Lease Renewal – Applicability of 1995 Rules – Rule 12 of Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995 - The respondent Tennis Club challenged the demand for arrears of lease rent under the 1995 Rules after failing to renew the lease within the stipulated time. The Court held that the Club, being a lessee under expired leases, was bound by the 1995 Rules, which required the submission of a fresh lease application. Despite the Club’s failure to clear arrears, the demand under the 1995 Rules was valid, and the challenge was dismissed [Paras 24, 33].

Foreign Liquor License – Refusal to Renew FL4A License Due to Lease Arrears - The Tennis Club’s request for renewal of its FL4A license was rejected by the Excise Department due to outstanding lease rent. The Court ruled that the refusal was justified, as the Club’s failure to settle arrears from previous leases disqualified it from obtaining the license under the Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules, 1963 [Paras 28-29].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Leaseholders’ Obligations – No Relief for Longstanding Defaulters - The Court invoked the doctrine of acquiescence, emphasizing that the Club had acknowledged its obligations under the 1995 Rules by submitting a lease renewal application in 1998 but did not settle its arrears. This longstanding default barred the Club from seeking exemption or challenging the Rules at a later stage [Paras 27, 36].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Government Entitled to Reclaim Land - The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Government’s right to resume the leased land due to the Club’s failure to comply with the 1995 Rules and clear lease arrears. The writ appeal regarding the refusal to renew the liquor license was rendered infructuous and closed [Paras 29, 36].

Environmental Law – Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment – Article 21 – The Court expressed concern over the proposed deforestation of 1.19 lakh trees in Baran District, which could severely affect the local ecology and climate by increasing carbon emissions and threatening biodiversity – The Right to a Healthy Environment is part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution – The State has a responsibility to protect and preserve the environment and must explore alternative solutions to avoid large-scale deforestation [Paras 2-4].

Climate Change – Adverse Effects of Deforestation – Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India, the Court emphasized that citizens have the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, and that the destruction of forests near protected areas could exacerbate climate-related impacts such as carbon emissions and biodiversity loss – The Court highlighted the importance of preserving forests and avoiding displacement of flora and fauna [Para 4.1].

Public Interest – Need for Alternatives and Environmental Safeguards – The Court directed the State and Union Government to explore alternative land options for the project and to consider afforestation in the same region to mitigate carbon loss – No trees to be cut for at least 15 days, pending further orders [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Suo Moto PIL initiated – The Court treated the matter as a Public Interest Litigation and appointed Amicus Curiae to assist in the case – The respondents were directed to submit a detailed response, exploring alternatives to tree cutting and afforestation measures [Paras 5-6].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Fraud Allegations – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of visa fraud and cheating – Court held: The petitioner had joined the investigation and provided all relevant documents – No recovery was to be effected from the petitioner, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary – Bail was granted with conditions [Paras 1-5].

Multiple FIRs – Consideration of Criminal Antecedents – The petitioner was involved in another FIR under Section 420 IPC, but was already on bail in that case – The Court noted that as per the ruling in Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab (2023), criminal antecedents alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail – The appreciation of evidence should be based on the specific case at hand [Paras 4].

Decision – Anticipatory bail granted – The petitioner was directed to join the investigation within one week and to furnish personal and surety bonds – Failure to comply with the court’s directions would result in the cancellation of the bail order [Para 5].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS, 2023 – FIR Alleging Fraud in Issuance of Fake Visas – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving the alleged issuance of fake visas for a sum of ₹42 lakh. The petitioner's counsel argued that no recovery had been effected from the petitioner, and she had cooperated with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's involvement in a similar pending case under Section 420 IPC. Held: The petitioner's custodial interrogation was not warranted, and anticipatory bail was granted. The court emphasized that criminal antecedents alone do not justify denial of bail, especially in the absence of recovery or custodial need. [Paras 3-4]

Criminal Antecedents – No Denial of Bail Based on Pending Cases – The court referred to its previous ruling in Baljinder Singh @ Rock vs. State of Punjab, holding that while a petitioner’s criminal record is relevant, it cannot be the sole ground for denying bail. The evidence in each case must be evaluated separately, and pending cases should not automatically result in denial of bail [Para 4].

Decision:

Anticipatory Bail Granted – The petitioner was directed to be released on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, including joining the investigation within one week and complying with Section 482(2) BNSS. The bail would stand cancelled if the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation [Para 5].

Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Section 436A CrPC – NDPS and Foreigners Act – Bail Granted – The petitioner, a Bangladeshi national, was arrested in April 2019 for possessing Yaba tablets and for entering India without valid documents – The petitioner has been in custody for over five years and five months, exceeding the maximum imprisonment period under the Foreigners Act and more than half of the term for the NDPS offense – Held: Bail granted on stringent conditions considering the prolonged detention, trial delays, and the petitioner’s right to personal liberty [Paras 9-17].

Foreign Nationals – Bail Conditions – Court directed the petitioner, a foreign national, to remain within the jurisdiction of Park Street Police Station and report weekly to the police – The petitioner was also directed to apply for a special temporary visa for the trial period [Paras 17-20].

Decision: The petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of the same amount, one of whom must be local. The petitioner must comply with restrictions on movement, report weekly to the police, and attend all court hearings. The petitioner must apply for a special visa, and failure to meet the conditions will result in the cancellation of bail.

Criminal Procedure – Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witnesses – Section 231(2) CrPC – Petition for deferral of cross-examination – Allowed – The petitioners requested deferral of cross-examination of PW-1 until the examination-in-chief of CSW-2 and CSW-3 was completed, citing concerns about disclosure of the defence strategy as the witnesses were related – The Trial Court had dismissed the application, focusing primarily on potential delay in trial – Held: The Trial Court failed to properly consider all factors including potential prejudice to the accused – Order set aside and cross-examination deferred [Paras 10-20].

Fair Trial – Judicial Discretion under Section 231(2) – The Court reiterated that judicial discretion under Section 231(2) CrPC must be exercised with due regard to fairness to both the prosecution and the defence – The accused must be afforded reasonable opportunities for defence without compromising their right to a fair trial – The Court emphasized that deferral of cross-examination is a valid option where the defence could be prejudiced by early disclosure [Paras 18-22].

Decision: The Revisional Application was allowed. The order of the Trial Court dated 24/04/2024 was set aside, and the cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred until the completion of the examination-in-chief of PW-2 and PW-3. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the case.

Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 376/511 IPC – Acquittal Upheld - The State filed a leave petition challenging the acquittal of the respondents in a case of attempted rape under Sections 376/511 IPC. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecutrix had retracted her initial complaint during cross-examination, stating that the complaint was filed due to a rent dispute. The discrepancies between her statements to the police and in court significantly undermined the prosecution’s case [Paras 9-12, 18-19].

Contradictions in Testimony – Unreliable Evidence – No Case for Conviction - The Court observed material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements before the Magistrate and the police, specifically regarding the sequence of events and allegations of sexual assault. The inconsistencies, coupled with affidavits from the prosecutrix and her mother admitting that a false complaint was filed, led the Court to conclude that there was no reliable evidence to sustain a conviction [Paras 10-12, 17-19].

Frivolous Litigation – Costs Not Imposed but Advisory Issued to Prosecution - The Court noted that the appeal qualified as a frivolous case, which unnecessarily burdened the judiciary. However, instead of imposing costs, the Court directed the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs to exercise greater vigilance in deciding which cases to pursue, emphasizing the importance of avoiding frivolous appeals that waste judicial resources [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Leave to Appeal Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the leave petition, affirming the trial court’s acquittal of the respondents. The pending applications were also disposed of [Para 22].

Termination of Pregnancy – Minor Rape Victim – Right to Personal Liberty – Petition Allowed - The petitioner, a minor girl aged 14, who was a victim of rape, sought termination of her 28-week pregnancy. The Court, recognizing the mental and physical trauma associated with the continuation of the pregnancy, granted permission for termination. The Court held that forcing the petitioner to carry the pregnancy to term would violate her right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 7-10, 16].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Gestational Limit – Application Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible by Court Order - Although the pregnancy exceeded the 24-week limit set by the MTP Act, the Court relied on the opinions of the Medical Board, which indicated risks to the minor’s mental and physical health if the pregnancy were to continue. The Court exercised its judicial discretion under the MTP Act, considering the health risks and the victim’s young age, to permit the termination [Paras 12-15].

Reproductive Rights – Autonomy and Dignity of Rape Victims – Constitutional Interpretation - Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court reaffirmed the principle that the reproductive autonomy of women, including minors, is an integral part of their right to dignity under Article 21. The decision to terminate the pregnancy was held to be within the minor’s right to self-determination, in line with the broader interpretation of the MTP Act and constitutional principles [Paras 9-11, 18-20].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Conditions Imposed for Safe Termination - The Court permitted the termination of the pregnancy under strict medical supervision. It directed the State to ensure that a specialized team of doctors performs the procedure, with all necessary precautions and post-operative care. The State was also instructed to bear the medical expenses and to preserve a sample of the fetus for DNA testing, to aid in the ongoing criminal investigation [Paras 20-23].

GST Law – Revocation of Voluntary Cancellation of Registration – Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner challenged the revocation of voluntary cancellation of their GST registration and subsequent retrospective cancellation from 27 June 2020 – The CGST authorities had revoked the voluntary cancellation without issuing a show cause notice or granting a hearing – Held: The revocation of voluntary cancellation without prior notice or opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice – Further, the cancellation order did not provide reasons for rejection, and retrospective cancellation from a date prior to the registration itself was unsustainable – All consequential proceedings based on the flawed decision-making process were quashed [Paras 12-16, 19].

Retrospective Cancellation – Invalidity – Absence of Justification – The petitioner’s registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from a date prior to its grant – Held: There was no valid explanation for this retrospective cancellation, and the respondents failed to justify the retrospective application of the order – Such cancellation was held to be invalid and contrary to law [Paras 15-16].

Remedy for Breach of Natural Justice – Right to Fresh Proceedings – Since the revocation of voluntary cancellation and subsequent proceedings were conducted in breach of natural justice, the respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, ensuring due process was followed – The petitioner was restrained from utilizing the Input Tax Credit (ITC) until the conclusion of fresh proceedings [Paras 18-19].

Decision – The orders dated 20 February 2024, 8 March 2024, and 9 May 2024 were quashed – The petitioner's position as of 8 May 2023, when voluntary cancellation was accepted, was restored – Respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh show cause notices and conclude the proceedings by 31 January 2025, with the petitioner restrained from using the ITC until then [Paras 20-22].