Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Petitioner challenged the complaint filed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, contending that it lacked specific allegations and failed to meet statutory requirements – Petitioner argued that the trial court took cognizance without proper application of mind – Complaint and subsequent proceedings deemed vague, ambiguous, and mechanical, lacking necessary averments required under Section 34 of the Act [Paras 1-11].

Offences by Companies – Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Detailed interpretation of Section 34 provided – Emphasized that mere designation as a Director is insufficient for liability under Section 34 – Specific averments are necessary to demonstrate that the individual was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the time of the offence – Complaint must clearly allege such responsibility, failing which the proceedings are unsustainable [Paras 6-9].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Impugned complaint and proceedings quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned – Recognized abuse of process of law and absence of necessary allegations against the petitioner under Section 34 [Para 10-11].

Sexual Harassment – Conviction and Appeal – The deceased appellant Sakthivel was accused of sexually harassing eight girl students aged 9 and 10 years in Solappadi Government Primary School. The allegations included inappropriate touching and pinching of the students. The trial court convicted Sakthivel under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. However, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction due to inconsistencies and lack of clear evidence from the victims and witnesses, undermining the prosecution’s case [Paras 1-13].

Evidence – Witness Testimony – Reliability – The testimonies of the eight victims (P.W.1 to P.W.8) were found to be inconsistent and similar, raising doubts about their veracity and the possibility of tutoring. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer (P.W.13) and the Headmaster (P.W.14) did not receive any complaints of sexual nature during their initial investigations. The evidence presented did not satisfactorily establish the foundational facts required to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act [Paras 11-12].

Investigation – Procedural Deficiencies – The investigation revealed procedural lapses, including the delay in filing the complaint and inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses. The medical examination of the victim did not corroborate the allegations of severe sexual harassment. The failure to provide a coherent and consistent account of the incidents significantly weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The court directed the refund of any fine amount paid by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant [Para 13-14].

Constitutional Law – Right to Education – Amendment to Maharashtra RTE Rules – Petitioners challenge the amendment excluding private unaided schools from admitting children from disadvantaged groups if government/aided schools are within 1 km – Contention that the amendment violates the RTE Act and Article 21-A of the Constitution – High Court examines the legislative intent and statutory obligations under the RTE Act [Paras 1-29].

Statutory Interpretation – Subordinate Legislation – Legitimacy of Amendment Rules – Argument that the amendment overreaches Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act – High Court holds that subordinate legislation must conform to the principal act – Amendment deemed ultra vires as it contradicts mandatory provisions of the RTE Act [Paras 30-35].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Free and Compulsory Education – High Court emphasizes that the amendment impinges upon the fundamental right to education – Provision restricting private school admissions violates Article 21-A and is inconsistent with legislative objectives [Paras 36-40].

Administrative Law – Arbitrary and Unreasonable Provisions – Amendment challenged on grounds of arbitrariness – High Court finds the exclusion of private unaided schools arbitrary and contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Article 15(5) of the Constitution [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – The impugned Amendment Rules notified on February 9, 2024, are set aside – High Court directs the State Government to ensure compliance with Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act, including private unaided schools in admission of children from disadvantaged groups [Para 46].

Property Dispute – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – The petitioner filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain respondents from interfering with the possession of the suit property – Respondents claimed possession and existing constructions on the land, disputing the property description – During trial, respondents sought an Advocate Commissioner’s appointment for property demarcation and inspection – Trial court allowed the application – High Court upheld the trial court’s order, emphasizing the necessity of an Advocate Commissioner to resolve factual disputes about property possession and boundaries [Paras 1-11].

Scope of Advocate Commissioner – Evidence Collection – The High Court differentiated between the collection of evidence and clarification of facts essential for the suit – The appointment aimed at identifying physical features and existing structures, not gathering evidence per se – Upheld as a proper exercise of discretion [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Trial court’s order for Advocate Commissioner’s appointment upheld – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, dismissed [Para 11].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation Assessment – Appellant challenged the compensation awarded by the MACT for being excessive – High Court reviewed the computation of monthly income, considering evidence and minimum wages notification – Tribunal’s assessment of deceased’s income at Rs. 6000/- per month upheld – Adjusted compensation considering future prospects [Paras 4(A)(i)-4(A)(ii)].

Insurance Policy – Act Policy vs. Comprehensive Policy – Appellant insurer contested liability based on nature of insurance policy – High Court held that ‘Act Policy’ (Liability Only Policy) does not cover risk towards occupants of the vehicle – Comprehensive/Package Policy required to indemnify occupants – Appellant exonerated from liability to pay compensation – Registered owner and transferee held liable [Paras 4(B)(iii), 4(C), 4(D)].

Registered Owner’s Liability – Transfer of Ownership – High Court emphasized that registered owner as per RTO records remains liable to third parties despite any unregistered transfer – Liability cannot be shifted to transferee unless registered with RTO – Registered owner and transferee jointly and severally liable to pay compensation [Paras 4©, 4(D)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned award modified – Appellant insurance company exonerated from liability – Compensation liability fastened on respondents (registered owner and transferee) – Remaining terms of the impugned award including interest component remain unchanged [Para 5].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Appellant convicted for possession of 77.36 kg of Cannabis (Ganja) – Conviction challenged on grounds of procedural lapses and non-compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act – Trial Court failed to present primary evidence in form of certified inventory, photographs, and list of samples – Seized contraband not physically produced during trial – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside [Paras 1-42].

Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act – Mandate of Section 52A requires preparation of inventory, certification by Magistrate, and proper documentation of sampling – Prosecution's failure to produce inventory and certified photographs as primary evidence – Non-production of contraband resulted in adverse inference under Section 114[g] of the Evidence Act – Trial vitiated due to non-compliance [Paras 22-41].

Evidentiary Standards – Forensic and Physical Evidence – Testimony of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 inconsistent regarding location and procedure of seizure – Photographs identified by witnesses conflicted with documentary evidence – Forensic samples tested positive but procedural irregularities in sampling noted – High burden of proof under NDPS Act not met by prosecution [Paras 16-21].

Procedural Lapses – Investigation and Trial – Appellant argued prosecution failed to follow mandatory procedures under NDPS Act – Court found discrepancies in seizure process, inventory preparation, and certification by Magistrate – Failure to produce seized contraband in court and lack of primary evidence led to acquittal [Paras 30-40].

Judicial Scrutiny – Appellate Review – High Court scrutinized trial court’s handling of evidence and procedural compliance – Found significant lapses undermining the integrity of prosecution’s case – Emphasized strict adherence to statutory requirements under NDPS Act [Paras 35-42].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case – Prosecution's failure to meet stringent standards of proof and procedural compliance under NDPS Act led to acquittal [Paras 42-45].

Construction Permission – Building Permit – KPBR 2011 and KPBR 2019 – Petitioners challenged permissions for the construction of a new church granted by government and local authorities – Contention that permissions were granted without proper adherence to statutory requirements under KPBR 2011 and KPBR 2019, and without valid NOC from the District Collector as mandated prior to amendments – Court analyzed the application of both KPBR 2011 and KPBR 2019, and subsequent amendments removing the need for District Collector’s NOC – Found that while initial permissions lacked adherence, subsequent amendments rectified the statutory framework – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Application of Amendments – Retroactive Application – Court evaluated the retroactive application of KPBR 2019 amendments removing the need for District Collector’s NOC – Upheld that the amendments applied to pending permissions, making the new church construction compliant with current legal requirements – Court emphasized that the purpose of amendments was to streamline permissions and reduce bureaucratic delays [Paras 16-20].

Judicial Discretion under Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Court deliberated on the appropriateness of exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 given the changes in statutory requirements – Concluded that exercising discretion to interfere was unwarranted as the amendments to KPBR 2019 addressed the procedural lapses and ensured compliance – Writ petitions not entertained to avoid issuing futile writs [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Permissions and building permits granted upheld as per amended KPBR 2019 – No further action required by Panchayat or District Collector under previous rules.
 

Contract Law – Revival of Terminated Contract – Petition challenging the revival of a contract that had been terminated by the awardee – The High Court held that a contract, once terminated after due process, cannot be revived by the awardee or any authority other than the Appellate Authority or the Court – Directions issued for fresh tender process [Paras 1-96].

Administrative Law – Powers of Chairman – The Court ruled that the Chairman or any other authority not being the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to order the revival of an already terminated contract – Emphasized the importance of transparency and fairness in the actions of state instrumentalities [Paras 49-92].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Affirmed that the High Court can interfere in contractual matters under Article 226 of the Constitution when the action is arbitrary or illegal – Reiterated principles of judicial review in contractual disputes involving state instrumentalities [Paras 61-74].

Decision:
(i)    The writ petition filed by PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 200/2024) is allowed.
(ii)    The writ petition filed by Adhunik Khanan Va Parivahan Theka Sahkari Samiti (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2024) stands disposed of.
(iii)    The impugned order dated December 26, 2023, is quashed and set aside. RSMML is directed to initiate a fresh tender process forthwith.
(iv)    The respondent RSMML may get the subject work done through any of the parties as deemed expedient until the fresh tender process is finalized [Paras 93-98].
 

Property Law – Declaration and Permanent Injunction – Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants obstructing possession – Plaintiff traced title through sale deeds dating back to 1952 – Defendants contended joint ownership and lack of partition among family members – Both lower courts ruled in favor of plaintiff based on continuous possession and lack of evidence supporting defendants’ claims – Second Appeal dismissed confirming lower court judgments [Paras 1-19].

Substantial Questions of Law – Consideration of Joint Ownership and Partition – Courts examined whether plaintiff’s title was only to 1/3rd share and if joint family property was sold improperly – Found no partition and no substantial evidence of joint ownership by defendants – Defendants’ reliance on joint patta found insufficient – Held plaintiff had clear title and possession over entire suit property [Paras 9-18].

Procedure under Section 100 of CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – Substantial questions of law identified regarding title and joint ownership – Both lower courts’ findings upheld due to proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles – No misappreciation or perverse findings – Appeal found meritless and dismissed [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.