Motor Accident Claim – Compensation Award under Section 163-A – Appellant Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal incorrectly applied the amended Section 164, which came into effect after the date of the accident – Court observed that the amended provision was applied erroneously, but the compensation amount under Sections 163-A and 164 remains the same – The award amount of Rs. 5 lakh was upheld [Paras 2-6].

Negligence as a Defence – No Defence of Negligence in Claims under Section 163-A – The appellant's argument that the deceased was negligent and hence not entitled to compensation was rejected, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar – Held: Insurer cannot raise negligence as a defence in claims under Section 163-A [Paras 6-9].

Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the modification that the award should be read as decided under Section 163-A instead of Section 164, while the compensation amount remained unchanged.

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.

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.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide and Cruelty – Quashing of Complaint – Lack of Specific Instigating Act – Application under Section 482 of CrPC – Petition by Accused No. 4 to quash the complaint in S.C. No. 539/2021, involving charges under Sections 498(A), 306 read with 34 IPC, alleging that petitioner, along with her family, subjected the victim to cruelty which ultimately led to her suicide – Petitioner claimed innocence, stating she resided abroad and had no active role in instigating the victim – Court examined specific evidence and allegations for abetment, finding no conclusive instigating act attributable to petitioner – Held: General allegations of familial disapproval are insufficient to constitute abetment or cruelty without clear evidence of direct or proximate instigation; no prima facie case made out against petitioner – Quashing petition allowed [Paras 1, 5, 6, 12].

Abetment – Requirement for Specific Instigation Under Section 306 IPC – Mens Rea and Proximity – High Court analyzed criteria for abetment of suicide, emphasizing that instigation under Section 306 IPC requires intentional acts or words directly motivating the victim’s suicide – Reviewed relevant case law, noting that mere familial discontent or indirect acts without clear incitement do not satisfy the requirements for abetment – Held: Allegations failed to demonstrate proximate instigation or any mens rea on petitioner’s part; charges for abetment not sustainable at pre-trial stage [Paras 11, 13, 16, 20].

Decision: Petition allowed – Quashing granted for offenses under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 34 IPC – Proceedings against petitioner dismissed at pre-trial stage – Stay order vacated [Para 12].

Bail in NDPS Cases – Medical Grounds – Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Granted with Conditions - The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, citing critical health conditions requiring care outside the prison setting, while the prosecution opposed the application due to the commercial quantity involved and alleged serious misconduct involving misuse of position by police personnel. Given the petitioner’s critical medical needs, the court held that stringent conditions on release could meet the justice requirements and balance the health needs – Bail was granted, overriding Section 37’s rigor in this context, with specific restrictive and rehabilitative conditions on the petitioner [Paras 9-12].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Ensuring Fair Trial and Prevention of Offense Repetition - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to submit detailed identification records and barred possession of firearms, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitation and reform as part of bail considerations – These conditions reflect the judiciary's intent to mitigate risks of witness tampering and recurrence of offenses, balancing bail with public safety concerns [Paras 14-19].

Discretion in Bail for Medical Reasons – Role of Proportionality and Necessity - Emphasizing the necessity for proportionality in bail conditions, the court aligned with Supreme Court observations that bail restrictions should not infringe rights disproportionately – The petitioner was held eligible for bail on medical grounds, subject to compliance with conditions supporting public and individual safety [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Granted – Given the petitioner’s critical medical condition and satisfaction of initial Section 37 conditions, the court granted bail with stringent restrictions to safeguard public safety and ensure the petitioner’s compliance.

Writ of Mandamus – Permission for Preparatory Arrangements for Public Festivities – The petitioners, devotees and members of Navajagran Public Durga Puja Samithi, sought permission to enter Bannappa Park Playground for preparatory work ahead of Durga Puja, scheduled from 09.10.2024 to 13.10.2024 – Held: The respondents had already granted permission for the Puja, and it was deemed essential for the petitioners to undertake necessary preparations such as erecting pandals, building a stage, and ensuring public safety prior to the event – The Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to perform preparatory work from 06.10.2024 onwards, while adhering to legal norms [Paras 6-12]​.

Public Interest – Religious Festivities and Civic Permissions – The Court emphasized the need for balancing public interest in religious festivities with civic responsibilities. Since the BBMP had no objections to the preparatory works, the petition was disposed of with appropriate directions [Paras 10-12]​.

Decision – Petition allowed – Respondents directed to permit the petitioners to carry out preparatory works for the Durga Puja from 06.10.2024 to 08.10.2024​.

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR Registration – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after being accused of theft under Section 380 IPC. The Court observed that there was an inordinate delay in registering the FIR, which was explained by the de-facto complainant on the grounds that the petitioner’s mother had promised to return the stolen ATM card and money – Held: The delay did not affect the credibility of the FIR as the explanation was prima facie satisfactory [Paras 6-7]​.

Pre-Arrest Bail – Exceptional Circumstances Required – Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only in exceptional cases where the applicant demonstrates clear misuse of the process of law – The petitioner’s custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for recovering the stolen items, and thus, anticipatory bail was denied [Paras 10-12]​.

Decision – Bail application dismissed – Custodial interrogation and recovery needed for proper investigation​.

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Against Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) – Availability of Statutory Remedies – The petitioner filed a writ petition against the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the expiration of the 30-day statutory period for raising objections before the Adjudicating Authority – Held: The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, which provide adequate safeguards and opportunities to challenge the attachment – Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to approach the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 1.1, 3.1, 3.6].

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA – Judicial Review – The petitioner’s challenge to the PAO, asserting a lack of connection with the proceeds of crime, was found unsustainable – The PAO is subject to review and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days as per Section 5(5) of the PMLA – The court found that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasize procedural safeguards provided under the Act [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedies – When Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked – The petitioner failed to establish that the PAO was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or amounted to an abuse of process, which are the grounds for bypassing statutory remedies – Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the limited exceptions to the rule of exhausting remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 3.2, 3.6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedy by approaching the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA – No observation on the merits of the case made – The Adjudicating Authority is directed to expedite the matter [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Illegal Extraction of Minerals – The petitioner was charged under Sections 379, 411, and 414 of the IPC and under the Mines and Minerals Act for alleged illegal extraction of brick earth – Held: The FIR and the subsequent proceedings were quashed as the petitioner had paid all dues for royalty, land revenue, and cess as demanded by the authorities – The issuance of a ‘No Due Certificate’ demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements, rendering the charges baseless [Paras 7-12]​.

Abuse of Process of Law – Absence of Essential Ingredients for Theft – The Court found no prima facie case for theft or illegal extraction of minerals as there was no seizure of brick earth or minerals from the petitioner’s premises – The seizure of empty trucks and earth removers did not constitute evidence of theft or illegal mining – The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 13-18]​.

Inherent Powers of Court – Quashing of Proceedings – The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, citing the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal to quash the proceedings – The criminal case was instituted with a mala fide intent, and the ingredients of the offences were not made out [Paras 20-22]​.

Decision – Petition allowed – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – Case disposed of​.