Consumer Law - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Petitioner bank challenged concurrent orders of NCDRC State Commission and District Commission - Deceased husband of Respondent No 1 availed home loan and applied for group insurance - Premium deducted by bank but proposal rejected by insurer for non-compliance with medical requirements - Bank failed to communicate rejection or refund premium during borrower lifetime - Refund adjusted in loan account only after death - Consumer forums held bank liable for deficiency in service - High Court found no perversity in findings - Held - Bank as Master Policy Holder had duty to facilitate insurance and keep borrower informed - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-26].

Consumer Law - Definition of Consumer - Consumer Protection Act 2019 - Section 2(7) - Maintainability of complaint against Bank - Bank argued complainant not a consumer for insurance services - Court observed deceased hired banking services for consideration which included facilitation of insurance under Master Policy - Held - Nominee and beneficiary squarely fall within inclusive definition of consumer - definition to be construed liberally to advance legislative object - [Paras 14-17].

Banking and Insurance Law - Group Insurance Scheme - Master Policy Holder - Deficiency in Service - Responsibility of Bank - Petitioner claimed role limited to remittance of premium - Court noted insurer sent refund to bank in May 2016 but bank failed to inform borrower - Held - Once bank undertakes responsibility to facilitate insurance it becomes integral part of banking service - Negligence in discharging obligation constitutes deficiency in service - [Paras 18-21].

Writ Law - Scope of Interference - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory vs Appellate jurisdiction - Court emphasized power is to keep subordinate forums within bounds of authority - Held - High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or correct mere errors of fact - Interference warranted only for patent perversity or manifest injustice - [Paras 22-25].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Concurrent findings of the consumer forums affirmed.

Writ Law - Termination of Law Officers - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226 - Orissa Law Officers Rules 1971 - Rule 6 - Petitioners were appointed as Law Officers for Ganjam district vide notification dated 08.01.2024 - State Government subsequently amended Rule 6 on 05.08.2025 empowering the government to terminate any law officer before the expiry of the three-year tenure - Impugned notifications dated 24.12.2025 terminated petitioners with immediate effect and appointed a fresh set of Law Officers - Petitioners alleged violation of natural justice and arbitrariness due to lack of show-cause notice and fixed tenure - State contended that appointments were explicitly until further orders and the amended Rule 6 permitted such termination - Court found that the appointment order clearly stipulated that engagement was until further orders and was subject to the State's discretionary direction - Held - Petitioners have no vested right to continue for the full term of three years when the appointment is conditional and Rule 6 allows termination before expiry of tenure - [Paras 1-6.7].

Writ Law - Nature of Professional Engagement - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Orissa Law Officers Rules 1971 - Advocate-Client Relationship - Court examined the status of Law Officers vis-a-vis statutory public offices - Relying on Johri Mal and Rakesh Kumar Keshari judgments the Court observed that the engagement of Government Counsel is primarily a matter of trust and confidence between the State and its chosen advocate - Court noted that Rule 34 vests administrative control with the District Collector but the rules are procedural and do not confer statutory status under Article 309 - Held - A Law Officer does not hold a statutory public office and the relationship is purely that of advocate and client arising out of professional engagement - State is entitled to select its own counsel and no formal notice is required prior to termination - [Paras 4.8-6.6].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – No interference with the termination and fresh appointment of Law Officers found necessary.

Writ Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Kerala State Electricity Board (Classification Control and Appeal) Regulations 1969 - Regulation 2 - Competence of Issuing Authority - Appellant-Assistant Engineer challenged memo of charges issued by 3rd Respondent-Chief Engineer HRM - Claimed 7th Respondent-Deputy Chief Engineer was the designated disciplinary authority - Argued that initiation by higher authority deprived him of statutory appeal - Single Judge dismissed writ petition - Division Bench affirmed - Findings showed that under Regulation 23 an appeal lies to the Board against orders of immediate subordinates - Held - Contention that right of appeal is lost because a higher authority acted as the disciplinary authority is meritless when a further appeal to the Board remains available - [Paras 1-7].

Service Law - Deprivation of Appeal - Kerala State Electricity Board (Classification Control and Appeal) Regulations 1969 - Regulation 23 - Applicability of Precedent - Appellant cited Surjit Ghosh v. United Commercial Bank (1995) 2 SCC 474 to argue that higher authorities cannot strip employees of appeal rights by exercising lower powers - Held - The precedent is distinguished where the regulations provide for a further appeal to a superior body like the Board - No prejudice is caused to the employee when an appellate forum still exists - [Paras 6-7].

Writ Law - Scope of Judicial Review - Electricity Act 2003 - Section 168 - Protection for Good Faith Actions - Charge memo alleged collusion with contractor and unauthorized removal of KSEB materials under guise of scrap removal - Appellant claimed protection under Section 168 for acts done as Assessing Authority - Held - Issues involve disputed questions of fact - High Court cannot adjudicate factual disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution - Since the document is merely a memo of charges - appellant has full opportunity to contest the allegations with evidence during departmental inquiry - [Paras 8].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the Single Judge affirmed – No illegality found in the issuance of the memo of charges.

Consumer Law - Professional Liability of Advocates - Consumer Protection Act 2019 - Section 2(42) - Maintainability of complaint - Petitioner filed consumer complaint against respondent advocate alleging deficiency in legal services - Complaint dismissed by District Forum on merits and by State Commission and NCDRC on grounds of maintainability - High Court examined the relationship between advocate and client in light of Supreme Court precedent - Advocate acts as an agent of the client and is bound by fiduciary duties and direct client instructions - Such relationship constitutes a contract of personal service which is expressly excluded from the definition of service under Section 2(42) of the Act - Legal profession is sui generis and cannot be compared to other commercial services - Held - Services rendered by lawyers in their professional capacity are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act - Complaint against advocate for deficiency in service is not maintainable - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-11].

Consumer Law - Definition of Service - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Contract of Personal Service - Professional exclusion - Dispute regarding whether legal services fall under contract for services or contract of service - Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers case held that the legislature did not intend to include professions or services rendered by professionals within the purview of the Act - Lawyers are expected to follow client instructions rather than substitute their own judgment which establishes client control - Held - Legal services fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of service as a contract of personal service - [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Civil Law - Tort - Electrocution Death - Strict Liability - M.P. Electricity Board challenged Trial Court decree awarding compensation of Rs. 4.45 Lakh to legal heirs of deceased who died on the night of 17.11.2010 after coming in contact with a bare wire illegally pulled by Respondent No. 5 from the Board's pole to his farm - Appellant argued no negligence as the theft occurred in the dead of night making patrolling impossible - High Court examined spot map Ex. P-8 which showed illegal wires extended 750 metres from the pole - Court observed that pulling wires over such a distance constitutes a planned attempt of theft that could not have happened in a single night - Board failed to register a theft case or demonstrate reasonable care in monitoring its supply system - Held - Electricity is a dangerous commodity attracting the principle of strict liability - Negligence of the supplier is not required to be proved if the accident occurs by leakage or pilferage - The supplier bears primary liability to compensate for foreseeable risks inherent in the hazardous activity - Trial Court judgment and decree confirmed - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-12].

Civil Law - Tort - Exceptions to Strict Liability - Act of Stranger - Appellant Board sought to evade liability by citing the act of a third party who illegally tapped the electricity line - Held - Exception of act of stranger under Rylands v. Fletcher is not available when the act could have been reasonably anticipated or its consequences prevented by the supplier - High degree of care is expected from a public utility dealing with dangerous commodities - Board failed to establish any exception to strict liability - [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Trial Court confirmed – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Service Matter - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Refixation of pay and increments - Petitioner appointed as Administrative Officer in Tea Research Association in 2007 - Confirmed in 2008 - Promoted to higher pay band in 2013 - Claimed two additional increments based on Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) communication dated 21.11.2008 and re-designation as Sr. Controller of Administration - During proceedings prayer for re-designation not pressed due to employment elsewhere - Claim for increments based on assertion that Tea Research Association adopted CSIR Rules and pay scales for Administrative Officers and Group IV Scientists were identical - Respondent Association contended administrative staff are governed by CCS Rules and CSIR benefit was cadre specific for scientists - Court perused 2008 communication and found it restricted to Group IV Scientists - Held - Identical pay scales cannot be the basis for conferring benefits meant for a specific professional category like Scientists upon administrative staff - Claim found fallacious - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-14].

Writ Law - Pay Parity - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Cadre Specific Benefits - Petitioner sought parity with Group IV Scientists for additional increments under 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations - Alleged discrimination vis-a-vis two other officers - Respondents denied discrimination stating those officers were granted salary via Chairman discretion and not under the 2008 communication - Court found communication dated 21.11.2008 was intended exclusively for the scientific cadre - Held - Parity in pay scales does not entitle an employee to specific cadre benefits or increments intended for a different professional class with distinct roles - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to cost.

Writ Law - Medical Termination of Pregnancy - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 226 - Minor rape victim - 15-year-old petitioner seeking termination of pregnancy at 26-28 weeks gestation - Petitioner victim of sexual assault - AIIMS Medical Board report confirming continuation of pregnancy likely to cause adverse psychological impact - Medical Board declared petitioner fit for procedure - State raising no objection to termination - MTP Act 1971 limiting termination to 24 weeks - Petitioner invoking Right to Life under Article 21 - Court observed that extraordinary jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts can be invoked where statutory remedies are unavailable particularly in cases of rape and grave mental injury - Held - Right to make decisions concerning one's body is an integral facet of personal liberty and privacy - Continuation of unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape causes grave trauma both mentally and physically - Termination of pregnancy allowed despite exceeding statutory limits - [Paras 1-14].

Writ Law - Reproductive Autonomy - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Decisional Autonomy - Choice of pregnant woman over interest of unborn child - Court held that no court should compel a minor child to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will - Such compulsion disregards decisional autonomy and inflicts irreversible consequences - Reproductive choice is a fundamental right - Held - The woman herself is best placed to evaluate personal circumstances - Lack of statutory remedy under the MTP Act does not bar constitutional relief - Decisional autonomy and bodily integrity are integral facets of fundamental rights - [Paras 11.1-13].

Decision: Petition allowed - Petitioner permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at AIIMS New Delhi - AIIMS directed to preserve foetal tissue for DNA testing required for the registered criminal case - State (GNCTD) directed to bear all medical and post-operative expenses - Specific directions issued for neonatal care in case of live birth and subsequent adoption procedure - [Paras 14-16].

Writ Law - Public Interest Litigation - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Bona fides of Petitioner - Petitioner as President of a political youth front filed PIL against Respondent No. 9 alleging unauthorized constructions - During pendency the petitioner filed a not-press memo to withdraw the matter - Co-ordinate Bench doubted the credentials of the petitioner and appointed Amicus Curiae to ascertain if the proceedings amounted to an abuse of PIL jurisdiction - Affidavits from District Collector and Panchayat Secretary revealed that the institution had been directed to regularize constructions and had rectified defects to obtain fitness certificates - Held - Since statutory authorities initiated appropriate action within the framework of law and remedial steps were taken - no further directions required - PIL closed - [Paras 1-8].

Writ Law - Maintainability and Credibility - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Future Litigations - Court observed the silence of the petition regarding other unauthorized constructions in the locality and the sudden withdrawal - Direction issued that this order shall be taken into account for assessing the maintainability and credibility of any future PIL instituted by the same petitioner - Held - Petitioner directed to annex and disclose this order in any future filings failing which such petitions shall not be accepted - [Para 7].

Administrative Law - Local Self Government - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act - Building Rules - Regularization of Construction - District Administration and Grama Panchayat initiated proceedings against unauthorized constructions - Assistant Engineer conducted measurements and identified defects - Respondent institution carried out necessary repairs and maintenance - Subsequent inspection confirmed rectification of defects - Held - Grant of fitness certificates by the competent authority after compliance with statutory requirements and building rules renders the grievance in the PIL redundant - [Paras 4-6].

Decision: PIL closed – No order as to costs – Registry directed to make appropriate endorsements regarding petitioner's credentials for future reference.

Writ Law - Preventive Detention - PITNDPS Act 1988 - Section 3 - Delay in execution of detention order - Challenge to detention order dated 20 March 2025 on ground of three-month delay as order was executed only on 25 June 2025 - Detenue was in judicial custody at Dum Dum Correctional Home during the intervening period - Petitioner relied on Sushanta Kumar Banik case to argue that unexplained delay snaps the live and proximate link - Respondents explained delay as administrative time required to obtain No Objection Certificates from various trial courts in West Bengal and the Home Department of Rajasthan for inter-state transfer to Jaipur Central Jail - Court found that respondents sufficiently explained the timeline necessitated by procedural requirements - Held - Delay not unreasonable and does not vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority - [Paras 23-24].

Writ Law - Procedural Safeguards - PITNDPS Act 1988 - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - Language of communication - Petitioner contended that detention reference was provided in English while detenue only understood Bengali - Record produced by State showed detenue had authored a letter in Hindi language - Advisory Board records confirmed detenue was produced and examined in person on two dates - Held - Contention regarding language barrier is factually incorrect and no illegality found in Advisory Board proceedings - [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law - Narcotic Offenses - PITNDPS Act 1988 - Section 3 - Grounds of detention - Detenue implicated in multiple cases involving smuggling of Phensedyl and Charas and Gold to Bangladesh - Financial investigation revealed ownership of shell companies in name of family members to legitimize illicit proceeds - Properties worth 5.05 crores frozen by authorities - Sponsoring authority proposed detention in geographically distant state to effectively disrupt the supply chain and communication network operational in the Eastern Region - Held - Detention order justified based on propensity of detenue to engage in illicit trafficking and need to disrupt operational networks - [Paras 14-29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Detention order dated 20/03/2025 upheld.