PIL – Civil - Town Planning – Section 21(4A) vs. Section 162 MRTP Act – Composite Draft Development Plan – State  Government Empowered – Petitioners challenged appointment of Respondent No.6 by the State under Section 162, arguing only the “concerned” officer under Section 21(4A) could prepare draft development plan following planning authority’s failure – Held: Though Section 21(4A) mandates specified officers, supervening events and consensus in contempt proceedings justified State’s action under Section 162— Appointment upheld [Paras 24–27, 36, 40–41]. 
 
Contempt Proceedings – Statement Accepted by Court – Later Challenge Not Barred – Liberty Preserved – Petitioners argued contempt order dated 03.08.2023 was breached—Court held SLP was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ—Thus, petitioner was not barred from challenge, but no illegality found in State’s subsequent action [Paras 31–32, 36]. 
 
Change of Officer – Mere Replacement Not Illegal – No Vested Right to Continue – Petitioners objected to replacement of Respondent No.4 who had completed draft up to Section 25—Court found no right to continue for any officer—State’s decision to appoint Respondent No.6 valid under Section 162 in light of practical need for a composite plan [Paras 33–36]. 
 
Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners Acted in Collusion – Accessed Sealed Draft Unlawfully – Court found petitioners accessed and relied on draft documents submitted under seal by Respondent No.4— Held: Conduct casts doubt on fairness—Petitioners failed to approach court with clean hands, undermining relief sought under Article 226 [Paras 37–38]. 
 
Decision – All Writ Petitions and PIL Dismissed – Rule Discharged – Composite Development Plan by Respondent No.6 Validated – Future Objections to be Addressed under MRTP Act Framework [Paras 40– 43]. 
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Absence of Application or Evidence – Decree Set Aside – Appellant challenged the Family Court’s direction to pay ₹70 lakhs as permanent alimony despite absence of written or oral application by wife under Section 25 HMA – High Court held that permanent alimony, though discretionary and equitable, must be supported by pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence on financial condition of parties – Held: Award of alimony without any such foundation unsustainable in law [Paras 2.1-2.6, 4.7, 5-6].

Maintenance – Mandatory Framing of Issue and Financial Assessment – Court held that without framing issue or assessing oral and documentary evidence regarding earning capacity, conduct, and living standard of both parties, permanent alimony cannot be granted – Reliance solely on U.S. court’s child support order was impermissible – Matter remanded for proper adjudication [Paras 2.5, 3.7, 4.7, 5].

Oral Application – Permissible but Not Made – Equitable Relief Requires Legal Foundation – Though the Court accepted that application under Section 25 need not be written, it found that no oral prayer was made either – Respondent-wife’s failure to disclose income details and evidence of financial independence also weighed against grant without trial [Paras 2.2, 2.5, 4.7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Alimony Order Quashed – Matter Remanded – Family Court directed to reconsider alimony based on oral and documentary evidence from both sides and complete adjudication within ten weeks – ₹15 lakhs deposited by appellant to be transferred to Family Court and kept in FDR pending outcome [Paras 6-7].
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Requirement of Application – Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act – Alimony Award Quashed - Family Court had awarded Rs.70 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife without there being a specific application, either oral or written – Held: Though the law does not mandate a written application, the absence of any application or prayer in pleadings and failure to frame an issue or consider evidence renders the order unsustainable – The Court found that the Trial Court had not evaluated the parties’ incomes, financial capacities, or relevant parameters before awarding alimony [Paras 2.1-2.6, 4.1, 4.7-5].

Equitable Relief – Parameters for Granting Alimony – Court Must Assess Financial Status and Conduct – Fresh Determination Ordered - The High Court emphasized that grant of alimony is discretionary and must be based on conduct of parties, duration of marriage, income, standard of living, and other circumstances – The Trial Court had failed to evaluate these aspects properly and relied on U.S. court orders without examining domestic evidence – Matter remanded to the Family Court to be decided afresh with direction to record oral and documentary evidence from both parties [Paras 4.5-6].

Appeal Outcome – Alimony Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded - The Gujarat High Court quashed the Family Court’s alimony order and remanded the matter for fresh determination within ten weeks – Clarified that no opinion was expressed on the quantum or entitlement to alimony, leaving that to the Family Court’s discretion after evidence is led [Paras 6, Final Order].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Presence Proved – Appellant assaulted his brother with a trident and bamboo lathi, packed the body in a gunny bag, and disposed of it in a jungle – Held: Evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.16, corroborated by recovery of the body and medical testimony, proved the crime beyond doubt [Paras 6, 8-10].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Verbal Shout – Res Gestae Covered – Victim’s last words calling for help and naming his assailant, heard by P.W.16, admissible as a dying declaration and as part of the same transaction under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – Held: Statement reliable and can form basis for conviction [Paras 9, 35].

Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Under Section 27 – Trident Seized – Admissible Evidence – Appellant’s disclosure led to recovery of the murder weapon (trident) concealed near a well – Doctor opined injuries were possible by the recovered weapons – Held: Discovery valid, despite absence of blood on trident [Paras 4, 8-10, 31-33].

Minor Contradictions – Eyewitness Versions Consistent – Discrepancy Not Material – P.W.13 and P.W.16 gave slightly different versions of what was heard but corroborated each other on material facts – Held: Discrepancies minor and immaterial, consistent with age and perception variations [Paras 9, 30-32].

Motive – Familial Dispute Over Mango Tree – Sufficient Background – Motive established through testimony about dispute between appellant and deceased over falling mangoes from a tree – Held: While motive is not necessary in all cases, it supports prosecution story [Para 36].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment with fines upheld – Held: Trial court rightly relied on credible eyewitnesses, corroborating medical and forensic evidence [Paras 10, 37].
 

Unlawful Activities – Bail under UAPA – Long Incarceration – Bail Granted - Appellant, accused of involvement in ISIS-related recruitment and conspiracy, was in custody since 02.08.2023 – Charge not yet framed and further investigation ongoing – Court considered prolonged incarceration, bleak chances of trial commencement, and parity with similarly placed co-accused who was granted bail by Apex Court – Held: Incarceration of over 8 months without trial violates right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 6-8].

Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Pankaj Bansal Doctrine – Not Applicable Retrospectively – Appellant challenged arrest as illegal due to non-supply of written grounds – Court held that Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively – Since arrest occurred before the judgment date (02.08.2023 vs 03.10.2023), protection under the precedent not available – Arrest upheld [Para 5].

Jurisdiction of NIA – FIR Registration – Section 6(5) of NIA Act – Validity Upheld - Challenge to FIR on ground that NIA registered it directly without prior State referral – Court relied on prior ruling in Ali K. v. Union of India to affirm that Central Government can direct investigation under Section 6(5) even without prior case registration – No illegality found in FIR registration [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to stringent conditions including travel restrictions, regular reporting, and non-interference with evidence or witnesses – Breach of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail [Para 8].
 

Employment Law - Absorption in Government Department – Valid Exercise of Option Required – Claim Denied – Petitioner claimed adjustment in GWS&I after abolition of his post in OLIC, but failed to establish he exercised a valid option within stipulated time – Held: Absence of timely option and pending VRS application disentitles petitioner to absorption under transfer circular [Paras 6-8, 15-17].

Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Application Withdrawn But Not Relieved – No Jural Break – Petitioner applied for VRS but was never relieved; continued under interim protection of court – Held: While legal employment relationship continued, this does not create a vested right to absorption in absence of option [Paras 7-8, 10].

Doctrine of Negative Equality – Illegal Appointments of Others Not Ground for Parity – Petitioner relied on absorption of juniors to claim parity – Held: Article 14 does not permit perpetuation of illegality – Petitioner cannot claim relief based on benefit wrongly granted to others [Paras 8, 20-21].

Creation and Abolition of Post – Policy Decision – Not Justiciable – Cabinet decision to abolish 7341 posts including 39 tracer posts upheld – Held: Court cannot interfere unless mala fide shown – Decision found to be bona fide administrative restructuring [Paras 5-6, 13-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Court found no legal basis to direct petitioner’s absorption or declare cabinet action illegal – Petition dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 9-10].
 

Medical Negligence – Failure of Vasectomy – No Liability of State – Plaintiffs Not Diligent – Despite vasectomy operation being unsuccessful, the plaintiffs failed to prove compliance with post-operative medical instructions, particularly semen analysis after 3 months – It was also not denied that the plaintiffs were informed in advance that the operation may fail and the State would not be liable – Held: There was no negligence on part of the surgeon; judgment of appellate court awarding compensation was erroneous and liable to be set aside [Paras 13-16].

Unwanted Pregnancy – Non-Termination of Pregnancy – Conduct of Plaintiffs Considered – The court observed that although the plaintiffs alleged the pregnancy was unwanted, they neither attempted to terminate the pregnancy nor submitted credible evidence about the mother’s inability to do so – Held: Plaintiffs’ conduct undermined their claim for damages for mental agony [Paras 14, 18].

Distinction in Precedents – Santra’s Case Distinguished – The Court clarified that the decision in State of Haryana v. Santra was based on unique facts involving incomplete sterilisation – Held: That ruling does not apply universally and was distinguishable on facts from the present case where vasectomy was complete and conducted by an experienced surgeon without negligence [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The High Court found merit in the appeal filed by the State of Haryana and held that the lower appellate court had ignored key facts including lack of proof of negligence and non-compliance with medical advice – Held: Judgment and decree dated 15.06.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra was set aside; suit of the plaintiffs dismissed [Para 19].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference Permissible – Miscarriage of Justice Avoided – Appellate court found trial court’s acquittal perverse due to misreading and omission of critical evidence – Held: Acquittal of accused 1 to 5 reversed, convictions recorded based on consistent and corroborated evidence [Paras 31-32, 58].

Eyewitnesses – Injured Witnesses Credible – Conviction Based – PWs 1 and 2, both injured in the attack, provided clear, consistent testimony identifying accused – Supported by medical and recovery evidence – Court found no ground to doubt reliability [Paras 9-11, 15-19, 39].

Test Identification Parade – Fair and Valid – Witnesses Identified Accused Repeatedly – PW53 conducted parades for accused 1 to 5 with PWs 1 and 2 identifying the accused in multiple rounds – Accused failed to discredit TIP process – Identification upheld [Para 24].

Forensic Evidence – Fingerprints, Hair, DNA, and Blood Match – Forensic reports linked accused 2, 4, and 5 to the crime scene vehicle and weapons – Blood on MO4 knife matched deceased’s blood group – DNA confirmed presence of accused in getaway van [Paras 26-28, 52].

Conspiracy – Charge Not Proved – Evidence Lacked Specificity – Witnesses PW7 and PW9 failed to establish a common design among all ten accused – Court found no cogent motive or agreement connecting all accused – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 under Section 120B upheld [Paras 33-36, 49].

Section 109 IPC – No Instigation Established – Accused 6 Allegedly Procured Vehicle – Mere ownership insufficient to establish active instigation – Acquittal on this count confirmed [Paras 56].

Section 201 IPC – Suppression of Evidence Not Proved – Evidence against accused 8, 9, and 10 found unreliable or uncorroborated – Alleged concealment of swords not adequately linked – Acquittal sustained [Paras 50, 57].

Delay in FIR and FIR Forwarding – Explained and Acceptable – Court found delay justified due to injuries of witness PW1 – No deliberate suppression of facts or masking of accused identity – Trial court’s inference found flawed [Paras 40-42].

Identification of Assailants – No Masks Worn – Prosecution Rebutted Mask Theory – Despite initial medical reports suggesting masked assailants, eyewitnesses and corroborative testimonies confirmed clear identification of attackers – Trial court’s reliance on this theory overturned [Paras 43-44].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment Imposed – Accused 1 to 5 convicted under Section 302 IPC – Accused 2 and 4 also sentenced under Sections 324 and 326 IPC respectively – Court imposed minimum statutory sentence citing mitigating factors – Concurrent sentences awarded – Victim compensation ordered [Paras 4-8 of sentencing order].
 

Civil Writ - Public Tender – Cancellation After H-1 Declaration – Arbitrary Action – High Court Interference – MCD abandoned the tender despite the petitioner being the highest bidder and bid exceeding the reserve price – Held: Such cancellation without justifiable basis frustrates legitimate expectations and violates Article 14; decision quashed and MCD directed to issue Letter of Award [Paras 1-3, 15-17, 29-31, 47-48].

Judicial Review in Government Contracts – Arbitrary Cancellation Amenable to Writ – Legal Principles Reaffirmed – Court reaffirmed that even non-statutory contracts are subject to judicial review if cancellation is arbitrary, discriminatory or lacking public interest – Distinguished between legitimate administrative discretion and capricious denial of contractual rights [Paras 32-42].

Legitimate Expectation – Arises Post H-1 Bid – Protection Required – Once petitioner was declared H-1 and had unconditionally extended bid validity, expectation for fair treatment crystallized – Held: Public authority bound by fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness; cannot cancel bid process on vague speculation of fetching more revenue [Paras 17, 29-30, 36-38].

Procurement Policy – Ministry of Finance Circular – Re-bidding Discouraged Without Material Grounds – Circular dated 29.10.2021 emphasizes that single or fewer bids don’t automatically negate competition if process is open and fair – Held: MCD’s reasons of “bringing more competition” unsupported by contemporaneous material and contrary to procurement guidelines [Para 19].

Public Interest – Must Be Genuine and Evident – No Cogent Material – MCD’s decision to explore higher revenue without actual data or analysis was deemed arbitrary – Held: Public interest cannot be a pretext for overriding contractual norms; sanctity of concluded tender process must be protected [Paras 27-28, 36-39].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned cancellation set aside – MCD directed to issue Letter of Award to Petitioner as H-1 bidder within 15 days – Observed that tender sanctity is essential for encouraging fair public-private partnerships [Para 48].