i. Writ petitions in contract disputes are maintainable when the State is involved: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that even in contract disputes, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained by the High Court, if the State acted in arbitrary manner. The Court noted that “where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." In this case, a dispute arose between Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and a contractor, who did extra work for the State entity, which was sanctioned by them and done to their satisfaction, but no payment was made. While overturning the High Court’s dismissal of the contractor’s writ petition, the Supreme Court directed UP Jal Nigam to make the payment within four weeks.

ii. Divorce Petition can be filed through power of attorney: The Kerala High Court held that the Family Courts can entertain the petitions filed under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, through power of attorney. The Court was hearing an appeal from Family Court order, which had dismissed a petition for divorce filed by the husband on the basis of cruelty under Section 13A, HMA. Overruling the family court’s order, the High Court held that “this is not a case where divorce is sought on mutual consent, whereas divorce is sought on the ground of adultery and cruelty. Insofar as there is specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure enabling a petition to be filed through a power of attorney holder, there is nothing wrong in the Family Court entertaining an application even though it is filed through power of attorney holder. The provisions of CPC squarely apply to matters that are entertained by Family Court as well.”[Mohanna v. Ajitha (Mat. Appeal No. 470/2010) date of order: 19.03.2019, High Court of Kerala]

iii. Power companies cannot demand electricity bill for more than 2 years, unless the bill reflected the arrears: The Bombay High Court in a full bench decision held that a power distribution company could not demand charges for consumption of electricity for more than two years, unless the arrears were reflected in the bill for two years. The Court held that “the Distribution Licensee cannot demand charges for consumption of electricity for a period of more than two years preceding the date of the first demand of such charges. In other words, the distribution licensee will have to raise a demand by issuing a bill and the bill may include the amount for the period preceding more than two years provided the condition set out in sub­section (2) of Section 56 is satisfied. In the sense, the amount is carried and shown as arrears in terms of that provision." [Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. V. Electricity Ombudsman &Ors. [[W.P No. 10764/2011, Date of judgment: 12 March, 2019]

iv. Nine persons convicted in the Dinakaran office attack in 2007: The Madras High Court convicted 9 persons charged with attacking the Dinakaran newspaper office in Madurai in 2007. The ghastly attack resulted in the death of three newspaper employees. The High Court was hearing an appeal by the State against the Trial Court verdict of acquittal, and while overruling the acquittal order, the High Court sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Court also directed the Tamil Nadu State to pay compensation of 5 lakhs each to the families of deceased within three months. [State v. V.P. Pandi&Ors., Crl. A. (MD) No. 274/2011, date of judgment: 21.03.2019]

v. HIV positive man reinstated as coast guard: The Bombay High Court ordered the reinstatement of a HIV positive man as Indian coast guard, after he was discharged as being invalid, owing to his diagnosis of being affected with HIV and TB in 2003. The Court had directed the Commanding Officer, INHS Asvini to constitute a medical board at INS Asvini Hospital, which had found him fit to rejoining, noting that he had no features of opportunistic infections. [BhagwanShivram Gupta v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 3067/2005, date of judgment: 08.03.2019].

vi. Discriminatory Kerala Hostel Rules struck down: The Kerala High Court struck down certain discriminatory hostel rules of Sree Kerala Varma College, which were gender discriminatory and barred girl students from watching first and second show films. While striking down the said restriction, the Court held that “it appears that moral choice of the management is attempted to be imposed upon the Boarders. The moral paternalism is something to be frowned upon. A girl is having equal freedom similar to a boy. There are no similar restrictions in the boy's hostel. It is for the students to decide whether they should go for first or second show movies or not. This is an activity outside the hostel activity."The Court further struck down the rule that prohibited hostel students from participating in any political protest or march, as being violative of freedom of expression of students. [Anitha K. Jose &Ors. V. State of Kerala, W.P. © No. 14319/2018, date of decision: 21.02.2019]

Other developments –
i. NiravModi arrested in UK and denied bail: NiravModi, one of the main accused in the PNB scam of 11,400 crores, was finally arrested in UK, after an arrest warrant was issued against him by the UK court. Upon being produced before the Court, he sought bail, but the Court denied him bail on the ground that “there are substantial grounds to believe that he would fail to surrender if granted bail"
(IPA Service)