Category Archives: Blog

In the case of Vavachan A. versus Ragini Ravi, Kerala State Pollution Control Borad and others [WP (C). No. 21476 OF 2020 (H)], the Kerala High Court headed by Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar dismissed the writ petition. The petition was filed to stop the installation of the telecommunication tower which the petitioners contended could cause health hazard to the people residing in the same area where the said tower was supposed to be installed.

The matter was concerned with the fact that if the telecommunication tower proposed by the respondent was permitted to be erected, it would cause air pollution by emission of electromagnetic waves which would harm the lives of people residing in that area including that of the petitioner.

The counsel of the petitioner contented that telecommunication tower was not an industrial plant as stated by one of the respondent under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. According to Section 21 “of the said act no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area”, so section 21 of he said act was not applicable here.

The present court relied on the judgement passed by the same court in the case of Reliance Infocom Ltd. V. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, 2006 (4) Klt 695 said that the Panchayat revoked the building permit granted for erection of telecommunication tower on the ground that it was likely to cause health hazard. The court in this case further clarified that the permission of the Pollution Control Board was required for the installation of the generator for operation of the telecommunication tower only if the same caused any kind of sound pollution. The court quoted the judgement of Paragraph 8 of the above case stating that:

“We notice that the Panchayat has as on today no scientific data or relevant materials to cancel the license already granted on the ground that the installation of the Tower would cause any any health hazards. Licence granted has been cancelled by the Panchayat based on an apprehension that the radiation may cause health hazards to the people of the locality. y. Further Ext.P5 also says that installation of generator would cause sound pollution. Petitioner has not installed any generator as on today and if the installation of generator would cause any sound pollution, evidently Pollution Control Board can give appropriate direction and the petitioner will have to obtain necessary consent from the Pollution Control Board for installation of generators, so that it would not cause any sound pollution. So also, if the installation of Tower and the emission of electromagnetic waves causes any air pollution, affecting human health the Pollution Control Board can take appropriate measures under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1991.”  

Click here to read judgement

In the case of Wakil Sada Vs State of Bihar [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8621 of 2020] Patna High Court held that convenience of parties, especially during the time of Pandemic Covid-19 is of prime importance and it shall be open for the authority to hear the parties with the use of technology, i.e. Video Conferencing facility etc.

Petitioner had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs directing the respondent authority to release the vehicle of question which was hero splendor bike which had been seized in connection for offence u/s 30 (a) Bihar Excise Amendment Act 2016 for the alleged recovery of wine from vehicle of Petitioner.

The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 prohibits the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation, possession, sale, purchase and consumption of any intoxicant or liquor, unless so allowed in terms of the Act. Under section 58 of the Act, power to issue an order of confiscation vests with the District Collector/Authorized officer, who upon receipt of the report of the seizing officer detaining such property is required to pass an order. The court had been flooded with several petitions solely on account of non-initiation of such proceedings of confiscation or passing of illegal orders with respect thereto. Also, on account of lack of parties pursing the remedies so provided under the Act.

Consequently, the court was faced with the following fact situations-

(a) where despite seizure, no proceedings for confiscation under Section 58 were initiated;

(b) where such proceedings were initiated but not concluded within a reasonable time;

(c) the parties after obtaining interim relief for release of “things” under orders passed in different set of writ petitions, did not participate in the confiscatory proceedings;

(d) where the order of confiscation was neither communicated nor the parties made aware of such fact, thus precluding them from filing appeal under Section 92 and Revision under Section 93 of the Act;

(e) proceedings initiated under Section 92/93 were not concluded within a reasonable time either on account of inaction on the part of the authority(s) or on account of non-cooperation of the private parties, be it for whatever reason. Resultantly, this Court from time to time has been passing several orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petition be disposed of in terms of the various orders passed by this Court, more so the orders referred. The petitioner relied on several cases like Manish Kumar Chaudhary versus the State of Bihar & Ors [CWJC No.3245 of 2017] and Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors [CWJC No.20598 of 2019] where it was directed that, “In the event of the authority arriving at the conclusion, directing confiscation of the property, the petitioner shall positively file the appeal within the statutory period as envisaged under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and the appellate authority shall positively decide the same within a period of two months thereafter.

If eventually, the appropriate authority arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to be confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek damages in accordance with law and have appropriate proceedings initiated against the erring officials/officers.”

Court directed that, “..all proceedings under Section 58 must positively be initiated/concluded within a period of ninety days from the date of appearance of the parties. Further, Appeal/Revision, if any, be also decided within a period of thirty days from the date of initiation, failing which the ‘things’ (vehicle/property/ etc.) shall be deemed to have been released in terms of several orders passed by this Court.”

Court held that, “Wherever confiscatory proceedings stand concluded and parties could not file the appeal/revision within the statutory period of limitation, as already stands directed in several matters, if they were to initiate such proceedings within next thirty days, the plea of limitation would not come in their way of adjudication of such proceedings on merit.”

Click to read judgement

In the case of Kumari Anjali R. versus Karnataka Examination Authority [Writ Petition No.- 11576 of 2020(EDN- CET)], the Karnataka high court observed that because of the minor error in describing the reservation category, the candidate who was aspiring for a seat in engineering course cannot be denied a seat in the CET examination.

This very writ petition was represented by the applicant’s father under Article 226 & 227 of the constitution of India to consider the petition, allow the applicant to make a correction in the CET application form and to consider the candidate eligible for special category reservation under the category of EX CAPF. Articles 226 and 227 are the parts of the constitution which define the powers of the High Court. Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them. Article 227 determines that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction (except a court formed under a law related to armed forces).

The Karnataka Examination Authority dismissed the candidature of the applicant who is the daughter of an Ex. Border Security Force soldier because she made a mistake in the description of the reservation category. The court was of the view that since the petitioner provided sufficient material which included a certificate which proved that she is the daughter of Ex. BSF soldier who defended the frontiers of the nation for a period exceeding twenty years and has retired, therefore she was rightly entitled to enjoy the privilege of the reservation.

The court further stated that it was a minor mistake committed by the petitioner in describing the reservation category however the court was of the opinion that it was not a mistake at all as BSF is apparently a defense organization too which was statutorily constituted under the provisions of the Border Security Act of 1968; “the provisions of the Act and the Rule made thereunder make it abundantly clear that the servicemen of BSF function as the soldiers guarding the borders of the country, therefore, this aspect of the matter ought to have been adverted to by the respondent before denying a seat to the petitioner under the ‘Special Category’ regardless of the description mentioned by the candidate, who is admittedly a minor”.

The court continued to state that “too technical an approach would defeat their very purpose; in any circumstance before rejecting the applications, the officials having a word with the candidate and his/ her parents would infuse fairness in the action which is an essential element of justice; more is not necessary to specify”.

Click here to read judgement

In the case of Nizamuddin Ahmad Vs State of Bihar [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15447 of 2017] Patna High Court held that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight-  jacket formula and plea of infraction of rules of natural justice or it is not a valid proceedings cannot come to rescue of a person unless prejudice is caused to the aggrieved person.

It was the case of the petitioner that Sub-Divisional Officer, Hathua vide his letter called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the license of the public distribution shop of the petitioner be not cancelled. The said show cause-notice was issued in the light of the letter of the Block Supply Officer, reporting therein irregularities in the matter of distribution of ration/kerosene oil, realization of more than the fixed price, indulging in black marketing of the ration for the month of May 2015 and misbehavior with the beneficiaries.

The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. With the show cause notice the report of the Block Supply Officer, Kateya was made available to the petitioner. In his report the Block Supply Officer had stated that in view of the letter of Sub-Divisional Officer he had gone to village Singhwania and obtained the written statement of allegationists. These beneficiaries appeared before the Block Supply Officer with their original cards and they complained that they were always scolded by the dealer Nizamuddin Ahmed. He used to say that they can go anywhere to make their complaint but they will not be provided ration. It was alleged that the dealer had not given any ration for even one month. It was further alleged that whenever consumer used to go to take kerosene oil, the dealer would give only 2 litres of kerosene oil charging Rs.25/- per litre which was more than the fixed amount. The other consumers had informed the Block Supply Officer that the dealer had sold the ration of May 2015 in black market. When the Block Supply Officer had gone to the shop of the petitioner his shop was found closed and there was no board in front of the shop.

Vide his office letter the dealer was asked to mend his ways but there was no improvement in the behaviour of the dealer and he indulged in violating the rules and misbehaving with the beneficiaries. The petitioner denied all the allegations and alleged that due to personal enmity and for some reason few persons are doing politics and acting in conspiracy with each other they want to get the license of the petitioner cancelled. As regards the complaint of the five consumers, the petitioner submitted that the allegations were false and baseless, the five consumers had got the card only one month back from some sources and they had never come to lift the ration. It had been submitted in the reply that these consumers have acted with malice and in conspiracy they have tried to indulge the petitioner in false allegation of black marketing.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hathuwa held that the show cause submitted by the petitioner seemed to be concocted and as regards the allegation made in the report of the Block Supply Officer, Kateya the petitioner had not made available any evidence/documents in that context. The Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, cancelled the license of the shop of the petitioner.

The petitioner preferred an appeal and his main contention in the appeal was that the licensing authority has passed the impugned order without considering his show cause. The petitioner contended that the Panchayat representatives have certified about the genuineness of the system being followed by the petitioner in the distribution of the rations but that had not been considered. The appellate authority found that show cause of the petitioner was available in the records of the licensing authority but there was no explanation with regard to the fact that the shops were found closed. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed. The revisional authority also refused to interfere. Then the present writ application had been preferred for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order.

It was submitted that the Block Supply Officer, Kateya is silent on the time of inspection, mode of investigation, inquiry and the Block Supply Officer did not collect any evidence regarding black marketing of the Government supplied ration. It was his submission that none of the authorities below have appreciated the submissions of the petitioner.

The State respondents have contested the writ application and it was their stand that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with the charges clearly mentioned in the same and the inquiry report of the Block Supply Officer was also enclosed with the show cause notice, therefore, the requirement of law and compliance with the principle of natural justice have been fulfilled.

Court held that, “The public distribution shop system caters the need of Below Poverty Line (BPL) families and vulnerable above Poverty Line (APL) families, it is meant for those who need subsidized food articles and denial of the rations/kerosene to needy beneficiaries would defeat the very object of total food security and elimination of hunger. Thus, the Court is of the view that in the given facts and circumstance if the licensing authority has cancelled the license of the petitioner no fault may be found with the same. The appellate authority has rightly appreciated the materials present on the record and upheld the order of the licensing authority.”

Click to read judgement

In the case of Gajraj Ramabhai Hajani Thro Ramabhai Pithabhai Hajani v. State of Gujarat, (R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12832 of 2020) the high court of Gujarat had quashed the rape case against a boy filed by the minor wife, rather the court had held the parents responsible for the concerned acts, for ruining their childhood by dragging them in such a disreputable controversy, thus the cost imposed shared equally between them.

The facts of this case initiate by filing the captioned application, the petitioner – accused, a “minor”, is seeking the invocation of powers of this Court under the provision of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of the FIR being C.R. No.11202057200329 dated 19.08.2020 registered with Sikka Police Station, District: Jamnagar for the offences punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 4 and 12 of  The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (for short “the POCSO Act”). Interestingly, the FIR is lodged at the instance of his  “minor” wife. By the  F.I.R. dated 19.08.2020, the prosecutrix indicates that she got married to the petitioner- accused on 07.02.2015 at the age of 11 years. Her date of birth recorded in the F.I.R. is 06.01.2004. The F.I.R. also states that she was forced to maintain a physical relationship by her husband against her wishes after 2016 when she was taken to her in-law’s house. Thus, a girl of 11 years of age was married to the accused by her parents, who was a minor of 17 years of age and was in a forceful physical relationship on account their parent’s wishes and desires.  On the registration of the F.I.R., the prosecutrix was produced before the 7th Additional Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar for the recording of her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. This Court has perused her statement, in which she has specifically admitted that she was married to the accused and thereafter she was forced to maintain physical relationship with him after 2017. The investigation also revealed the established fact that the parents had solemnized the marriage of the accused and prosecutrix when they were minor on 07.02.2015. It is also informed by the learned APP that the proceedings under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 have also been initiated. She has further submitted that the present FIR may not be quashed on the ground of settlement. Reliance is placed by her on the judgement reported in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688.

The court states that “It also appears that the FIR is lodged at the behest of the parents invoking provisions of serious offences. The petitioner, a minor is embroiled in the serious offence of rape by the prosecutrix at the behest of her parents without realizing the consequences. In her tender age the prosecutrix is also made to understand the immorality and dire consequence of offence of rape.  The childhood of both the petitioner and the prosecutrix is obliterated by their parents, on two counts, first by marrying them in tender age, and secondly, by involving them in the offence of rape.  The facts are suggestive that the minors are used as weapons in order to satisfy their prejudices and egos. The prosecution is lodged taking shelter under the minority of the prosecutrix. The quashing of the F.I.R. is sought by citing the minor age and marriage of the petitioner.”

The court, in this case, had held that “This Court is of the opinion that the criminal machinery alleging such serious offences under I.P.C and POCSO cannot be allowed to be misused and the parents of such children who resort such tactics cannot be let-off easily without fastening any accountability. Sufficient time has been devoted by the investigating authority in conducting the investigation. The prosecutrix was also produced before the concerned Magistrate. A great deal of time is consumed of this Court including the registry. Hence, in order to avoid such misuse of the penal provisions, I am of the considered opinion that the time is ripe to fasten the liability for sheer wastage of time of State and the Court. Hence, I consider appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.30,000/- . It shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court. The Registry shall further transfer the amount to the Gujarat High Court Legal Service Committee.  Since the parents of both the prosecutrix and the petitioner are responsible for ruining their childhood by dragging them in such a disreputable controversy, the cost shall be shared by them equally.”

“In order to see that the relationship between the families does not further deteriorate and the life of both the petitioner and the prosecutrix is maintained smoothly and effortlessly, the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside in view of the settlement arrived at between the concerned parties. This Court is conscious of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Laxmi Narayan (supra). The law enunciated by the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the submissions advanced by the learned APP are rejected. The petition stands allowed. RULE is made absolute accordingly”

“I may part with the observations of (His Lordship K.S.P.Radhkrishnan, J in the case of Aarushi Dhasmana V Union of India, 2013 (9) SCC 475) – “Law of this land has always recognised the rights of parents with their wards/minors and first and foremost consideration of the Court is “welfare of the children”, which overrides the views or opinions of the parents.”

Click here to read the judgment