SUPREME COURT

• CRIMINAL

Rama Chaudhary v State of Bihar (Decided on 02.04.2009) MANU/SC/0517/2009

Criminal - Supplementary charge sheet filed and Trial court summoned the witnesses - Petition filed before High court by the Appellants was dismissed - Whether there is illegality or irregularity in summoning the witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet?

The law does not mandate taking prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. It is settled law that carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the Police. The material collected in further investigation cannot be rejected only because it has been filed at the stage of trial. The facts and circumstances show that t he trial Court is fully justified to summon witnesses examined in the course of further investigation. It is also clear from Section 231 of the Cr.P.C. that the prosecution is entitled to produce any person as witness even though such person is not named in the earlier charge-sheet. All those relevant aspects have been taken note of by the learned Magistrate while summoning the witnesses based on supplementary charge-sheet. This was correctly appreciated by the High Court by rightly rejecting the revision.

• PROPERTY

P. Vijayalakshmi Choudhary v B. Baliah. (Decided on 02.04.2009) MANU/SC/0526/2009

Property has been purchased during the pendency of suit - Application for impleadment as parties to the suit filed before High court by the appellants was dismissed - Whether high court justified in dismissing the application?

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants purchased the suit land under three separate sale deeds dated 03.10.1997 and then applied for their impleadment as appellant Nos. 6 to 8 by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the application by observing that the land which was subject matter of the suit is not shown to have been purchased by the applicants (appellants herein).

• TENANCY

Smt. Shashi Jain v Tarsem Lal (Dead) and Anr (Decided on 31.03.2009) MANU/SC/0499/2009

Eviction - Application for eviction filed before Rent controller by the appellant on the ground of default of payment of rent was dismissed - Appellate authority dismissed the appeal - Petition filed before High court was dismissed - Whether default of payment of arrears of rent by tenant can attract eviction ?

The landlady has pleaded and proved by leading reliable, positive and acceptable evidence that she is in urgent need of the demised property for her bona fide use and occupation in terms of Section 13 (3)(a)(i)(a) of the Rent Act. Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have gravely erred in not appreciating and considering the fact that payment of rent by a sub-tenant to the tenant is always a secret arrangement between them.The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction has power to satisfy itself as to whether the question of subletting which is a question of law was properly decided by the courts below based on the evidence, but the order shows that the High Court has legally failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in dismissing the revision petition of the landlady without assigning independent reasons and also not taking into consideration the perversity and infirmity of the order of the Rent Controller as confirmed by the Appellate Authority based upon misreading and mis- appreciation of the evidence on record. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction in this appeal will not be over-reaching its power in appreciating the evidence on record to find out whether the order of the authorities below as confirmed by the High Court are perverse not based upon proper and legitimate appreciation of the evidence on record led by the landlady which orders have caused miscarriage of justice to the landlady.

• CIVIL

Umesh Pandey v Chairman, Bihar Housing Board (Decided on 02.04.2009) MANU/SC/0524/2009

Petitioner applied for allotment of house to the respondent board. Application rejected on the ground that required affidavit not filed in prescribed format - Writ Petition filed and was allowed - Appeal filed by Board allowed -  Whether action of the respondent board is illegal?

Court view that the learned Single Judge was quite justified in allowing the writ petition because the Board did not offer any valid ground for excluding the respondent's application at the time of lottery held in 1983. Undisputedly, the respondent was neither informed about the so-called defect in the affidavit nor he was given opportunity to rectify the same. This being the position, the Division Bench was not justified in setting aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge

Association of Resident of Mhow v The Delimitation Commission of India and Ors (Decided on 31.03.2009) MANU/SC/0498/2009

Delimitation - Controversy is regarding final determination of the delimitation of Indore Parliamentary Constituency - whether the Commission had complied with the mandatory requirement as provided for in Section 9(2) of the Act, insofar as it concerns the shifting of Mhow Assembly Constituency from Indore Parliamentary Constituency and including the same into Dhar Parliamentary Constituency?

The Commission after considering the objections and suggestions received by it, and having found merit in the suggestions and representations for including Depalpur Assembly Constituency in Indore Parliamentary Constituency got published its final decision to shift Depalpur Assembly Constituency from Dhar Parliamentary Constituency and made it to be a part of Indore Parliamentary Constituency and in the process also shifted Mhow Assembly Constituency to Dhar Parliamentary Constituency.Commission finally determined the delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh after considering all objections and suggestions received by it before the specified date and got published its orders in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of the State as is required under Section 10(1) of the Act. The orders so published puts them "in the same street as a law made by Parliament itself".

HIGH COURTS

• SERVICE

DELHI HIGH COURT

R. Nallathurai v Airports Authority of India and Ors (Decided on 30.03.2009) MANU/DE/0310/2009

Petitioner filed writ on the ground that new restructured cadre not applicable to him and same was dismissed. Whether the requisite minimum qualifying service of eight years required for being considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) is legal ?

Reservation wrongly carried forwarded contrary to Rules and guidelines and should be deemed to be carry forward because of the mistake and error made by the first respondent. Carry forward of a reserved post depends upon on Rules, guidelines and the policy and was not dependent upon whims and fancies of the first respondent. Error or mistake in carrying forward of the reserved post though as per Rules and guidelines they could not be carry forward, will not confer any vested right on the appellant.

• CONSTITUTION

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Pratik Bhupendra Vora v State of Maharashtra (Decided on 02.04.2009) MANU/MH/0230/2009

Whether there can be reservation of a subject of Oral Pathology and Microbiology for physically handicapped candidates?

On a perusal of the said chart, we have also noticed that out of the eight subjects we can only accept that Oral Pathology and Microbiology is of the non clinical character and rest of the seven subjects are of the clinical character. Even assuming that the stand of the Government that subjects are divided into clinical and non clinical classifications, on a perusal of the said Chart, we have noticed that there is only one subject, which can be said to be non clinical character and, therefore, if there are seven subjects, which are of the clinical character and one subject of the non clinical character and if seats are required to be rotated, then in that circumstances, turn of the non clinical subject, by rotation, will come only after every seven years and not before that and, thus, looking at the matter, if non clinical subject was given to the handicapped person in 2006, it cannot be repeated in 2009. Repetition of such a subject in between, that is earlier to the period of seven years, results into not offering the other subjects to the handicapped person and, therefore, rotation on the basis of the clinical and non clinical subjects cannot be permitted in such manner, which will result into not offering all subjects in favour of the handicapped persons. All constitutional reservations shall apply to the handicapped reserved seats.

• LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL

MADRAS HIGH COURT

M. Rajagopal v The Principal Labour Court and The Special Officer (DO) (Decided on 31.03.2009) MANU/TN/0579/2009

A dismissed employee has raised an industrial dispute questioning the correctness of the enquiry. Award made confirming the dismissal order - Writ filed before High court by the petitioner was dismissed -  Question before the court was whether principles of natural justice followed in the present case?

it is absolutely mandatory on the part of the second respondent to afford a second opportunity for the appellant to make his submissions and afford personal hearing to defend himself. Such explanation and personal hearing could be meaningful if only the appellant is made to know the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer's report. The said course would be possible if only copy of the Enquiry Officer's report is also furnished to the appellant while serving the second show cause notice. Without furnishing a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report, the appellant cannot be expected to offer his explanation and to defend himself effectively.

• ELECTION

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Ajeya Bharat Party v The Chief Election Commissioner (Decided on 30.03.2009) MANU/AP/0051/2009

Petitioner herein seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, New Delhi and the Electoral Officer & E.O, Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Elections) Department, 'H' South Block, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad in allowing the 3rd respondent-Praja Rajyam Party, represented by its President, Konnedala Shiva Shankar Vara Prasad @ Mega Star Chiranjeevi to use the petitioner's flag design with symbol, colour and slogan "Prajala Rajyam" widely in public meetings including electronic media, which belong to the petitioner registered political party, as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the RP Act").

The name of the petitioner is "Ajeya Bharat Party", but whereas the name of the 3rd respondent is "Praja Rajyam Party". However, the design of the flag, colour and slogan are different and distinct. In the absence of any right conferred either under the RP Act or under the Constitution of India, reserving to make use of a particular flag, design or symbol, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has no right over the flag design with symbol, colour and slogan of the 3rd respondent political party. The 3rd respondent association which was registered as a political party for the lawful purpose and they have a fundamental right to form/register it as a political party and the particular flag design and slogan is not anyone's property and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right or grievance about the flag, its design, symbol, colour or slogan canvassed and made use by the 3rd respondent party.

• PROPERTY

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Ketha Sujathamma v B. Rammurthy (Decided on 13.03.2009) MANU/AP/0037/2009

Dispute is regarding possession of the property - Whether the petitioners are entitled for delivery of vacant possession of the schedule mentioned site?

The failure on the part of the petitioners to lead evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their case, in spite of two opportunities available to them, cannot be ignored and the impugned judgments, which are completely sustainable, cannot be set aside merely to provide one more opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, is also rejected.