Criminal case – Bail – Petitioner filed for regular bail in FIR No. 148, dated 27^th June 2021, under Sections 15, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Petitioner seeks parity with co-accused who was granted regular bail in a previous case (Para 1 and 2).

False Implication Allegation – Petitioner’s counsel alleges that ASI Jagtar Singh, the investigating officer, has a history of falsely implicating accused individuals in NDPS cases – Reference made to a previous FIR registered against ASI Jagtar Singh under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Para 4).

Lack of Progress in Trial – Petitioners have been in custody since June 2021, and there is no substantial progress in the trial – No further recovery made during the investigation (Para 10).

Grant of Bail – Bail Conditions – Petitioners are granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned The court grants bail to the petitioner and co-accused based on the principle of parity and considering the delay in the trial despite the completion of the investigation (Para 11).

Notable Points – The investigating officer, ASI Jagtar Singh, is facing a vigilance inquiry – The decision to grant bail is specific to this case and should not be treated as a precedent for other cases (Para 14).

Seniority List – Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointees:

The regularisation of ad hoc appointees as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the Election Commission of India (ECI) was undertaken much before the appointment of direct recruits. The direct recruits, who were not even on the rolls of the ECI at the time of regularisation, cannot challenge the regularisation of ad hoc appointees as their rights were not affected then. The challenge to regularisation, made after a lapse of 27 to 30 years and with no interference in the regularisation process, cannot be entertained. The seniority in the grade of LDC shall be determined from the date of regular appointment/regularisation of ad hoc appointees, i.e., between 1993-1996, which was before the appointment of direct recruits between 1998-1999. (Para 37-43)

Locus Standi – Barred by Limitation:

The direct recruits cannot have locus standi to challenge the regularisation of ad hoc appointees when they were appointed much later than the regular appointment of ad hoc appointees. The challenge to regularisation, filed after the issuance of the seniority list in 2004, was also barred by limitation. (Para 38)

Rule 5 of Recruitment Rules – Relaxation of Rules:

The regularisation of ad hoc appointees was valid as it was done in accordance with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, which permits relaxation by the Central Government. The regularisation was undertaken in view of special circumstances, and the ad hoc appointees were appointed through Employment Exchange with necessary qualifications for the post of LDC. (Para 25, 24)

Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Limitations:

The relief sought by the direct recruits, challenging the regularisation of ad hoc appointees and setting aside the seniority list, cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution after such a long time and without any interference in the regularisation process. (Para 41)

Applicability of Precedents:

The judgments cited by the direct recruits in support of their contentions are distinguishable in the facts of the present case and have no applicability. The regularisation of ad hoc appointees and determination of seniority is not contrary to the principles laid down in the cited judgments. (Para 45)

Decision:

The Tribunal’s decision to set aside the seniority list dated June 11, 2004, and the subsequent direction for recasting the seniority list are unsustainable. The seniority of the ad hoc appointees shall be determined from the date of regularisation/regular appointment, i.e., between 1993-1996, which was before the appointment of direct recruits between 1998-1999. (Para 44)

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - Qualifying service - Petitioner seeks voluntary retirement from service but the Tribunal rejects the application, holding that the petitioner lacks the required 20 years of qualifying service - Petitioner challenges the rejection before the High Court - Court finds that a letter from the Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer indicates the petitioner's total qualifying service to be 24 years, 5 months, and 2 days as of October 1, 2016 - Tribunal fails to consider this evidence in its order - Court sets aside the Tribunal's order and remands the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with a direction to examine the service particulars and service book of the petitioner - Court fixes a time limit of six months for the Tribunal to decide the matter. [Para 35-36]

Labour Law - Unauthorised Absence - Reinstatement - Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner for unauthorised absence - Subsequent proceedings and penalty set aside by the Tribunal, directing reinstatement and counting of the period of absence for other service benefits - Respondents' reply and counter-affidavit do not address the period of absence accurately - Court directs the Tribunal to consider the period of unauthorised absence in its fresh consideration of the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement. [Para 32-33]

Judicial Interpretation - Rule of Law - Application of Rules - Court emphasizes that the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence and documents before reaching its decision - Failure to do so renders the Tribunal's decision liable for remand. [Para 34]

Principles of Natural Justice – Opportunity of Personal Hearing – Violation – Writ Petition filed to set aside a demand order issued under the CGST Act raising a total demand against the petitioner. Petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as it was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. [Para 2 and Para 7]

Hearing Proceedings – Lack of Clarity – Petitioner appeared for a hearing, but email communication was vague regarding the date. Record of handwritten proceedings showed a different date. No clear evidence of a proper personal hearing. [Para 13]

Statutory Provisions – CGST Act – Section 75(4) and 75(5) – Opportunity of Hearing – Mandatory – Statute requires granting an opportunity of hearing when a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or when any adverse decision is contemplated. Such hearing is not an empty formality but a well-established principle of audi alteram partem. [Para 17 and Para 23]

Personal Hearing vs. Telephonic Conversation – Inadequate Substitution – Telephonic conversations and office visits cannot be considered as equivalent to a proper personal hearing. The principles of natural justice require a meaningful opportunity for a party to present its arguments. [Para 22]

Alternate Remedy – Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of Alternate Remedy – No Absolute Bar – The mere availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically make a writ petition not maintainable. High Courts have discretion to entertain writ petitions even when an alternate remedy exists, especially when there is a violation of principles of natural justice or a clear statutory violation. [Para 30]

Misconduct – Wasting Judicial Time – Imposition of Cost – Respondent’s improper conduct in wasting judicial time by failing to file a counter affidavit and contesting the case without proper response. Respondent directed to pay a cost of ₹5,000, and action may be taken against the officer responsible for such misconduct. [Para 37]

Set Aside and Remand – The impugned demand notice set aside, and the matter remanded to the respondent to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity to be heard. [Para 38]

Capacity determination of Rice Mill – Retrospective application of instructions – Petitioner installed Rice Mill in 2007 – Capacity determined as 4 MT based on 2007 guidelines – Subsequent modification in 2010 disallowing leased land for capacity determination – Respondent re-determined capacity as 2 MT in 2022 – Petitioner challenged the order – Whether 2010 instructions can be applied retrospectively to an already installed mill – Held, executive instructions cannot have retrospective effect – Capacity cannot be determined based on 2010 instructions – Impugned order quashed to the extent of land – Joint verification of plant and machinery ordered – Fresh order to be passed expeditiously after verification.(Para No. 7-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Bail application - Grant of Bail - Prolonged incarceration - Slow pace of trial - Balance between accused's right to liberty and societal interest - Constitutional parameters - Right to speedy trial - Stringent bail conditions - Prima facie determination of guilt - Special enactments - Right under Article 21 of the Constitution - Unjust imprisonment - Overcrowded jails - Deleterious effects of prolonged incarceration - Balance of interests - Speedy conclusion of trial - Application of Section 436A of CrPC - Expediting the process - Special Acts and rigour imposed - Need for stricter compliance - Bail conditions under special enactments - Bail granted. [Para 1 to Para 25]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Right to Liberty - Prolonged incarceration - Unjust imprisonment - Overcrowded jails - Deleterious effects - Balance between societal interest and individual rights - Speedy conclusion of trial - Bail conditions under special enactments - Balance of interests - Right to speedy trial - Application of Section 436A of CrPC - Expediting the process - Stricter compliance - Bail granted under Article 21. [Para 7]

Speedy Trial - Right to speedy trial - Prolonged incarceration - Balance of interests - Special enactments with stringent bail conditions - Prima facie determination of guilt - Application of Section 436A of CrPC - Speedy conclusion of trial - Expediting the process - Stricter compliance - Bail granted. [Para 14, Para 16]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 436A - Application of Section 436A to Special Acts - Speedy conclusion of trial - Expediting the process - Stricter compliance - Bail conditions under special enactments - Special enactments and rigour imposed - Bail granted. [Para 20]

Special Enactments - NDPS Act - Section 37 - Bail conditions - Stringent bail provisions - Balance between societal interest and individual rights - Speedy conclusion of trial - Prima facie determination of guilt - Expediting the process - Stricter compliance - Bail granted. [Para 17, Para 20]

Unjust Imprisonment - Right to Liberty - Prolonged incarceration - Overcrowded jails - Deleterious effects - Special enactments with stringent bail conditions - Speedy conclusion of trial - Bail granted - Balance of interests - Stricter compliance. [Para 21, Para 22]

Constitutional Parameters - Right to speedy trial - Right under Article 21 of the Constitution - Prolonged incarceration - Overcrowded jails - Deleterious effects - Special enactments with stringent bail conditions - Speedy conclusion of trial - Bail granted - Balance of interests - Stricter compliance. [Para 20, Para 21]

Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Writ Petition challenging the order of the Special Court for trial of NIA cases – Petitioner accused No. 1 alleged biased and illegal investigation – Seeking production of CCTV footage and call detail recordings (CDRs) – Allegations of ill-treatment on accused No. 18 – Special Court dismissed the application – Petitioner’s right to seek CCTV footage and call recordings considered.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 91 – Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution – Application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., seeking CCTV footage and CDRs – Petitioner accused No. 1 claiming biased and illegal investigation – Allegations of ill-treatment on accused No. 18 – Special Court dismissing the application – Court considering petitioner’s request for inspection of CCTV footage.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Allegations of ill-treatment on accused No. 18 – Special Court recording confession statement under Section 164 – Subsequent complaints of ill-treatment – Examination of accused No. 18’s allegations and medical records – Special Court dismissing application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 124 and 126 – Request for production of call detail recordings (CDRs) – Privileged communication between NIA officials and advocate – Confidentiality and secrecy of official communications – Court dismissing request for CDRs.

Inspection of CCTV Footage – Court instructing Central Project Coordinator and technical team to inspect FSL and NIA offices – Verification of storage capacities and availability of footages – Potential use of footages during trial if available – Request for call detail recordings rejected due to legal restrictions.

Next Hearing – Matter listed for further hearing on 27^th July 2023.

 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order dated 13.03.2023 present at Annexure-F passed by the Hon’ble 49th Additional City Civil and Session Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA cases) at Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.123/2023 and consequently appreciate the application filed by the petitioner under section 91 of Cr.P.C., at Annexure-D and direct the respondent agency to produce the CCTV footage of Madiwala FSL office dated 06.11.2022 and NIA office between 07.11.2022 to 14.11.2022 before the Hon’ble court, direct NIA officials i.e. Shri  Shanmugan, Shri Mahesh and Shri Manjunath and concerned advocate to provide  details of their official and personal mobile number with their service provider, which they were using between 07.11.2022 till the filing of charge sheet consequently it  may directed to concerned service provider to extract and furnish the CDRs of given number of above mentioned persons to trial court and etc.

 This Writ Petition, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, Sreenivas Harish Kumar J.,  made the following:

Motor Accident Compensation – Appeal against quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Appellant sought enhancement of compensation – Accident resulting in multiple injuries to appellant, including fractures and muscle tears – Appellant underwent extensive medical treatment in various hospitals – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,21,500/- along with interest – Appellant contended compensation was inadequate, sought enhancement.

Medical Expenditure – Tribunal rightly considered medical bills and treatment records from Apna Hospital, Kurukshetra, and S.P.S. Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana – Compensation of Rs. 3,21,500/- granted for medical expenses – Held, no interference required. (Para 12)

Permanent Disability – Appellant suffered 41% disability in knee, ankle, and muscle wasting in the left leg – Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- for permanent disability – Court considered appellant’s profession and extent of disability – Enhanced compensation for permanent disability awarded – Appellant entitled to additional Rs. 94,000/-. (Para 13)

Pain and Suffering – Accident occurred in 2006 – Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded for pain and suffering – Tribunal’s decision justified, no change required.

Loss of Income and Other Expenses – Appellant’s shopkeeping profession affected due to injuries – Compensation awarded for loss of income, attendant charges, transportation, and special diet – Tribunal did not consider these aspects – Enhanced compensation granted for these factors. (Para 15)

Future Medical Treatment – Appellant claimed compensation for potential future medical treatments – No supporting evidence presented – No compensation awarded for future medical treatment.

Total Compensation – Overall compensation increased to Rs. 5,60,500/-, including interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till realization.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Bail – Regular Bail – Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner in custody for almost 4 years and 1 month in connection with FIR No.103 dated 07.05.2019 – Offenses registered under Sections 307, 353, 186, 224, 225, 34, 379-B, and 120-B IPC (Section 411 IPC added subsequently) and Section 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station City Kapurthala, Punjab – Petitioner’s name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused – Allegations of firing shots against co-accused already in custody – Trial not progressing, charges not framed, and a total of 35 witnesses – Two co-accused granted regular bail by the High Court in previous orders – Petitioner involved in other cases but currently out on bail for all of them – Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 – Observations that mere criminal antecedents and gravity of the alleged crime should not be the sole basis for denial of bail – Petitioner granted regular bail – Conditions imposed to ensure compliance. (Para No.1-10)