Violation of Fundamental Rights – Right to Education – Provision of Statutory Benefits – Public Interest Litigation – Delhi High Court mandates immediate provision of educational materials in kind rather than cash to ensure compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and related rules, highlighting administrative failures in GNCTD and MCD – Calls for an enhancement of financial powers of the MCD Commissioner to resolve procurement issues. [Paras 1-7, 9-14, 17, 25-26, 40]

Non-Compliance with Statutory Obligations – Delhi High Court identifies a lack of coordination and administrative impasse in MCD, exacerbated by non-functional Standing Committees, leading to failure in providing educational materials to students as per statutory requirements – Court stresses the need for immediate action to rectify the deficiencies to safeguard the fundamental rights of students under Article 21A. [Paras 10, 12-14, 23-26]

Judicial Directions for Administrative Reforms – In response to the failure of GNCTD and MCD to provide statutory educational benefits, Delhi High Court directs immediate delegation of financial powers to MCD Commissioner and criticizes the administrative inertia – Court emphasizes the urgency of fulfilling constitutional and statutory obligations towards school children. [Paras 16, 23-26, 35-37, 39-40]

Responsibility of Government Authorities – Delhi High Court holds GNCTD and MCD accountable for not ensuring the provision of free textbooks, writing materials, and uniforms, violating the statutory rights of children – Court orders immediate procurement of these items despite administrative and financial constraints, underscoring the urgency due to imminent school vacations. [Paras 5, 9-11, 15, 27-29, 31, 33-37]

Decision – Immediate Action Required – High Court emphasizes immediate need for action, overriding bureaucratic impediments, to ensure provision of statutory educational benefits, underscores the urgency given by upcoming academic breaks and fundamental education rights [Para 40].

Rent Act - Quashing of Eviction Order – Appeal against dismissal of eviction petition – Landlords' plea under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for recovery of possession of the subject premises – Landlords claim bona fide requirement for reconstruction of premises and settlement in India due to advanced age and insufficient accommodation – Tenant contests, alleging lack of evidence and bona fides – Trial court dismisses eviction petition for failure to prove bona fide requirement – High Court intervenes under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act – Holds eviction order unsustainable due to perversity in Rent Controller's reasoning – Landlords' desire to return to India for settling down and arranging matrimonial alliances for their children upheld as bona fide – Lack of specific pleadings and affirmative evidence from tenant's side – Court allows eviction petition, granting landlords possession of subject premises – Execution of possession order deferred for six months.

Execution Proceedings – Appointment of Legal Guardian – Tenant-petitioner sought appointment of a legal guardian for the landlord-respondent in a comatose state and adjournment sine die till such appointment – Application dismissed by the Executing Court – Court held that as per Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC, an enquiry must be conducted to adjudge the mental condition of the landlord – Case remanded to Executing Court for enquiry to be completed within 15 days [Paras 1-11].

Deposit of Arrears of Rent – Tenant’s application to deposit arrears of rent dismissed – Court affirmed the Executing Court’s decision, noting tenant's intent to delay proceedings – Rent arrears and interest upheld as per Rent Controller's decision [Para 6].

Relief – Petition partly allowed – Matter remanded for enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC to be completed within 15 days – No unnecessary adjournments to be granted [Para 11].
 

Land Consolidation – Jurisdiction Under Section 42 – Petitioners challenged orders passed under Section 42, arguing improper handling of consolidation proceedings and non-compliance with previous orders – Court found that authorities improperly exercised jurisdiction beyond the scope of Section 42, which is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, and should not be used for re-partitioning or revising finalized schemes – Previous orders impacting the petitioners were set aside [Paras 1-25].

Consolidation Scheme – Section 22 Updates – Finalized consolidation scheme and records updated under Section 22 should not be altered through Section 42 jurisdiction – Proper remedy for re-partitioning lies under Section 21 before finalization, or under Section 36 for re-notification of consolidation – Petitioners' land rights affected without due process – Orders quashed, and liberty granted to seek civil court remedies [Paras 16-26].

Relief – Petition allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Liberty to seek declaratory relief in civil court – Option for government to issue fresh consolidation notification under Section 36 [Para 26].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Petitioner sought declaration that acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-possession – Initial dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court, followed by remittance from the Supreme Court for fresh decision on issues excluding the field covered by Indore Development Authority case – Petition dismissed due to failure to raise objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act and lack of timely compliance with conditional approval for alternative allotment – Delayed petition imbued with delay and laches – Reliance on precedents for bar on late challenges [Paras 1-13].

Relief – Writ petition dismissed – Orders of acquisition and award maintained – Petitioner directed to pay costs [Para 14].

Jurisdiction and Authority of Police to Reinvestigate – Criminal Jurisdiction – Writ of Certiorari to quash FIR – Andhra Pradesh High Court rules on the legality of police reinvestigation in FIR No. 72 of 2016 under Sections 365, 342, 84, 506, 109 read with 34 of IPC, following a previous investigation into similar allegations in FIR No. 378 of 2015 – Held, police lack authority to reinvestigate the matter after a significant lapse of time and without new evidence against the petitioners – High Court quashes FIR No. 72 of 2016, deeming it illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, citing lack of jurisdiction and improper exercise of police powers in reinvestigation. [Paras 1-12]

Double Jeopardy and Civil Disputes – Analysis – Held, reinvestigation of the same factual scenario previously adjudicated in a criminal case constitutes double jeopardy; issues between parties are civil in nature and do not warrant criminal proceedings – High Court emphasizes improper police action in persisting with criminal charges absent new evidence, resulting in quashing of FIR. [Paras 10-11]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – High Court orders quashing of FIR No. 72 of 2016 and all associated criminal proceedings against the petitioners, highlighting the absence of a valid cause of action for continuing investigation and the violation of constitutional rights of the petitioners. [Para 12]

Review Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Application filed against remand order which had already been executed by the trial court – Held, review application maintainable despite execution of remand order and subsequent appeal, as procedural status does not negate the intrinsic right to seek review – The court disagrees with objections to maintainability raised by the respondent [Paras 5-12].

Review Jurisdiction – Merits – Claim of error apparent on record relating to misinterpretation of “prior user” and claims of material concealment by respondent – Court finds no such error apparent on the record justifying a review – Reiterates that review is not an appeal in disguise and is meant for patent errors only – Review application dismissed on merits [Paras 13-24]

Order: The application for review is held to be maintainable but dismissed on the merits, with all contentions left open for argument in the connected appeal (First Appeal From Order No. 411 of 2024).

Pension Dispute – Excess Payment Recovery – Challenged through Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus – Petitioner challenged government order demanding recovery of excess pension payments alleging no opportunity for representation was given and asserting recovery as arbitrary due to lack of any misrepresentation or fault on part of the pensioner – High Court set aside recovery order for being unjust, arbitrary, and violating principles of natural justice – Directed reinstatement of full pension benefits to the petitioner’s wife and refund of any amounts wrongly deducted. [Paras 1-19]

Due Process Violation – Principles of Natural Justice – Recovery order issued without prior notice to the petitioner – No opportunity provided for the petitioner to explain or contest the alleged overpayment – Recovery actions against retired employees, especially after long periods, deemed unjust and arbitrary – Court applied precedent from Rafiq Masih case to hold recovery impermissible in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud by the pensioner [Paras 10, 12-15].

Retrospective Pension Recovery – Held, impermissible under law after significant lapse of time post-retirement and without any fault on the pensioner’s part – Referenced Hon’ble Apex Court decision in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) – Recovery attempt post ten years of retirement termed unjustified and recovery order quashed. [Paras 14-17]

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed - Relief Granted – Impugned order set aside – Directions issued to respondents to resume payment of family pension to petitioner and return any recovered amounts within six weeks – Court’s decision reinforces protection of retired employees from undue financial recovery actions [Paras 19-20].

Competition Law – Penalty – Levy of Interest – Petitioners challenged CCI’s order to deposit interest on penalty amount for delayed payment without following due procedure under 2011 Regulations – High Court held that interest can be levied only if demand notice as per 2011 Regulations is served first – Demand notice mandatory for levying interest on penalty – CCI's order set aside as it bypassed mandatory procedure [Paras 1-24].

Regulatory Procedure – Demand Notice – 2011 Regulations – Interest on delayed payment of penalty can be levied only post issuance of demand notice – Demand notice informs the enterprise of penalty, due date, and interest liability for delay – Compliance with 2011 Regulations is mandatory before imposing interest – Reference to analogous provisions in Income Tax Act and relevant judicial precedents supporting mandatory notice requirement [Paras 3-23].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – CCI’s order dated 18.07.2023 set aside – Petitioners not liable to pay interest from 10.12.2018 till date of payment without proper demand notice – CCI directed to follow due procedure under 2011 Regulations for recovery of penalty and interest [Paras 23-24].