Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Nativity Certificate - Minor petitioner represented by his natural guardian applied for a Nativity Certificate to pursue higher studies in Tamil Nadu - Application rejected by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar on grounds of non-residence and birth outside the state - High Court quashes the order and directs issuance of the Nativity Certificate - Held, rejection of application based on birthplace and current residence contrary to established precedents and principles of domicile - Authorities directed to issue Nativity Certificate within seven days. [Paras 1-5]

Eligibility for Nativity Certificate - Analysis - Held, birthplace and current residence outside Tamil Nadu not sole determinants of nativity - Petitioner's parents, being natives of Tamil Nadu with roots traceable to the state, establish eligibility for Nativity Certificate - Authorities' denial based on misinterpretation of criteria and lack of consideration of relevant factors. [Para 4]

Decision - Issuance of Nativity Certificate - High Court quashes impugned order and directs Zonal Deputy Tahsildar to issue the Nativity Certificate within a specified timeframe - Authorities' refusal deemed incorrect and contrary to judicial precedents. [Para 5]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10(1)(c) – Reference to Labour Court – Principle of Res Judicata – Applicability – High Court examined the Labour Court's decision, which declined the petitioner’s reinstatement claim based on res judicata, as previous matters had been adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT-LC). The High Court found that the principle of res judicata was incorrectly applied since the petitioner was not a Central Government employee, invalidating prior decisions of the CAT and CGIT-LC. The matter required adjudication on merits regarding the termination's legality under the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned award was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication by the Labour Court [Paras 1-25].

Jurisdiction – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and Labour Courts – Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction – High Court observed that the CAT and CGIT-LC decisions regarding the petitioner’s employment status were coram non judice (without jurisdiction). The CAT’s earlier decision was deemed a nullity as the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.R. Pillai clarified that Unit Run Canteens’ employees are not Central Government employees. Consequently, CAT's decision lacked jurisdiction, necessitating proper legal remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Paras 9-16, 22-23].

Delay in Legal Remedy – Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s prolonged legal battle spanning over 20 years and protected her right to pursue a remedy under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner had approached various forums under a bona fide belief of their jurisdiction, thus excluding the time spent in such proceedings from the limitation period [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Revival of Reference – Expeditious Adjudication Ordered – The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Labour Court’s award and ordering the revival of the reference for fresh adjudication. The Court directed the parties to appear before the Labour Court on a specified date and mandated a decision within one year to mitigate further delays and alleviate the petitioner’s prolonged suffering [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law – Rape and Cheating – Appeal against conviction for rape under false promise of marriage – Initial conviction for offenses under Section 376 (rape) and 417 (cheating) of IPC by the Sessions Court – High Court scrutinizes evidence and previous relationships, focusing on consensual aspects of the relationship and prior marital status of the complainant – Finds that the sexual relationship was consensual and no forcible intercourse evidenced; hence, conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 417 upheld due to established deceit regarding marriage promise [Paras 15-26].

Evidence and Consent – Analysis of complainant’s age (36 years) and previous marriage status – Discrepancies in prosecution’s claims about appellant’s forcible actions – Reliance on Supreme Court precedents negating rape charges where consent evident and no resistance shown by victim – Conviction under Section 376 IPC deemed unsustainable and overturned; however, deceit under Section 417 upheld [Paras 20-23, 26].

Sentence Modification – Conviction under Section 376 IPC overturned; sentence under Section 417 modified to a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default simple imprisonment for three months – Fine to be paid as compensation to the victim/complainant [Para 26].

Decision: Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside due to lack of evidence on forcible intercourse – Conviction under Section 417 IPC affirmed with modified sentence – Directions given for compliance and execution of modified sentence [Paras 24-32].

Bail in NDPS Cases – Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – The court addressed the issue of prolonged pre-trial detention for the petitioners, emphasizing that they had been in custody for more than three years (or approximately two and a half years for some) without significant progress in their trials. The court highlighted that such extended detention, without the completion of trial, violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution​​.

Delay in Trial – Procedural Difficulties – The court acknowledged that the delay in the trial was primarily due to procedural difficulties, such as the inability to produce the accused from various jails and the theft of case samples. These factors contributed to the lack of examination of prosecution witnesses despite charges being framed over a year prior​​.

Non-Admissibility of Disclosure Statements – The court noted that most petitioners were nominated based on the disclosure statements of co-accused, which are not admissible as evidence under the NDPS Act, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu​​.

Comparative Analysis and Parity – The court considered the grant of bail to a similarly placed co-accused (Avninder Singh @ Shanty) who was released on bail under similar circumstances. This precedent was used to argue for parity in granting bail to the current petitioners​​.

Section 37 NDPS Act – Application of Bail Conditions – The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments which highlighted that prolonged detention without trial and procedural delays could override the strict conditions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, thus warranting bail​​.

Decision- All six petitions were allowed. The petitioners were granted regular bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the trial court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. The court specified that the observations made were for the purpose of deciding the bail petitions and not on the merits of the cases​​.

Civil Law – Local Investigation - Pre-emption rights – Challenge against order for local investigation to determine adjacency of properties for exercising preemption rights under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – High Court finds that local investigation should not substitute for evidence that must be provided by preemptor through documents and records like deeds and mouza maps – Contiguity must be established by preemptor using documentary evidence rather than through local investigation, which would improperly aid preemptor in proving his claim – Order for local investigation set aside as it amounted to fishing for evidence and assisting preemptor in proving his case – Revisional application allowed, and impugned order reversed [Paras 1-24].

Land Law – Preemption Rights under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Adjacent Property Ownership – Clarification of preemption rights based on the adjacency of properties. The case involved a dispute over whether properties were adjacent, justifying a preemption claim. The court reviewed the local investigation order to ascertain adjacency, deemed unnecessary by the High Court as the preemptor must prove adjacency through title deeds and maps without local investigation [Paras 3-4, 14, 17-20].

Procedural Law – Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure – Appropriateness of Local Investigation – Discussion on the appropriateness of deploying local investigations under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. The High Court held that local investigations should be reserved for cases involving unclear boundaries or land identity disputes, not simply to assist a party in proving contiguity, which can be established through existing documents and evidence [Paras 9-10, 18-20].

Decision – Setting Aside Lower Court’s Order for Local Investigation – Upholding Documentary Evidence Over Physical Inspection – The High Court set aside the lower court’s order allowing local investigation, ruling that proving adjacency should rely on documentary evidence rather than physical inspections, which could amount to an unwarranted aid in proving a party’s case. The preemptor’s obligation to prove contiguous ownership was emphasized as not necessitating local investigation [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Documents Post Discharge – Accused, discharged by investigating authorities and Internal Complaint Committee, seeks access to documents including the closure report and other investigative materials to participate effectively in the protest petition hearing – Supreme Court precedents and legal principles on the entitlement of an accused to such documents discussed – Trial court and revisional court denied the request leading to a revision under Section 482 CrPC.

Court’s Rationale – Dismissal of Revisional Application – High Court upholds decisions of lower courts, agreeing that at the stage of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, the accused does not have the right to participate or access documents that form part of the investigative process – Principles of natural justice not violated as the accused is recognized legally only post-cognizance – Court stresses the distinction between the rights of a de facto complainant and an accused in accessing investigative documents.

Decision – High Court dismisses the revisional application CRR 784 of 2023 affirming that no legal provision mandates hearing the accused or providing him documents at the pre-cognizance stage of a protest petition under Section 173(8) CrPC – Revision against order denying document access to discharged accused is not supported by law.

Administrative Law – Pension and Gratuity Withheld – Resolution directed by the High Court to release funds along with interest following unjust withholding by municipal authorities despite clearances from multiple enquiry reports – Kunal Chandra Sen, a school headmaster accused of misappropriation but later cleared, struggled to receive pension and gratuity after retirement – Several enquiry reports from 2015 to 2017 confirmed no evidence against petitioner, leading to court’s order for immediate release of funds and accrued interest [Paras 26-35].

Employment Law – Misuse of Investigative Power by Municipality – Municipal corporation improperly constituted a Fact Finding Committee without legal basis under The West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, after state investigations cleared petitioner of all charges, thereby acting beyond jurisdiction and violating petitioner’s rights [Paras 27-29].

Pension Rights – Final Entitlement and Interest Compensation – High Court recognized pension and gratuity as statutory rights upon successful employment completion, criticized wrongful withholding by authorities, and directed compensation for the delay [Paras 30-34].

Future Contingency Based on Criminal Proceedings – If future criminal proceedings by CBI prove guilt, recovery measures may be initiated – Ensures fairness while addressing prolonged judicial delay and procedural errors by authorities [Para 35].

Decision: The High Court directed the immediate release of withheld pension and gratuity payments totaling Rs. 28,67,213 along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of retirement to the date of deposit, providing relief to the petitioner and establishing precedent on handling cases of administrative overreach and rights of retired employees [Para 33-34]. The court allowed the writ petition, recognizing the statutory right to pension and addressing the misuse of administrative powers in conducting unauthorized enquiries [Para 36].

Commercial Dispute – Recovery of Payments – Appeal against Commercial Court’s decree ordering appellant to pay ₹8,49,385 with 18% p.a. interest from the date of suit filing for goods supplied to appellant – Dispute involves recovery of payments for 2500 T-shirts supplied under invoice dated 30.06.2018 (Ex.PW-1/2A) – Appellant challenges correctness of transactions, claims of defective goods, and pre-suit interest calculation under MSMED Act [Paras 1-40]

Defective Goods Claim – Appellant contends goods were defective and returned; however, Commercial Court finds only a portion (22 T-shirts) were disputed regarding quality – No full return was executed, and emails indicate ongoing discussions on quality but no complete denial of receipt [Paras 12-14, 32-33]

Interest Calculation under MSMED Act – Appellant disputes the entitlement to 18% p.a. pre-suit interest, alleging non-establishment of respondent’s MSMED status and lack of notice on interest penalty – Commercial Court finds sufficient notice and basis under MSMED Act despite appellant’s denial – Upholds interest claim as per Act’s provisions [Paras 36-39]

Judgment Assessment – Commercial Court found that despite discrepancies in transaction recording, evidence (ledger entries and emails) confirmed ongoing business transactions and non-payment specific to the challenged invoice – Ledger review indicated non-payment for the goods received; thus, financial claims by respondent were justified [Paras 17-20, 24-29]

Decision – High Court upholds Commercial Court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal, affirming respondent’s claim on principal and interest amounts due under provided invoices – Confirms legal and factual basis for the original decision, including the appropriateness of invoking MSMED Act provisions for interest calculation [Paras 38-40]

Contractual Disputes – Withholding of Payment – Dispute arose over withholding of Rs. 1,40,42,000/- payment due to allegations of data breach by the respondent – Appellant cited contractual provisions permitting withholding payment for default – Held, withholding payment pending investigation justified under terms of agreement [Paras 1-7, 10-11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise in Contractual Matters – High Court emphasized limited scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes – Held, writ jurisdiction not appropriate where arbitration clause exists and parties have alternate remedy – Reference to Apex Court rulings on writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes [Paras 8-9].

Arbitration Clause – Dispute Resolution – Agreement contained arbitration clause for dispute resolution – High Court directed parties to resolve dispute through arbitration, setting aside writ court’s order for immediate payment – Emphasized need for arbitration as per contract terms [Para 11].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Parties directed to resolve dispute through arbitration as per agreement terms – No costs [Para 12].