Natural Justice – Penalty Imposed Without Consideration of Reply – Non-Speaking Order – The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed for illegal mining, contending that the order was a non-speaking one, passed without considering her detailed reply – Held: A quasi-judicial authority must pass reasoned orders, and failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice – The impugned penalty order was set aside as it lacked reasons and failed to address the petitioner’s defense [Paras 3-6].

Principles of Reasoned Decision-Making – Requirement for Recording Reasons – The court emphasized that recording reasons is indispensable for ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in decision-making, as mandated by the Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan [(2010) 9 SCC 496] – Such reasons also facilitate judicial review and ensure that decisions are made on relevant grounds [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – The penalty order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the respondents to decide afresh after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing [Para 9].
 

Quashing of FIR – Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act – Prior Approval Mandatory - The petitioners, a Circle Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector, sought to quash an FIR registered against them for demanding illegal gratification. The High Court held that under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior approval from the competent authority is mandatory before initiating any investigation against a public servant for actions carried out in the discharge of official duties. Since no such approval was obtained, the FIR was quashed [Paras 10-14, 20-24].

Application of Section 17A – Protection for Public Servants in Discharge of Duties - The Court emphasized that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act protects public servants from investigation for actions taken in the discharge of official functions without prior approval from the competent authority. As the alleged demand for gratification was linked to the petitioners' official duties, the lack of prior approval rendered the FIR void ab initio [Paras 16-18].

Trap Proceedings and On-the-Spot Arrest – No Exception Applicable - The Court noted that the petitioners were not caught in a trap or on-the-spot arrest while accepting illegal gratification. Therefore, the proviso to Section 17A, which allows investigation without prior approval in cases of on-the-spot arrest, was not applicable. The entire investigation was vitiated by the failure to secure prior approval [Paras 22-23].

Final Decision – FIR Quashed - The High Court allowed the petitions, quashing FIR No. 14/2022 registered at ACB Jaipur against the petitioners, as the investigation was initiated without the mandatory prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act [Para 25].

Criminal Procedure – Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witnesses – Section 231(2) CrPC – Petition for deferral of cross-examination – Allowed – The petitioners requested deferral of cross-examination of PW-1 until the examination-in-chief of CSW-2 and CSW-3 was completed, citing concerns about disclosure of the defence strategy as the witnesses were related – The Trial Court had dismissed the application, focusing primarily on potential delay in trial – Held: The Trial Court failed to properly consider all factors including potential prejudice to the accused – Order set aside and cross-examination deferred [Paras 10-20].

Fair Trial – Judicial Discretion under Section 231(2) – The Court reiterated that judicial discretion under Section 231(2) CrPC must be exercised with due regard to fairness to both the prosecution and the defence – The accused must be afforded reasonable opportunities for defence without compromising their right to a fair trial – The Court emphasized that deferral of cross-examination is a valid option where the defence could be prejudiced by early disclosure [Paras 18-22].

Decision: The Revisional Application was allowed. The order of the Trial Court dated 24/04/2024 was set aside, and the cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred until the completion of the examination-in-chief of PW-2 and PW-3. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the case.

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Allegation of Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Bail Granted – The petitioner, a lawyer, was accused of sexually exploiting the survivor while representing her in a domestic violence case. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner coerced the survivor into a sexual relationship by falsely promising marriage and later threatened her life. The Court held that there was no immediate evidence of a false promise, and the delay in registering the FIR further weakened the prosecution's case – Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 6-15].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in FIR Registration – Significance in Sexual Offences – The Court noted the delay in lodging the FIR, which was filed more than a year after the first alleged incident. Given the consensual nature of the relationship and the survivor’s continued engagement with the petitioner even after the alleged incidents, the Court found no compelling reason to deny bail [Paras 10-12].

Consent and Misconception of Fact – Legal Position – The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments distinguishing between breach of a promise to marry and a false promise made with fraudulent intent. The petitioner's case did not indicate a false promise made to induce the survivor into a sexual relationship, but rather a consensual relationship between two married individuals [Paras 10-15].

Decision:

Bail application allowed – Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions, including surrender before the Investigating Officer and compliance with specific bail conditions.

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Regularization of RCC Slab over Public Nallah – The petitioners, residents of Tarangan Housing Complex, challenged the TMC’s regularization of an unauthorized RCC slab and columns over a public Nallah, which obstructed access to the Complex. The High Court found that the regularization was granted despite TMC’s earlier demolition orders and affidavits confirming the illegal construction by M/s Kalpataru. The Court held that the TMC Commissioner’s order to regularize the construction was arbitrary and amounted to an abuse of power. The regularization was struck down [Paras 8-18].

Abuse of Powers by Municipal Commissioner – Section 45 and 53 MRTP Act – Ultra Vires – The Commissioner invoked powers under Sections 45 and 53(3) of the MRTP Act and Section 227 of the MMC Act, which were inapplicable. The plot was not landlocked, and the construction served only to benefit the developer at the expense of municipal property. The High Court ruled that the regularization order was ultra vires and invalid [Paras 32-38].

Public Interest and Municipal Duties – Illegal Construction in Public Spaces – The Court emphasized that municipal Nallahs and public spaces serve critical public functions and cannot be obstructed for private gain. The TMC's complicity in allowing such construction was condemned, and the Court ordered the immediate demolition of the unauthorized structures [Paras 40-44].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – The impugned regularization order dated 05 February 2005 was quashed. The third respondent and TMC were ordered to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- in costs to the petitioners.

Civil Law – Conditional Leave to Defend – Non-Compliance with Court Condition – Appeal Dismissed – Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,18,876/- for construction of a drug store at Chief Animal Husbandry Office, Shopian – Appellants, as defendants, were granted conditional leave by the Trial Court to defend the suit, on the condition that they deposit 10% of the amount in question – Appellants failed to comply with the condition – As a result, the Trial Court passed judgment and decree in favor of the respondent on 25th April 2023 – Appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree [Paras 1-3].

Conditional Leave to Defend – Discretion of the Court – Appellants argued that the Trial Court, having acknowledged triable issues, should not have imposed a condition for leave to defend – Appellants contended that the judgment and decree should not have been passed based on their non-fulfillment of the condition – Appellants did not challenge the conditional leave order of 28th December 2022, which thereby attained finality [Paras 5-6].

Plaintiff's Stand – Non-Compliance Justified Judgment – Respondent’s counsel argued that the judgment was legally justified due to appellants' failure to comply with the conditional leave order – The conditional leave order, which was not challenged, became final, and the appellants could not dispute its validity during the appeal against the judgment and decree [Paras 6-7].

Order 37 CPC – Expeditious Disposal – Underlying policy of Order 37 CPC is expeditious disposal of suits involving commercial matters – Order 37 Rule 3(5) allows the court discretion to grant leave to defend either unconditionally or on terms, which was exercised by the Trial Court in this case – Reference made to Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation (1976) 4 SCC 687 outlining the principles for granting leave to defend, including conditions for deposit [Paras 7-9].

Law Governing Non-Compliance – Finality of Conditional Leave Order – Trial Court passed the impugned judgment under Rule 3(6) of Order 37 CPC, which allows for judgment if the defendant fails to comply with the conditions of the leave – Since the appellants did not fulfill the condition nor challenge the leave order, the Trial Court was justified in passing the decree – The conditional leave order had become final and could not be challenged in the present appeal [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal lacked merit as the Trial Court's judgment was in accordance with law – Appellants’ failure to comply with the conditional leave order warranted dismissal of the appeal – Judgment and decree upheld [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court upheld.

Live-In Relationship – Domestic Violence – Maintenance Awarded – The applicant challenged the award of maintenance granted to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (a child) under the DV Act – Supreme Court held: The relationship between the applicant and respondent No. 1 fell within the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, as they lived together and a child was born from their relationship – The courts below were correct in awarding maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000 per month to respondent No. 2 [Paras 6-12].

Domestic Relationship – Knowledge of Prior Marriage – The applicant argued that respondent No. 1 was aware of his prior marriage, disqualifying her from claiming maintenance – Court rejected this argument, noting that respondent No. 1 had testified she was unaware of the applicant’s marital status – The courts below correctly held the relationship as one "in the nature of marriage," entitling her to relief under the DV Act.

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness of Award – The applicant, a government employee earning Rs. 32,000 per month, was ordered to pay Rs. 6,000 total in maintenance – The Court found this award to be reasonable given the financial circumstances of both parties, and there was no perversity in the lower court’s decision .

Decision – Revision dismissed – The findings of the lower courts were upheld, including the award of maintenance and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act .

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search and Recovery Validated – The appellant was convicted for possession of 0.4 grams of LSD, found in 30 square-shaped pieces. The appellant argued that the mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were violated, particularly that he was not informed about his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The Court, however, found that there was strict compliance with Section 50 as the appellant was informed in Hindi about his right, and this was confirmed by the independent witness and raiding officers. Minor discrepancies in the witness's testimony were not sufficient to invalidate the search [Paras 6-16].

Criminal Law – Section 52-A of NDPS Act – No Non-Compliance Found – The appellant argued that the failure to comply with Section 52-A regarding the disposal and preservation of the contraband rendered the prosecution's case invalid. The Court held that since the entire contraband weighing 0.4 grams was forwarded to the laboratory for testing, the question of non-compliance with Section 52-A did not arise. The provisions were primarily meant for bulk seizures, not small quantities like in this case [Paras 18-23].

Weight of Contraband – Prosecution Evidence Held Sufficient – The appellant contended that the weight of the contraband was not properly established. The Court dismissed this argument, holding that both the raiding officer and the independent witness testified to the weighing process, and there were no contradictions in their evidence. The absence of a record of weight in the laboratory report did not affect the validity of the prosecution's case [Paras 24-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act upheld.

Constitutional Law – Article 19(1)(g) – Age-Based Restriction on Professional Licenses – West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules 2017 – Constitutional Validity Upheld – The appellants challenged the imposition of an age bar under Rules 23(c) and 31(5) of the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017, as being violative of their right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – The Court held that the age restriction did not violate Article 19(1)(g) as the regulation was in furtherance of public safety, a valid ground under Article 19(6) – The prescription of age was considered a valid qualification necessary for maintaining public safety in the electrical profession [Paras 42, 47].

State's Legislative Competence – Rule-Making Power under Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Validity of Age Bar – The appellants argued that the age bar imposed under Rules 23(c) and 31(5) exceeded the State’s legislative competence under the Electricity Act, 2003 – The Court held that the State had the requisite competence under Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to prescribe qualifications, including age limits, for electrical supervisors, in the interest of public safety [Paras 45-48].

Public Safety – Justification for Age-Based Restrictions in Licensing – The Court found that the age-based restrictions on the renewal and issuance of electrical supervisor certificates were based on the rationale that individuals above the age of 70 may not be physically fit to ensure public safety in the electricity sector – The restriction was held to be reasonable and necessary to protect public safety [Paras 43, 49-52].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The constitutionality of Rules 23(c) and 31(5) of the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017, is upheld – No order as to costs.