Category Archives: Blog

A directive should be issued to the authorities to evaluate and settle recovery of the sanctioned amount for installation and commissioning of Solar Street Lighting System in Gram Panchayat and authorities are directed to complete such processes as per needs of service of notice and copy of certificate on certificate debator, in Certificate Case No. 6 is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA in the case of Naseema Khatoon Vs. State Of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8587 of 2021)

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner prayed to quash the Notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, i.e., Service of notice and copy of certificate on certificate debator, in Certificate Case No. 6 of 2020-21 by the District Certificate Officer, Gaya, directing the petitioners to file a Show Cause/Response as to why a Certificate should not be issued for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 11,17,968/-. In addition, to quash Certificate Case No. 6 of 2020-21 filed against the petitioners for the recovery of Rs. 11,17,968/- sanctioned for the installation and commissioning of Solar Street Lighting System in Gram Panchayat, Nauranga, Manpur Block, Gaya. Including any other remedies that the petitioners are determined to be entitled to in the eyes of the law.

The petitioner’s learned counsel requests permission to withdraw the current petition while retaining the right to pursue the certificate processes that are still pending. The petitioner’s learned counsel claims that the proceedings concern the year 2020, and that as a result, a directive should be issued to the authorities to evaluate and settle the matter as soon as possible. According to Shri Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned AAG 13, the parties must submit a plea to the authorities for a speedy resolution of the proceedings.

Authorities are directed to complete such processes within six months of the date of production of a copy of this order, as required by law. Further, when considering such a request, natural justice principles must be observed and due process must be followed and the parties must be given the opportunity to be heard. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he or she shall have the right to file a fresh petition with this Court if so required and preferred, and the present petition is consequently withdrawn with the liberty/direction aforesaid, and any interlocutory application shall be dismissed.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi

Recently, a case involving legitimacy of putting up CCTV cameras in Spa was under question in respect of right to privacy. This was examined by a Madurai bench of Madras High Court consisting of Justice G.R. Swaminathan in the matters between Payel Biswas v. Commissioner of Police decided on 4.1.2022.

The fact of this case are that the Government issued a notification for installation of CCTV cameras at the entry and exit points of spa or massage establishments “without prejudice to clients and employees”The Petitioner applied for obtaining a license for installing such  camera which was mandatory. There was no action taken and she filed a writ petition directing the police to issue NOC to prevent the police from interfering in conducting her business.

The counsel on behalf of the Appellant contended that since it was a mandate by the notification to obtain license and set up CCTV, the police should not interfere with the conduct of her business and issue NOC in this regard

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent contended that they are duty bound to raid as a part of their routine work into places where there is suspicion of some illegal activities being committed and hence CCTV cameras inside such establishments should be set up.

The Madras High Court held that installation of CCTV equipments inside the premises of private places like Spa is a clear violation of right of bodily autonomy where “prying eyes of state cannot be allowed.”There is no requirement of transparency in such places simply upon the pretext of suspicion that immoral and illegal activities are taking place.

Payel_Biswas_v_Commissioner_of_Police

Judgement reviewed by Bhaswati Goldar

The question as to whether a person accused of rape charges can be convicted on the basis of consistent testimony of the victim was examined in Delhi High Court in a bench consisting of Justice Mukta Gupta in the matters of RN v. State which was decided on 4.1.2022.

The facts of this case are that when the victim was 5 years old the appellant raped the child in her own house and upon inquiry, the child informed her mother that the appellant called her to his room while she was playing and later violated her by inserting his finger and male organ into her vagina.The mother also found her “underwear smeared with blood”. Later, she made her change and go to bed.Thereafter discussed the incident with the father. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 6 of the POSCO Act and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.This sentence was challenged by the appellant before this court.

The counsel on behalf of the Appellant contended that when a child of such a tender age provides such flawless testimonies, it is obvious that she has been tutored to frame the appellant.It cannot be denied that the medical evidence suggest commission of sexual assault on the child yet,it cannot be legitimately connected to the appellant.He also contended that no materials were recovered, neither any witness was present during seizure of materials from the crime scene or during his arrest hence, the evidences elicited to falsely implicate the appellant.

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent contended that she was already cross examined and maintained a consistent testimony in the trial court earlier. It was also established beyond reasonable doubt that there was sexual assault committed upon the child.

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction stating that the child was of a impressionable age and properly narrated the incident to her mother soon after , reason why there are no inconsistencies in her statement.Such a testimony is sufficient to prove the offence of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.The court found no error in the judgement by the trial court in the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Judgement reviewed by Bhaswati Goldar

R_N_v__State DHC

Appropriate legal action against respondent for their breach of contract and cheating is available under the Bihar Protection of Depositors’ Interests (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002, and the corresponding Rule of 2004 and the problem of limitation will not prevent the matter from being decided on its merits is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA in the case of Shree Nath Pathak Vs. The Union of India through the Principal Secretary (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10116 of 2021)

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, direction/s, and order/s commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner’s maturity amount/due amount forthwith, which was deposited by the petitioners to the respondent at the office of respondent in the name of investment, as well as any consequential benefit that the petitioner is entitled to in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has requested for an order directing respondent to pay interest at 18 percent per annum on the sum invested by the petitioner until the date of final payment, as well as compensation for the respondent company’s mental and economic harassment. The petitioner has requested that a criminal case be filed against the respondent for his intentional omissions and commissions and a direction to take appropriate legal action against respondent for their breach of contract and cheating with the petitioners.

The petitioner has an equally effective remedy under the terms of the Bihar Protection of Depositors’ Interests (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002, and the corresponding Rule of 2004, and the concerns stated in the current lis can be simply adjudicated by the authority stipulated as in case of Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. the Union of India and Ors dismissed a similar petition. As a result, the petitioner is free to pursue the remedies set forth in the Act and according to Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, learned Additional Advocate General, if such a petition is filed within four weeks, the problem of limitation will not prevent the matter from being decided on its merits.

The petition is dismissed, and the petitioner has four weeks to pursue the Act’s remedies and the issue of limitation, if any, will not prevent the matter from being decided on its merits. The parties will be given the opportunity to record any necessary documents and materials, if so requested and desired. Petitioner, through counsel, agrees to fully cooperate and not take any unnecessary adjournments. Within six months of taking recourse to remedies under the Act, the appropriate authority shall decide the matter on the merits, in accordance with natural justice principles, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi

 

 

The High Court has powers to award monetary compensation for infraction of constitutional or other rights. The question as to the prisoner’s right to be compensated by the Court of Justice for delay in release from prison was examined by High Court of Delhi, consisting of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani in the matter of Sanjay Singh vs. The State (GOVT. OF NCT) of Delhi & Anr. [W.P. (CRL.) 974/2020] on 30.9.2021.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner despite having been admitted to bail vidé order dated 18.05.2020 made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi had not been released from Tihar jail. When the matter came-up for hearing for the first time on 26.06.2020, the Court was informed that the petitioner had been released from jail the previous night i.e., on 25.06.2020. Inspite thereof however, in subsequent proceedings, upon an issue being raised on behalf of the petitioner as to the delay in releasing the petitioner from prison, certain explanations were offered; and, and negligence on the part of the prison authorities was seen. Court recorded its displeasure and issued certain directions to ensure due sensitisation of prison officials about the rights of the prisoners, inter-alia mandating that prisoners must be released expeditiously once granted bail or other relief by courts.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that while other compliances were made, the petitioner deserves to be compensated for the 10 days’ delay in releasing him from prison i.e., for the period between 15.06.2020, when he furnished requisite securities, and 25.06.2020 i.e., the date on which he was finally released. She relied on the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MLA vs. State of J & K & Ors., to submit that the court is entitled to award monetary compensation even by way of exemplary costs or otherwise.

the learned Counsel for respondent (appearing for the prison authorities) contended that through its various orders, this court had pursued the matter in order to streamline processes for issuance of production warrants and to ensure that there was no laxity or delay in releasing prisoners who had been admitted to bail, in so far as the petitioner’s own case is concerned, that stood closed and no further relief ought to be granted to the petitioner.

The High Court of Delhi held that in the present case, the petitioner has not placed any material on record to substantiate a case of ‘mischief’ or ‘malicious intent’ as would warrant the grant of monetary compensation in-line with the verdict of the Supreme Court in the above case. While in an appropriate case, this court certainly has powers to award monetary compensation for infraction of constitutional or other rights, but in the present case, there is nothing to make-out a case of mischief or malice and therefore, there is no basis for award of any compensation. In view of the above, the Court found no merit in the petitioner’s plea for awarding compensation and the plea was accordingly rejected. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Judgment reviewed by Shristi Suman.read judgment