Compassionate Appointment - Writ Petition - Denial of appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) on compassionate grounds - Petitioners, wife, and son of deceased KSRTC employee, seek appointment for the son on compassionate grounds following the death of the father who was a senior driver in KSRTC - Petitioners contend that they are entitled to appointment as per the scheme existing at the time of the father's death in 2011 - Corporation contends that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is subject to the prevailing rules and schemes - Corporation offers appointments to Class-III posts to the son, which he refuses - Held that compassionate appointment cannot be insisted upon as a matter of right, nor can it be demanded for a specific post - Purpose of compassionate appointment is to alleviate immediate financial distress, which was not accepted by the son - Son's insistence on a particular post indicates lack of immediate financial necessity - Writ petition rejected. [Paras 1-9]

Erroneous Date of Birth Entry - Visually Impaired Candidate's Candidature Rejected - The petitioner, a 100% permanently visually impaired candidate, faced rejection of her candidature for the post of Assistant in Level-1 in 'D' grade due to an incorrect date of birth entry made inadvertently by a helper at an internet cafe [Paras 3, 12].

Legislative Protection for Persons with Disabilities - Emphasis on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, requiring authorities to approach cases of persons with disabilities with sensitivity and flexibility, particularly in the procedural aspects [Paras 14-15, 17].

Supreme Court's Guidelines on Reasonable Accommodation - Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court highlights the concept of Reasonable Accommodation, necessitating additional support and facilities for persons with disabilities beyond mere non-discrimination [Paras 14-15].

Rejection Deemed Oppressive and Contrary to Legislative Intent - The Court finds the rigid stand of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's candidature as unduly oppressive, violating the objective of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Para 16].

Dismissal of Alternate Remedy Argument - The Court rejects the respondents' contention that the petitioner should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, emphasizing the need for immediate judicial intervention to prevent failure of justice and uphold the spirit of the Act of 2016 [Para 17].

Direction to Process Candidature - The Court directs Respondent No. 2, Railway Recruitment Cell, to process the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant as per Advertisement No. CEN RRC- 01/2019 within six weeks [Para 18].

Relief Granted - The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's candidature [Para 19].

Writ - Disability Rights – Reasonable Accommodation and Fairness – The High Court examined the Railway Recruitment Cell’s rejection of a 100% visually impaired candidate’s application due to an inadvertent error in the date of birth entry. The Court emphasized the need for reasonable accommodation and affirmative action for persons with disabilities, underscoring the importance of treating such individuals with sensitivity and flexibility. [Para 2, 12-15, 18]

Error in Application Form – Visual Impairment – Consideration of Specific Needs – The Court highlighted the specific circumstances under which the error in the application form occurred, considering the Petitioner’s visual impairment and reliance on assistance. The Court found that minor mistakes due to disabilities should not lead to disproportionate consequences like loss of job opportunities. [Para 12-13, 15]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Enforcement and Application – The Court elaborated on the principle of reasonable accommodation as mandated by the Act of 2016. The judgment stressed the proactive creation of conditions conducive to persons with disabilities and the requirement for authorities to adapt procedures to align with legislative objectives. [Para 14-15, 18]

Judicial Intervention – Upholding Disability Rights – The High Court intervened to set aside the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature by the Railway Recruitment Cell, directing the processing of her application. This decision underscores the Court’s role in enforcing disability rights and ensuring justice. [Para 17-18]

Domestic Violence – Economic Abuse – Maintenance and Compensation – The High Court of Bombay examined whether the facts of the case constituted economic abuse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and assessed the appropriateness of the maintenance and compensation awarded to the respondent. [Para 13, 17, 19-21]

Findings on Economic Abuse – Held – The Court found that the petitioner had deprived the respondent of economic resources and properties she was entitled to, thereby constituting economic abuse as defined under Section 3 of the DV Act. This included the deprivation of the respondent's right to use properties jointly owned and the lack of provision for her maintenance. [Para 12-13]

Quantum of Maintenance – Upheld – The Court upheld the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court, considering the petitioner's undisclosed income, properties in his name, and the needs of the respondent and children. The Court noted that the income tax returns of the petitioner were not a true reflection of his actual income. [Para 16-21]

Compensation Awarded – Justified – The Court held that the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- awarded to the respondent was justified, considering her mental agony, deprivation of property use, and lack of maintenance over the years. [Para 23]

Refusal of Cohabitation by Respondent – Reasonable – The Court found the respondent's refusal to resume cohabitation reasonable, as she was justified in fearing deprivation of her rights over the properties in her name. [Para 24]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the findings of economic abuse and upholding the maintenance and compensation awarded to the respondent. [Para 26]

Bail Application – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) – Rejection  – Accused as a chemist found with unaccounted intoxicant capsules and tablets – Court observes serious drug menace in Punjab and emphasizes stringent approach against drug trafficking – Held that there are no reasonable grounds to believe innocence of the accused – Bail application dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Presumption of Culpable Mental State – Section 35 of NDPS Act – Court notes absence of a satisfactory explanation by the accused to rebut the presumption of culpable mental state as per Section 35 NDPS Act – Finds the medical prescription submitted by accused to be unreliable at this stage – Bail cannot be granted due to the gravity of the alleged offence and pending FSL report. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Rejection of Bail – High Court, considering the gravity of the offence, ongoing investigation, and lack of substantial evidence to prove innocence, denies bail to the petitioner – Observes necessity to combat drug menace and its impact on society firmly. [Para 13]

Writ - Issue of Protection in a Live-in Relationship – Addressed – The petitioners sought protection from interference and harassment by family members in their live-in relationship. They claimed their relationship was threatened by the respondent, primarily petitioner No.1's father. The petitioners also sought a legal mandate to prevent such interference and for the provision of security. [Para 2-3]

Legal Status of Petitioner No.1's Marriage – Examined – Petitioner No.1, a married Muslim woman without a formal divorce, cohabiting with Petitioner No.2. The court considered the legal implications of this arrangement under Muslim Law and the Indian Penal Code, referring to previous rulings that such relationships do not qualify as 'live-in relationships' or 'relationships in the nature of marriage.' [Para 6-9, 11]

Principle of Legal Right for Mandamus – Applied – The Court evaluated the requisites for issuing a writ of mandamus. It concluded that a writ can only be issued if there is a legal right to the performance of a legal duty. The relationship between the petitioners, in violation of existing laws, did not constitute a legally protected right. [Para 10, 13]

Decision – Dismissal of the Petition – The court dismissed the petition, noting that the relationship between the petitioners, being in violation of Muslim Law and Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC, cannot be legally protected or supported by the Court. The petitioners' request for protection and non-interference was thus held to be without legal basis. [Para 14-15]

Tenant's Right to Electricity Connection – Ambit and Limitations – The petitioners, as tenants, seek an electricity connection independent of the landlord's consent. They rely on Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court precedents asserting tenants' rights to basic amenities like electricity. [Paras 2, 7, 8]

Occupier’s Right to Electricity – clarified – highlighted that a tenant, as an 'occupier', has the right to apply for an electricity connection under the Electricity Act, 2003, and the U.P. Electricity Code, 2005, subject to certain conditions, including the furnishing of an indemnity bond. The court distinguished between authorized occupation and unauthorized occupancy. [Para 11-14]

Effect of Eviction Decree – recognized – acknowledged the existing eviction decree against the petitioners, which impacts their status as 'authorized occupiers'. The Court held that without a stay on the eviction decree, the petitioners cannot be considered authorized to occupy the premises, thus affecting their eligibility for an electricity connection. [Para 14-15]

Discretionary Relief – denied – exercised judicial discretion to refuse the petition for a direction to the electricity corporation to provide a connection to the petitioners under the current circumstances. However, the court left open the possibility of the petitioners re-applying for a connection if the eviction decree is set aside, recalled, or stayed. [Para 16-17]

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – The petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioners' entitlement to an electricity connection would be reconsiderable if there is a change in their legal status concerning the premises in question. [Para 18]

Decision:

The court denies the writ petition due to the petitioners' current status as subjects of an unchallenged eviction decree, but leaves the door open for a future application if their legal status changes. [Paras 16-18]

Fraudulent Manipulation of Revenue Records – Writ Petition – Challenge against orders by Additional Commissioner and Prescribed Authority – Petitioner contests fraudulent entry in revenue records by Ram Naresh (Lekhpal), manipulation of land records, and subsequent orders based on these fraudulent entries – Inquiry reveals unauthorized changes in records – Supreme Court’s principles on fraud applied – Orders obtained through fraud deemed nullities – Impugned orders set aside, restoring land in favor of petitioner. [Paras 1-40]

Mutation and Land Allotment Fraud – Alleged fraudulent actions by Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) in tampering revenue records and manipulating mutation entries for personal benefit – Unauthorised mutation of Plot No. 521 in favor of Ram Naresh, leading to various legal complications and disputes [Paras 4-6, 18, 20, 31, 36-37].

Inquiry Reports and Evidence of Fraud – Enquiry by the Chief Revenue Officer and Principal Secretary, Revenue, confirming unauthorized and fraudulent entries by Ram Naresh in revenue records – Manipulation of records without competent authority’s order [Paras 6, 16, 31, 36].

Legal Heir Substitution and Will Dispute – Rejection of petitioner’s application for substitution as legal heir based on a registered will – Additional Commissioner’s refusal to recognize petitioner as Kishore’s legal heir without a competent court’s decree [Paras 12, 28].

Principles of Fraud in Jurisprudence – Application of Supreme Court rulings on the impact of fraud on legal proceedings – Orders obtained through fraud treated as nullity, not recognized by law [Paras 32-34, 38].

Decision – Orders dated 21.06.2011, 16.07.2011, and 25.07.2011 by the Additional Commissioner, and orders dated 31.10.1996 and 04.08.1997 by the Prescribed Authority, set aside – Restoration of land in favor of Kishore and his successors – Costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed on respondents 5 and 6 [Paras 39-40].

Arbitration – Extension of Mandate – Application for Extension of Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate under Section 29A of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The Court considered an application for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal under section 29A of the 1996 Act and exclusion of a specific period for the purpose of determining timeliness under the same Act. [Para 1]

Jurisdiction – Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal – Interpretation of Section 29A of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Explored the seamless transition of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal through various stages under Section 29A, emphasizing its termination unless extended as per the Act. [Para 9-10, 14]

Limitation Act, 1963 – Application of Section 14 – Applied Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming the application’s timeliness based on continuous legal proceedings and entitlement to exclude time under Section 14. [Para 16-18, 21-22]

Jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court – Interpretation of Section 29A and Related Provisions – The Court addressed the jurisdictional challenge regarding the extension of the mandate, referring to the definition of “Court” under section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act and the appointing authority context in Section 11 of the same Act. [Para 25-28]

Decision – Extension of Mandate Granted – The application for extending the mandate of the arbitral tribunal was allowed, granting a three-week extension from the date of this judgment. The Court emphasized the sufficiency of cause shown by the petitioner. [Para 30-31]

Stay of Award Publication – Rejected – Given that the award was ready to be published, the Court considered and refused the prayer for stay. [Para 32]