Service Law – Regularization of Service – Petitioner seeking regularization of service from 1992 to 2016 on notional basis without financial benefits and from 2016 onwards with financial benefits – Petitioner continuously worked since 1992 – Government had conferred ‘Temporary Status’ in 2013 and regularized service in 2016 – Citing precedents on regularization for long-term temporary employees – Held: Denial of retrospective regularization and financial benefits by authorities upheld, considering financial implications and lack of direct comparability with cited cases.
Normal rule mandates similar treatment for identically situated employees – Exception made for laches and acquiescence – Held: Petitioner, having served over decades, merited consideration for regularization, but financial constraints and policy consistency justified limiting benefits.
Discussed in context of judicial decisions and administrative orders – Once an order is passed and action is taken, revisiting the decision is limited to specific circumstances – Held: Court found no grounds to alter previous administrative decisions based on functus officio principle.
Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner’s claim for notional regularization from 1992 to 2016 and monetary benefits from 2016 rejected. Authorities instructed to consider financial constraints and policy impacts. Liberty granted to petitioner to seek other remedies as per law.
 

Defamation – Right to be Forgotten – Ad-Interim Injunction – The plaintiff was acquitted in a criminal case but alleged that defamatory posts from 2018 related to the case were still available on the websites of defendants (media houses), causing harm to his reputation – The Court recognized the right to be forgotten as an inherent aspect of the right to privacy and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from posting or updating any content related to the criminal case – Defendants were directed to remove the impugned posts within 15 days [Paras 25-35].

Disclosure of Information by 'X' (formerly Twitter) – The plaintiff identified defamatory posts made by unknown persons on 'X' – The Court directed 'X' to disclose the contact details, including names, email IDs, and IP addresses of the unknown persons, and instructed the plaintiff to contact them for the removal of defamatory content – If not removed within 48 hours, 'X' was ordered to delete the posts [Paras 36-38].

Decision: Ad-interim injunction granted – Defendants 1 to 4 were restrained from posting/updating any content related to the plaintiff’s criminal case, and directed to remove the impugned posts within 15 days – 'X' was directed to disclose information about unknown persons and to remove defamatory posts if not deleted by the users within 48 hours [Paras 35-38].

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation Calculation – Victim Souman Mondal was killed in a motor vehicle accident caused by a lorry driven recklessly. The tribunal awarded compensation, holding the owner of the vehicle liable and exonerating the insurance company. On appeal, the High Court recalculated the compensation considering the victim’s age, income, and future prospects, directing the insurance company to pay and recover from the owner [Paras 1-11].

Insurance Company Liability – Despite the driver not holding a valid license, the court, in light of the claimants’ dire situation, invoked the principle of ‘pay and recover,’ ordering the insurance company to pay the compensation first and then recover it from the vehicle owner through due process [Paras 9-14].

Just Compensation – High Court modified the award to Rs. 8,90,400/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim application until the deposit, deducting the amount already paid by the tribunal [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with modifications to the tribunal’s award. The insurance company is directed to pay the balance compensation and interest, with liberty to recover from the vehicle owner. No order as to costs [Paras 16-21].
 

Condonation of Delay – Divorce Proceedings – Remarriage of Respondent – Appeal against the decree of divorce granted ex-parte – Appellant’s delay in filing appeal attributed to lack of communication from her advocate – First appellate court’s refusal to condone delay upheld – Consideration of husband’s remarriage during pendency of delay condonation application significant – Held, appeal and condonation application infructuous due to remarriage [Paras 1-13].

Effect of Remarriage Post-Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act – Legal validity of remarriage post-divorce decree if no appeal filed within limitation period – Held, second marriage lawful in absence of appeal or stay on decree – No distinction between ex-parte and contested divorce decrees under Section 15 – Appeal against divorce decree filed after respondent’s remarriage considered infructuous [Paras 6-12].

Principle of Finality and Legal Certainty – Importance of timely appeal in divorce matters – Courts emphasize on maintaining finality and certainty in matrimonial disputes to prevent complications arising from subsequent marriages – Reiteration of settled law that remarriage post-divorce decree, without pending appeal, is lawful [Paras 7-9].

Decision:

Second appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce and refusal to condone delay affirmed – Appeal declared infructuous due to respondent’s remarriage – Legal principles of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applied.

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].

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.