Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 19 To June 25

Nominal Index

Abhishek Sharma Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 36

Nain Sukh Vs Seema Devi 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 37

Gurditta Ram Chauhan Vs Mrs Babita 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 38

State of HP Vs Sita Devi 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 39

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Rajinder Fishta 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 40

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 41

M/s Sterkem Pharma Private Limited vs Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 42

Lajwanti & others Vs Priti Devi & others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 43

Yogesh Verma and Others Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 44

Judgments/Orders

FIR Registered After Recovery Made From Public Servant On Spot, No Prior Sanction U/S 17A Prevention Of Corruption Act: HP High Court

Case Title: Abhishek Sharma Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 36

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates the need for prior government approval for any inquiry or investigation against a public servant in cases where the alleged offence is related to an official "decision".

FIR registered after on spot recovery following investigation based on a source report of public with general allegations of illegal, improper exercise of powers in violation of prescribed procedure by taking bribes, does not require prior approval under Section 17A, Justice Joytsna Rewal Dua held.

No Wife Can Be Forced To Live In A Matrimonial Home With Husband Keeping Another Lady: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Nain Sukh Vs Seema Devi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 37

Dismissing the petition of a husband against his wife alleging cruelty and desertion, the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed no wife can be forced to live in matrimonial home with husband keeping another lady with him.

"...Respondent had justifiable ground to live separately as no wife can be forced to live in matrimonial home with husband keeping another lady with him," a bench comprising Justice Satyen Vaidya observed.

Withdrawing Consent For Divorce U/S 13B Hindu Marriage Act Not Contemptuous: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Gurditta Ram Chauhan Vs Mrs Babita.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 38

Dismissing a petition for invoking contempt proceedings against the Respondent-wife for violating terms of settlement with her husband, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that parties have an indefeasible and absolute right to withdraw their consent/petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Justice Satyen Vaidya, while clarifying that the Respondent's right to withdraw her consent for a mutual divorce is absolute and cannot be disputed, also emphasized that any directive issued by the Court, instructing the parties to adhere to the settlement terms, should not be interpreted as undermining or nullifying this fundamental right.

Maternity Leave Is A Fundamental Human Right; Its Denial Violate Articles 29, 39 Of Constitution : Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: State of HP Vs Sita Devi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 39

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that every woman, irrespective of her employment status, is entitled to maternity leave.

Maternity leave aims to protect the dignity of motherhood and ensure the well-being of both the woman and her child, a bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Virender Singh remarked.

"The respondent in the instant case was a daily wage woman employee at the time of advance pregnancy could not have been compelled to undertake hard labour, as it would have been detrimental to not only to her health and safety but also to the child health, safety and growth. The maternity leave is a fundamental human right of the respondent, which could not have been denied. Therefore, clearly the action of the petitioner is violative of Articles 29 and 39D of the Constitution of India."

Himachal Pradesh High Court Distressed Over State Govt Litigating Matter Involving Small Amount Of ₹2,500; Imposes 10K Cost

Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Rajinder Fishta.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 40

While ruling in favour of a retired Tehsildar and granting him a regular increment from July 2013 for extended period of service, the Himachal Pradesh High Court criticized the State for engaging in frivolous litigation and emphasized the need for equal treatment of employees.

"We are distressed that in such small value matters also, the State continues to litigate and harass the citizens", Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Ajay Mohan observed.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Age Limit For Assistant District Attorney Post

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 41

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a set of petitions challenging the age limit for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) in the state.

“The State Government is within its powers to carve out exceptions for a particular category of post in so far as the prescription of age limit by direct recruitment to such post is concerned. As noticed above, the State Government has already carved exceptions for Himachal Administrative Services, Himachal Police Services and Himachal Judicial Services”, Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Satyen Vaidya observed.

Supplying Copies Of Award Certified By MSME Council To The Parties, Not Fair: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s Sterkem Pharma Private Limited vs Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 42

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that it is the bounden duty of the Arbitrator appointed by the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) to issue signed copies of the arbitral award to the parties irrespective of the fact whether the parties have contested the proceedings or were proceeded ex-parte.

The court has deprecated the practice of the Facilitation Council of supplying a copy of the award certified by the Council itself to the concerned parties. The court said that the same is not in consonance with the procedure mandated under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as well as the MSMED Act. It added that the arbitral award is to be made available to the parties by the Arbitrator himself in accordance with the provisions of Section 31(5) of the A&C Act.

[S.6 Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act] Unless Declared Disentitled, Mother Entitled To Minor Children's Custody After Father's Death: HP High Court

Case Title: Lajwanti & others Vs Priti Devi & others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 43

The Himachal Pradesh High Court stated that under the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act 1956, the mother assumes the role of a natural guardian of minor children upon father's death.

However, the mother's right to custody is not absolute, but contingent upon the welfare of the children and if, during appropriate proceedings, she is found to be unfit or incapable of ensuring the welfare of the children, she may lose the right to maintain custody of them, it clarified.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds NABARD's Guidelines For Selection Of Auditors For Cooperative Banks

Case Title: Yogesh Verma and Others Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 44

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the guidelines issued by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) regarding the appointment of statutory auditors for Cooperative Banks.

“This Court has neither the expertise to decide whether the conditions mentioned in the guidelines issued by the NABARD are valid or not, nor does it have any ability to compare the nature or responsibility of statutory auditors, who do not have such qualifications, with those who possess the said qualifications. The conditions imposed appear to be reasonably relevant and have a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post of auditors,” Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed.