Tenancy Law — West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 — Renewal of Tenancy — Mandatory Prerequisites — Section 3(2) Provisos and Rule 5 — Lease of respondent-tenant expired by efflux of time on 08.08.1998 and further terminated by notice under Section 3(1) — Renewal under the 1976 Act requires an application within the prescribed period along with simultaneous deposit of all arrears of rent with interest — Respondent never made any such formal application nor deposited arrears simultaneously — Request for issuance of monthly rent bills dated 05.05.2014 held not to constitute an application for renewal — Held: Respondents not entitled to renewal under the 1976 Act or the 1976 Rules for non-compliance with mandatory prerequisites [Paras 40–54].

1976 Act — Distinguished from Rent Control Laws — Government Premises on Different Footing — Argument that 1976 Act being beneficial legislation should be interpreted analogously to Sections 7 and 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Acts of 1997 and 1956 — Held: The 1976 Act operates on an entirely different premise; Government premises are treated distinctly due to administrative exigencies and public interest; the provisos to Section 3(2) are subservient to the main provision and no analogy with Rent Control laws is permissible [Paras 46–53].

Beneficial Scheme — Existing Allottee — Scope of Expression — Respondent applied for benefit of WBSIDCL Special Scheme dated 18.02.2021 (extended 25.08.2022) for conversion of short-term to 99-year long-term lease within the extended period — Scheme uses expression "existing allottees" and not "existing lessees" — Held: The deliberate use of "allottees" over "lessees" indicates that the Scheme was intended to benefit all allottees in occupation of the estate irrespective of whether any valid lease subsisted; respondent being in occupation as an allottee qualifies as an "existing allottee" — Application cannot be refused on the ground of absence of subsisting lease [Paras 55–63].

Scheme — Conditions of Withdrawal of Litigation and Payment of Arrears — Not Pre-conditions to Application — Appellants contended that pending litigation and non-deposit of arrears disentitled respondent from Scheme benefits — Held: Payment of arrears and withdrawal of litigation are conditions to be fulfilled after the application is considered and sanctioned in principle; requiring withdrawal of litigation as a pre-condition before any decision would leave the applicant remediless — Such interpretation cannot be countenanced under a beneficial Scheme [Para 64].

Article 14 — Discriminatory Treatment — Parity with M/s. Gravo Prints — M/s. Gravo Prints, whose lease had also expired and who was also a defaulter, was granted the benefit of the Scheme and treated as an existing allottee, with liberty to deposit arrears subsequent to application — Respondent stands on similar footing yet application was not even considered — Held: Once a privilege under a State Scheme is granted to one entity, all entities standing on similar footing acquire a right to similar treatment; refusal to consider respondent's application while extending benefit to M/s. Gravo Prints constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory State action violating Article 14 [Paras 68–75].

Legal Malice — State Action — Dispossession on Day of Filing of Writ Petition — WBSIDCL effected physical possession of subject-plots on 14.09.2023, the very date when respondents filed WPA 22402/2023, despite being served a copy of the writ petition and being informed that the matter would be taken up at 2:00 PM — Resumption order was also hurriedly passed immediately after WPA 4280/2014 was dismissed for default, before respondents could seek restoration — Held: Actions of appellant-authorities reek of legal malice; due process was merely paid lip-service; fairness must be read into due process — Element of legal malice manifest; impugned actions rightly set aside [Paras 76–82].

Decision: Appeals dismissed on contest — Impugned judgment dated 16.08.2024 affirmed — Possession of Plot Nos. K-10 and K-10/2, Behala Industrial Estate directed to be restored to respondents — WBSIDCL directed to extend benefits of the Scheme under Circular dated 18.02.2021 as extended on 25.08.2022 to respondents — No order as to costs.

Public Procurement – Tender Conditions – Geographical Restriction – RBSN Food Items Supply – Petitioners challenged Clause A(1) requiring bidders to own manufacturing unit in Uttar Pradesh prior to tender floating date as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution – Respondents justified condition on grounds of timely supply, quality control, supervision, prevention of pilferage of subsidised raw materials (wheat and rice allocated by Government of India), short shelf life of three months, and compliance with Allahabad High Court directions in Shipra Devi case – Raw materials provided at subsidised rates on ex-godown basis from FCI depots in Uttar Pradesh – Held: Condition reasonable and not arbitrary – Formulation of tender conditions is prerogative of State – Courts interfere only if policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide – Physical supervision and inspection feasible when units located within State – Condition ensures permanency, timely delivery within 15 days of award, and uninterrupted supply to 16 million beneficiaries under National Food Security Act, 2013 [Paras 62-72]

Tender Conditions – Annual Turnover Requirement – Clause A(2) requiring minimum annual turnover of Rs.75 crores from THR supplies for each of last three financial years challenged as arbitrary – Total tender value approximately Rs.2,768 crores – State divided into 9 clusters with potential award of two clusters per bidder totaling approximately Rs.600 crores – Held: Turnover requirement rational and proportionate to ensure bidder possesses experience and financial capacity for large-scale uninterrupted supply – Not arbitrary or tailored to favour certain suppliers [Para 74]

Eligibility Criteria – Pending Litigation Disqualification – Clause A(12) disqualifying bidders with pending legal/criminal cases or disputes associated with THR supplies challenged as arbitrary and violating constitutional right to legal remedies – Petitioners had pending arbitration proceedings and recovery disputes with State of Uttar Pradesh – One petitioner had award in its favour with State having filed Section 34 petition – No blacklisting or debarment of petitioners – No adjudicated finding of deficiency against petitioners – Court observed prima facie merit in petitioners' submission that disqualification based solely on pendency without adjudicated findings of guilt or deficiency appears unjust – However issue became academic as petitioners failed to comply with mandatory Clause A(1) regarding manufacturing unit location [Paras 76-82]

Judicial Review – Tender Conditions – Scope of Interference – Courts cannot substitute their view for that of employer on what tender conditions should be – Courts interfere only if policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias – Tendering authority entitled to pragmatic adjustments based on particular circumstances – Greater latitude to be conceded to State authorities in formulating conditions for ensuring public welfare schemes – Public interest in timely fulfillment and quality of work must be safeguarded – Technical evaluation by courts impermissible – Principle of restraint to be followed when decision consonant with tender document purpose [Paras 71, 83]

General Financial Rules – Compliance – Petitioners challenged non-compliance with Rules 159, 160 and 161 of GFR 2017 regarding mandatory e-publishing on Central Public Procurement Portal and Government e-Marketplace – Court did not specifically adjudicate this challenge given dismissal on other grounds [Paras 19-21]

Decision: All three writ petitions dismissed – Tender conditions upheld as reasonable and not arbitrary – Pending applications also dismissed.

Medical Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — West Bengal Medical Council — Removal from Register — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Petitioner, a Gynaecologist, found guilty of infamous professional conduct by West Bengal Medical Council following death of patient post-caesarean section; name removed from register for two years under Section 25(a)(ii) of Bengal Medical Act, 1914 — Petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Section 26 before Principal Secretary, Health Department, which was dismissed — Petitioner thereafter moved National Medical Commission under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 — Writ petition filed challenging both orders — Held: Petitioner having exhausted statutory remedies including appeal before Appellate Authority and approaching the National Medical Commission, the matter attained finality through the statutory adjudicatory machinery — Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for further statutory remedies nor can the writ court act as an appellate authority for re-appreciation of evidence — Writ petition not maintainable.

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable — No order as to costs.

Criminal Law — Attempt to Murder — Section 307 IPC — Sterling Witness — Injured Wife — Sole Testimony Sufficient — Appellant convicted for firing upon his wife Vimla Devi (PW-3) with a firearm within the matrimonial home causing multiple firearm injuries to her left leg and palm — Prosecution rested on sole testimony of injured wife — Held: The injured wife is a sterling witness; identification of her own husband as the assailant in their shared matrimonial home at midnight admits of no doubt; no question of misidentification arises — Her evidence is consistent, trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, statement of Investigating Officer and conduct of accused in not visiting wife at hospital — Quality of witness, not quantity, determines adequacy of evidence — Conviction affirmed [Paras 23–26, 48–51].

Evidence — Hostile Witness — Deposition Not Washed Out — PW-1 (Jethani of injured) turned hostile and resiled from her earlier statement recorded at Agra Hospital by the Investigating Officer — Held: Deposition of a hostile witness does not by itself wash out the entire evidence — Earlier statement recorded at Agra corroborated the prosecution version and was verified by Investigating Officer — Statement of hostile witness self-contradictory and not credible [Paras 15–17].

Evidence — Ocular versus Medical Evidence — Non-Recovery of Firearm — Absence of FSL Report — Minor discrepancies between ocular account of injured and medical evidence — Firearm not recovered — No Forensic Science Laboratory report — Held: Where ocular evidence is trustworthy, it is to be preferred over medical evidence; absence of ballistic expert report is not always fatal to prosecution case; non-recovery of firearm does not ipso facto discredit prosecution case — Minor discrepancies do not affect the basic prosecution case [Paras 31–37].

Motive — Immaterial in Cases of Direct Evidence — Appellant's demand for motorcycle as dowry, consistent maltreatment and illicit relations with other women established as background — Held: In cases based on direct evidence, motive is immaterial and its proof is not required; existence of motive in any event established from evidence of injured, father of injured and Investigating Officer [Paras 28–29].

Defence Evidence — Contradictory and Unreliable — DW-1 (accused's brother) deposed miscreants escaped from roof via ladder; DW-2 deposed they exited from the house — Mutually contradictory; defence version of miscreants entering and fleeing without taking any household articles not believable — Ladder found at spot had two broken steps rendering it impassable — I.O. confirmed presence of rumours and information pointing to accused — Defence evidence discarded [Paras 40–43].

Sentence — Accused on Bail Since 1985 — Age Approximately 60 Years — No prior criminal history — However, relationship between husband and wife not cordial; injuries permanent in nature leaving injured with a permanently ineffective leg; accused never visited injured in hospital or thereafter — Held: No ground to reduce sentence; seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 307 IPC affirmed [Paras 46–51].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence dated 20.02.1985/23.02.1985 affirmed — Bail of appellant cancelled; directed to surrender before trial court within fifteen days — CJM, Mainpuri directed to ensure arrest and lodging in jail on failure to surrender.

Bail — PMLA — Violent Obstruction of Official Search — Influential Accused — Threat to Witnesses — Petitioner Sk. Sahajhan, alleged mastermind, prima facie found to have mobilised a violent mob of 800–1000 persons through 30 calls made between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. to obstruct ED search operations at his premises; mob attacked ED and CRPF officials with weapons, damaged government vehicles, and robbed personal belongings causing grievous injuries — Petitioner Sk. Alomgir, brother of first petitioner, allegedly involved in mobilising the crowd and keeping unlicensed firearms at an associate's house — Both petitioners in custody for a considerable period — Held: Sufficient incriminating material prima facie establishes leading role of both petitioners; they are extremely influential and dreaded persons; possibility of tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses cannot be ruled out at the current stage of investigation — Bail rejected [Paras 18–23].

Bail — Prolonged Incarceration — Not a Sufficient Ground Where Investigation Ongoing — Petitioners contended that custody of approximately two years without conclusion of trial amounts to punitive detention — 88 witnesses to be examined, 61 documents and 26 material exhibits relied upon; supplementary charge sheet yet to be filed; further investigation pending — Held: Though courts have frowned upon prolonged detention turning punitive, bail applications must be decided on the facts of each case; where substantial incriminating material exists and witness intimidation is a real threat, prolonged custody alone is not a sufficient ground for bail [Paras 21–23].

Witness Statements — Delayed Recording — Credibility — Statements of witnesses recorded by CBI after the case was made over, i.e., more than three months after the incident — Petitioners contended statements are the product of tutoring and afterthought — Held: Whether delay strikes at the credibility of statements is a matter to be dealt with at the appropriate stage of trial; observation in bail proceedings cannot be construed as an expression of opinion on merits [Para 20].

Co-Accused on Bail — Not Similarly Circumstanced — Petitioners argued that co-accused who led the mob have been granted bail — Held: Co-accused granted bail are not similarly circumstanced with the petitioners who are the principal accused; bail granted to one co-accused was on account of severe illness of his minor daughter; CBI has taken steps for cancellation of even that bail — Parity argument not available [Para 20].

Decision: Bail applications of both Sk. Sahajhan @ Sahajhan Sekh (CRM (DB) 554/2025) and Sk. Alomgir (CRM (DB) 650/2025) rejected — Observations limited to bail consideration and not to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case.

UAPA – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Overground Worker – Logistical Support – Long Incarceration – Appellant alleged to be a courier, messenger and overground worker of CPI (Maoist) who collected levy of Rs. 5 lakhs from a contractor on the direction of Maoist commander Ravindra Ganjhu – Cash, a letter of demand and other incriminating articles recovered from his possession – Charge sheet filed against six accused; out of 160 witnesses only five examined so far – Appellant in custody since 05.01.2020, completing over six years of incarceration – Held: Rigours of Section 43D(5) UAPA yield where there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in the near future and incarceration has already exceeded a substantial period; appellant entitled to bail [Paras 6, 12, 13].

UAPA – Bail – Parity – Distinguishable Role of Co-accused – NIA opposed bail citing rejection of bail of co-accused Kunwar Ganjhu in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 944 of 2025 – Held: Role of Kunwar Ganjhu under para 17.50.3 of the charge sheet is distinguishable as he was directly involved in extortion from contractors by putting them in fear of bodily injury and was a habitual offender, whereas the present appellant's role under para 17.50.2 is confined to that of a courier and messenger providing logistical support – Parity not applicable [Paras 10, 11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – UAPA – Statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA do not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution – Rigours of Section 43D(5) melt down where trial completion within reasonable time is unlikely and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence – Held: Section 43D(5) UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 NDPS Act and does not impose a precondition of prima facie innocence [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 01.12.2025 rejecting bail set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each – Condition imposed that appellant shall remain physically present before the trial court on each and every date till conclusion of trial.

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Summons for Investigation – Challenge on Ground of Malafide – Not Established – Petitioner challenged summons issued by the Income Tax Officer (Investigation) on 14.11.2025 requiring production of books of account, bank statements and property details, alleging it was issued at the instance of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax who is remotely related to defendants in a pending civil suit – Held: None of the respondents are parties to the civil suit; petitioner himself is not a party; the Tax Evasion Petition was received on 12.11.2025 and summons issued following Standard Operating Procedure; interim injunction in the civil suit was passed in April 2025, months before the summons; plea of malafide raised only in the writ petition and not in replies before the income tax authorities; plea based on Chartered Accountant's affidavit which was introduced after the summons and is afterthought – Malafide in fact not proved [Paras 24, 34].

Income Tax – Malice in Law – Legal Malafide – Distinction – Malafide in fact requires direct proof of ill will or improper motive; malice in law is an act done without lawful excuse or for purposes foreign to those for which power is vested – Where the statutory authority has acted on an anonymous Tax Evasion Petition following the prescribed SOP, allotting Unique Identification Number and obtaining approval of the competent authority before issuing summons, there is no question of malice in law or colourable exercise of power – Burden of establishing malafide is very heavy on the person who alleges it [Paras 26-35].

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (Investigation) – Not Raised in Writ Petition – Reading Section 131(1A) with Section 132(1), the Income Tax Officer is included as an authorized officer to issue summons on being authorized by the competent superior authority – Additionally, the ground of want of jurisdiction was never raised in the writ petition or in the petitioner's replies before the income tax authorities and was raised orally for the first time at arguments, which is impermissible – Held: No jurisdictional infirmity made out [Paras 40-42].

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Stage of Investigation – Confidentiality – At the stage of summons under Section 131(1A), the income tax authority is not required to disclose the reasons, source of information, line of inquiry or scope of ongoing investigation; details of such investigation are confidential and even exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act – Disclosure would defeat the purpose of investigation [Para 6].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Summons under Section 131(1A) held legal and not suffering from any infirmity – IA No. 4 of 2026 rejected – IA No. 3 of 2026 and all pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

POCSO – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Conviction Upheld – Victim's Testimony – Section 4 POCSO Act – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for sexually penetrating the anus of a minor boy and for showing pornographic material to a minor – Sentenced to simple imprisonment of seven years under Section 4 POCSO Act and one year under Section 293 IPC – On appeal, victim's testimony found natural and creditworthy – Absence of anal injury not fatal as Medical Officer found discomfort and slight pain during digital examination and opined possibility of penetration could not be ruled out – Corroboration not a sine qua non for conviction in sexual offences – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–14, 25, 39–43].

Delay in FIR – Sexual Offences – Delay Not Fatal – Incident occurred on 02.09.2013; FIR lodged on 03.09.2013 – Victim's father was absent from home; victim and mother cannot be faulted – Delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula to discard prosecution case, especially in sexual offences; court only examines whether satisfactory explanation has been offered [Para 17].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Discrepancies Not Going to Core – Discrepancies between victim's statement and his mother's statement regarding number of surrounding houses and whether victim attended school next day – Statements recorded more than six months after incident – Held: Minor discrepancies bound to arise with passage of time and do not shake the core of the prosecution case; each person reacts to a traumatic event in his own way and non-disclosure to neighbours or classmates cannot discredit the victim [Paras 22, 23].

Evidence – Cross-Examination – Failure to Challenge Witness – Recovery of Mobile Phone – Witness (PW4) who proved recovery of mobile phone containing memory card was not cross-examined – Held: Where testimony of a witness is not challenged in cross-examination, the same cannot be challenged during arguments; the recovery of the mobile phone with the memory card and pornographic clip must be accepted as proved, corroborating the victim's version [Para 26].

Evidence – Contradiction of Witness – Section 145 Evidence Act – Previous Statement – Victim's credit cannot be impeached on the ground that showing of pornographic clip was not mentioned in the FIR, as the victim's attention was not drawn to his previous statement in the manner prescribed under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; courts cannot suo motu take cognisance of contradictions not brought on record as per law [Paras 29–32].

Presumption – POCSO Act – Sections 29 and 30 – Foundational Facts – Burden on Accused – Statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act is activated only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts, namely: (i) victim is a child; (ii) alleged incident has occurred; (iii) accused committed the offence; and (iv) supporting medical evidence where physical injury is caused – Once foundational facts are proved, burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities – In the present case, victim's testimony was sufficient to prove foundational facts and the accused failed to lead any rebuttal evidence [Paras 34–39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 293 IPC upheld – Sentence of seven years simple imprisonment under Section 4 POCSO Act and one year under Section 293 IPC confirmed [Paras 42, 43].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Certified Guardian – Time Limit for Application – Rule 5 – Petitioner, a specially-abled spinster, sought compassionate appointment as certified guardian of the minor child of her deceased brother (a Government employee) and his wife, both of whom died in a road accident on 04.07.2017 – The Compassionate Appointment Rules did not originally contemplate appointment to a certified guardian; the eligibility was created only by amendment on 09.04.2021 – Petitioner filed her application on 18.08.2022, five years after the date of death – Held: Petitioner's application is beyond the one-year time limit prescribed under the amended Rule 5; the exception under Rule 5 for minors is also inapplicable; compassionate appointment cannot be granted [Paras 11-15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Applicable Rules – Date of Death vs. Date of Consideration – Conflict Between N.C. Santosh and Bheemesh – In N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, the Apex Court held that the norms prevailing as on the date of consideration of the application are the decisive factor – However, in State of Karnataka v. Bheemesh, the Apex Court opined that where benefits under an existing scheme were enlarged by a modified scheme after the death of the employee, only the scheme in force on the date of death applies – Held: Compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment; interpretation must depend on determinate and fixed criteria; greater emphasis on rule of law required; indeterminate factors such as the petitioner being a specially-abled spinster cannot override the prescribed time limit [Paras 14, 15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Amended Rule 3(2)(iii) – Benefit Not Available Beyond Time Limit – Even though the 2021 amendment created eligibility for certified guardians of minor children of deceased government employees where both the employee and spouse are deceased, such eligibility is subject to the simultaneous amendment to Rule 5 prescribing a one-year time limit for filing applications – Petitioner's application filed after five years cannot be considered regardless of the genuineness of the claim [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Decision: Writ petition rejected – Tribunal's order and respondent's refusal of compassionate appointment upheld.