract work was completed on time, but delays occurred due to design changes introduced by the respondents and their failure to provide revised specifications promptly – 11 extensions were granted to the petitioner without any objection from the respondents, further demonstrating their responsibility for delays – Delay not attributable to the petitioner [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Sole Arbitrator Appointed – Disputes Referred for Arbitration – Petition allowed – Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, DG (Pers), MES Department, appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties – Arbitrator’s fees to be borne equally by both parties – No second arbitration to be pursued post-contract completion [Paras 9-10].

Civil Writ - Foreign Medical Graduates – Requirement of CRMI for Two Years – Judicial Deference to Expert Bodies – The petitioners challenged Note 3 in provisional registration certificates requiring two years of CRMI, asserting they completed offline training and examinations during the pandemic – The respondents cited Supreme Court decisions and National Medical Commission circulars mandating two years of CRMI for students who studied online during the pandemic or Ukraine war – Held: The Court declined to interfere, deferring to the expertise of regulatory authorities and the public interest in ensuring adequate practical training for medical professionals [Paras 9-19].

Academic Matters – Limited Judicial Review – Courts Should Avoid Substituting Expert Decisions – Reiterated the principle that academic bodies’ decisions should not be interfered with unless there is a statutory or legal violation – Courts lack the technical expertise to evaluate clinical training sufficiency or academic curricula [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Illegality Found in Note 3 – The petitioners failed to substantiate claims of completing adequate offline training during the pandemic – The stipulation of two years’ CRMI was upheld as reasonable and consistent with Supreme Court directions and regulatory mandates – Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 21].
 

Civil Law - Bar under Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act – Applicability – Suit Not Maintainable – The Court found that the sale deed was executed during ongoing consolidation operations, and subsequent rights of the appellants were adjudicated by the consolidation authorities under Section 12 – Held: The suit challenging the sale deed is barred under Section 49, as it involves matters cognizable exclusively by consolidation authorities during operations [Paras 27-37].

HUF Property – Jointness Not Established – Presumption Rebutted – Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove the existence of HUF or a joint nucleus – Documents and oral evidence did not establish the property was purchased with joint family funds – Held: The property was acquired individually and not as part of a joint family arrangement; cancellation of sale deed unsustainable [Paras 40-48].

Bar under Section 34 of S.R. Act – Inapplicable to Suit for Cancellation – The suit, being a simplicitor action under Section 31 for cancellation of the sale deed and not involving declaratory relief, is unaffected by Section 34 – Held: Rejection of the prayer for possession does not render the suit barred under Section 34 of the S.R. Act [Para 38].

Restitution of Possession and Damages – Order under Section 144 CPC – The appellants were illegally dispossessed during appeal pendency despite interim orders – Held: Possession to be restored to appellants, with Rs. 10,00,000/- damages imposed on respondents for unauthorized possession [Paras 52-57].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed. Judgments of the trial court and first appellate court set aside. The original suit for cancellation of the sale deed dismissed. Directions for restitution of possession and payment of damages issued.

Civil  Writ - Increase in MBBS seats  - Interim Relief in Educational Matters – Grant of Additional Seats – Interim Order Deprecated - The Supreme Court and precedents have consistently disapproved granting interim relief to increase seats in educational institutions, as it impacts the admission process and students’ futures – Held: Interim orders increasing seats are improper but admissions made under the current order will not be disturbed [Paras 9, 14, 31].

Deficiency in Compliance – Procedural Irregularities in Seat Allocation – Application Rejected - The Single Judge’s interim order was based on finding minor deficiencies and discriminatory treatment by the appellants. However, established principles dictate that such issues be resolved through final adjudication – Held: Interim relief inappropriate; case remanded for expedited hearing on merits [Paras 7, 12, 32].

Judicial Consistency – Past Rulings on Interim Orders in Medical Admissions – Principles Reiterated - Precedents, including MCI v. JSS Medical College, emphasize that interim relief in matters affecting medical admissions should be avoided due to the cascading impact on students and institutions – Held: High Court erred in granting interim relief; adherence to precedents required [Paras 15-20].

Exceptional Circumstances – Admissions Completed Under Interim Order – Practical Relief Granted - Despite holding the interim order improper, the Court refrained from canceling admissions made under it, to prevent harm to students already enrolled. Directions were issued for expedited resolution of the writ petition – Held: Admissions under the interim order protected; case to be decided expeditiously [Paras 31, 32].
 

Rent Law - Transmission of Tenancy Rights – Section 7(15)(d), Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Relationship and Residence as Family – Claim Rejected – The applicant sought recognition as a tenant after the death of the original tenant, claiming to have resided with the deceased as a family member – The Trial Court and Appellate Court held that the applicant, being the son of the deceased tenant’s sister-in-law, did not meet the requirements of Section 7(15)(d) – The Courts further found no evidence of continuous residence with the tenant as a member of the family – Held: Plaintiff’s claim of tenancy was untenable, and the concurrent findings were upheld – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 17-54].

Definition of ‘Family’ – Distant Relatives Not Included – The Court reiterated that while the term 'family' must be given a liberal interpretation, it cannot include distant relatives such as nephews or cousins who do not provide evidence of consistent residence with the tenant as part of one family unit – The applicant’s distant relationship with the deceased tenant and his lack of evidence regarding continuous cohabitation negated his claim – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 22-26].

Concurrent Findings – Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – The applicant failed to demonstrate any perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts – The High Court refused to re-assess evidence in its revisional capacity – Decision: No interference warranted; application dismissed [Paras 54-56].

Documentary Evidence – Inadequate Proof of Continuous Residence – Transmission of Tenancy Rejected – The applicant’s reliance on documents such as ration cards, bank statements, and photographs was insufficient to establish continuous residence with the deceased tenant as a family member – Most documents either pertained to a period after the tenant’s death or failed to substantiate the claim of family residence – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 46-54].

Neutral Testimony – Credibility of Constituted Attorney – Evidence of Arvind Kamdar – The testimony of the deceased tenant's constituted attorney was found to be credible and neutral – It established that the applicant forcibly entered the suit premises shortly before the tenant’s death and was not residing there as a family member – Decision: Evidence supported rejection of tenancy claim [Paras 38-44].

Legislative Intent – Protection for Genuine Family Members – Section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act aims to protect genuine family members from eviction, not to create inheritable rights for distant relatives – The applicant’s claim violated the legislative objective – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 53-54].

Decision:

The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, upholding the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court that the applicant failed to establish himself as a member of the deceased tenant’s family residing in the suit premises. The High Court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings.

Civil Law - Employees’ Provident Fund Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Limitation Bar Applied – Proceedings Quashed – The petitioners challenged criminal proceedings alleging non-filing of provident fund returns, citing limitation and prior dissolution of their establishment – Held: Cognizance taken beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 468 CrPC rendered the proceedings unsustainable – Proceedings quashed [Paras 12-15, 17-19].

Directors’ Liability – Absence of Mens Rea or Vicarious Responsibility – No Grounds for Continuation – The petitioners, who were directors of a defunct company, were not liable for vicarious responsibility under Section 14A of the EPF Act due to the absence of active management or control over the establishment during the relevant period – Quashing upheld [Paras 6a, 7, 16].

Policy Recommendations – Withdrawal of Prosecution for Non-Filing of Returns – The Court noted that the Central Board of Trustees, EPFO, recommended withdrawal of prosecutions for non-filing of returns to avoid unnecessary litigation – Held: Continuation of such proceedings would waste judicial resources and government exchequer [Paras 6f, 16].

Precedents – Applicability of Prior Judgments – Prosecution Barred by Limitation – Following Kartik Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal and C.B. Bhandari v. Provident Fund Inspector, the Court reaffirmed that delayed cognizance in cases of this nature contravenes statutory limitations and procedural safeguards [Paras 6h, 6i].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – Cognizance orders and related proceedings quashed, and any associated orders set aside – Observations made regarding the futility of continuing such proceedings given the non-operational status of the company and expiry of the limitation period [Paras 18-19].

Conviction Based on Dying Declaration – Omnibus Accusations – Reversal of Conviction – The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC based on the sole reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased. The dying declaration (Ex.P8) attributed a vague and omnibus accusation to both the accused for pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire – Held: The dying declaration lacked specific attribution of overt acts to the accused and suffered from infirmities, including doubts on the deceased's fitness to make the statement given her 97% burns. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the conviction was unsafe and overturned [Paras 20-27].

Reliability of Dying Declaration – Medical Endorsements and Conscious State – Conviction Set Aside – The deceased suffered 97% burns, and initial medical observations recorded her as unconscious. Her alleged recovery of consciousness within an hour to give a coherent statement was doubtful. Coupled with a lack of corroborative evidence, the dying declaration did not inspire confidence to sustain a conviction – Held: The conviction under Section 302 IPC based solely on the dying declaration was unsafe, and appellants were acquitted [Paras 26-27].

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases – Absence of Specific Allegations and Corroborative Evidence – The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the specific involvement of the accused in the alleged acts of murder. The dying declaration attributed generic allegations to both accused without specifying individual roles – Held: Failure to specify overt acts in the dying declaration undermined the credibility of the evidence. The case did not meet the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction [Paras 24-27].

Dying Declaration as Sole Evidence – Necessity of Corroboration in Case of Suspicion – Courts should exercise caution in relying solely on a dying declaration, especially when there are doubts regarding its correctness – Held: Ex.P8-dying declaration lacked corroborative support and exhibited suspicious circumstances. In such cases, courts should look for corroborative evidence before recording a conviction [Paras 25-27].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC recorded against appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 66 of 2015 were set aside. The accused were acquitted in terms of Section 235(1) CrPC. Any fine amount paid by the appellants was ordered to be refunded.

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Prima Facie Case Established – Rejection Upheld – The petitioner, an advocate, sought discharge in a case involving forgery, conspiracy, and transfer of government land based on disputed mutation entries. Both the Magistrate and Sessions Judge rejected the discharge application, citing prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s role in executing fraudulent sale deeds despite knowledge of the government’s ownership of the land – Held: Sufficient material exists to frame charges; discharge application rightly rejected. Defense cannot be considered at this stage [Paras 1-52].

Cheating and Forgery – Knowledge of Government Ownership – Prima Facie Case – The petitioner allegedly conspired with co-accused to execute fraudulent sale deeds for land known to be owned by the government. Investigation revealed that mutation entries were manipulated by the accused, and the land was transferred fraudulently to defraud the government. Court held that the material on record established ingredients of cheating and forgery under IPC [Paras 36-41, 47-49].

Role of Advocate in Conspiracy – Professional Misconduct – The petitioner, a practicing advocate, actively participated in the execution of forged sale deeds and filed civil suits to claim ownership over government land. The Court found his actions not only criminal but also amounting to professional misconduct – Held: Prima facie case established against the petitioner, justifying framing of charges [Paras 50-51].

Discharge vs. Quashing – Distinct Legal Considerations – The Court reiterated the distinction between grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and those for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Held: While the earlier dismissal of the quashing petition established the existence of prima facie evidence, the discharge application must be assessed independently based on materials on record [Paras 44-45].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed.