Habeas Corpus - Custody of Minor Child - Welfare of Child – Criminal Allegations of Dowry Harassment – Habeas corpus petition filed for the custody of a minor child – Custody taken by father alleged to be forceful – Consideration of child's welfare paramount – Two-month-old child taken from mother, who is alleged to have been subjected to cruelty for dowry – Supreme Court and High Court precedents prioritize child’s welfare over legal rights of parents – Held, custody to be handed to mother considering tender age and necessity of maternal care – Court directs compliance with visitation rights for father. [Paras 1-39]

Role of Parents in Custody – Analysis – Held – Petitioner (mother) alleged forceful taking of the child by respondent no.6 (father) – Father's custody claimed to be lawful by petitioner’s prior consent – Examined welfare needs of child, concluded welfare better secured with mother due to tender age and need for maternal care – Court recognizes the necessity for financial support by father, regardless of custody outcome. [Paras 1-39]

Decision - Custody Awarded to Mother – Habeas Corpus Writ Petition allowed – Court orders transfer of custody to the mother within seven days – Chief Judicial Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh to ensure compliance – Father granted visitation rights twice a week. [Paras 34-39]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Revisional application under Sections 482 and 401 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406 IPC deemed abuse of process – High Court’s inherent powers invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice – FIR and charge-sheet quashed. [Paras 1-36]

Matrimonial Disputes – Settlement – High Court’s inherent powers – Analysis – Held – Parties resolved matrimonial disputes and obtained mutual consent divorce – Continuation of criminal proceedings counterproductive – Legal precedent supports quashing in cases of amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes. [Para 34-35]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Court quashes FIR and charge-sheet against petitioner, citing abuse of process and resolution of matrimonial issues through mutual consent divorce – Recognizes necessity of applying inherent powers to prevent injustice. [Para 36-40]

Civil Procedure Code – Condonation of Delay – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Petitioners failed to file written statements within the prescribed period of 120 days as per Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Petitioners sought condonation of delay of 125 days citing personal hardships and unavoidable circumstances – Trial Court dismissed the applications finding the reasons unsatisfactory – High Court held that procedural timelines should not impede justice where sufficient cause is shown – Delay condoned subject to costs. [Paras 1-22]

Condonation of Delay – Principles – High Court emphasized the directory nature of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as interpreted in Kailash v. Nankhu (2005) 4 SCC 480 – Held – Courts must balance procedural compliance with the interest of justice – Exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons provided by the petitioners warrant condonation of delay. [Para 16-21]

Decision – Application for Condonation of Delay Allowed – High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Trial Court’s order, and directed that the written statements be taken on record – Imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- each on petitioners payable to the respondent before the Trial Court. [Para 21-22]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 80/2024 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi for offences under Sections 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act – Information received regarding drug peddlers leading to the arrest of co-accused and recovery of 1010 grams of heroin – Petitioner named during the interrogation of co-accused – Petitioner alleged to be involved in drug trafficking syndicate – Petitioner absconding and failed to respond to notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Application for anticipatory bail rejected. [Paras 3-13]

Evidence – Confessional Statements and Corroborative Material – Confessional statements of co-accused – WhatsApp conversations and Call Detail Records (CDRs) examined – Evidence indicating prima facie involvement of the petitioner – Court held that custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the entire drug syndicate. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Rejection of Anticipatory Bail – Court found no ground for granting anticipatory bail – Investigation at a nascent stage – Risk of tampering with evidence if bail granted – Application dismissed. [Para 13]

Writ Jurisdiction – Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 – Validity of forum selection clause – High Court of Calcutta holds jurisdiction despite forum selection clause specifying courts in Bhopal – Constitutional provisions under Article 226 cannot be contracted out – Part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court – Petitioners received rejection communication at Kolkata, affecting their business – Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 not ousted by forum selection clause [Paras 4, 6-7, 22-39].

Tender Evaluation – Applicability of Amendment No. 5 to EPC Tender Document – Notification dated August 31, 2016, prohibits amendments during offer submission period – Amendment No. 5 issued within fifteen days prior to bid due date – Held inapplicable to petitioners’ tender – Petitioners ineligible without the amendment [Paras 9, 41-49].

Bid Submission Requirements – Non-uploading of Appendix-IB with Technical Bid – Bid rejected as non-responsive – Tender terms required Appendix-IB with technical bid – Petitioners’ submission of Appendix-IB with financial bid insufficient – Authority’s interpretation given primacy – Decision to reject technical bid upheld [Paras 10-15, 51-57].

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Held – Petition dismissed as the decision-making process of respondent authorities adhered to tender terms and natural justice – No arbitrariness or unreasonableness found in rejection of petitioners’ bid – Costs not awarded [Paras 58-60].

Transfer of Property Act – Section 44 – Rights of Co-owners and Transferees - Property Law – Second Appeal under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 & 2 CPC dismissed – Challenge against the concurrent findings of trial court and 1st appellate court dismissing defendants’ claim over property by adverse possession and confirming mandatory injunction for eviction – High Court held that defendants were licensees and not co-owners, thus not entitled to protection under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act – Substantial question of law answered against appellants – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Paras 1-33]

Co-ownership and Licensee Rights – High Court evaluated defendants' claim of adverse possession and exchange of properties – Found defendants to be licensees under the original co-owner without any exchange of properties as claimed – Defendants not entitled to protection as co-owners under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act or Section 4 of the Partition Act – Suit for mandatory injunction held valid for eviction after termination of license – Previous decisions supporting co-owner’s right to sue for possession without involving other co-owners upheld. [Paras 9-20, 22-24, 30-32]

Procedural Aspects – High Court analyzed appropriateness of mandatory injunction vs. suit for recovery of possession – Upheld mandatory injunction based on prompt action by plaintiffs following termination of license – Distinguished from trespasser scenario due to immediate suit filing – Relied on precedents establishing that delay and necessity for a suit for possession are context-dependent – Avoidance of multiplicity of suits emphasized. [Paras 25-29]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The second appeal is dismissed with costs due to lack of merit in the defendants' contentions, confirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the defendants are mere licensees and not co-owners, and thus liable to vacate the property as decreed. [Para 33]

Recruitment Process – Selection for Post of Constable – Alleged Irregularities – Petitioners successfully cleared written examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test (PMT), and viva voce, yet appointment letters not issued – High Court examined the selection process and found procedural irregularities in rejecting candidates despite their qualifications – Directions issued for reconsideration of certain candidates.

Right to Fair Treatment – Impersonation Allegations – Held – Rejection of candidates on mere suspicion of impersonation without giving them an opportunity to respond is unjust – High Court directed authorities to process candidatures of two petitioners alleged to have impersonated, as no substantive evidence was provided, and to consider them for appointment based on merit.

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – The High Court directed the respondents to process the appointments of Krishna Murari Kumar and Binod Kumar, found eligible but rejected on suspicion of impersonation – Authorities to complete this process within four weeks and accommodate in next available vacancies if current vacancies are filled – Age bar impediments waived for delayed processing – Remaining petitioners found ineligible based on marks secured compared to last selected candidates in respective categories.

Territorial Jurisdiction – Writ Petition – RTI Act – Section 8(1)(j) – Forum Conveniens – Petitioner challenged the CIC’s order refusing disclosure of attendance records under the RTI Act. The court highlighted the principle of forum conveniens, noting that the SEEPZ-SEZ and concerned authorities were located in Mumbai, thus the High Court of Bombay was the appropriate forum. Petition dismissed on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and lack of merit. [Paras 4-6]

Right to Information – Exemption from Disclosure – Personal Information – RTI request for attendance records deemed personal information. Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of personal information unless justified by larger public interest. The CPIO correctly invoked Section 11 to seek consent from consultants, some of whom objected to disclosure. CIC upheld the CPIO’s decision, finding no overriding public interest. [Paras 7-11]

Personal Information – Definition and Scope – Court referred to Supreme Court rulings in Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, defining personal information broadly to include professional records and performance evaluations. Such information is protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy unless public interest demands disclosure. [Paras 8-10]

Motivation Behind RTI Request – Judicial notice taken of petitioner’s status as a disgruntled employee, suggesting RTI application aimed at settling personal scores rather than genuine public interest. [Para 12]

Decision – Petition dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of public interest in disclosure of requested information. [Paras 6, 11, 13]

Sexual Harassment at Workplace – Implementation of POSH Act – Writ Petition seeking directions to ensure compliance with POSH Act by constituting ICC – Court directs Respondent No.1 to take action as per POSH Act – ICC constituted, proceedings initiated but delayed – Petitioner’s identity to be protected – Directions issued for further proceedings despite winding up of the Respondent company – Applicability of Vishaka guidelines reaffirmed. [Paras 1-14]

Direction to Authorities – POSH Act – Court emphasizes the duty of authorities to ensure proper functioning of ICC in companies – Transfers case to appropriate jurisdiction for effective redressal – Failure of company to constitute ICC is no ground to leave complaints unaddressed – Orders issued to proceed with the complaint even if the company is wound up – Complainant’s protection under POSH Act ensured. [Paras 10-12]

Decision: Court directs Respondent No.1 to take action per the POSH Act and ensures ICC constitution. Application to implead additional respondent (CFO) allowed. Further proceedings directed with protection of petitioner’s identity. No merits addressed on the case. [Paras 12-14]