RISHABH SHUKLA

COURT NO-1
BENCH: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA] 
ITEAM NO:7

CASE: BAKESH ALI @ BAHEJUDDIN vs. UNION OF INDIA

CASE DETAIL: Dilip Kumar was employed as a Sub Accountant in the appellant Bank. He retired from
service on 31.03.2008 on attaining the age of supernation and breathed his last on 05.05.2010. The
related writ petition i.e. WP(C) 2396 /2009 was filed by him challenging an order of penalty dated
02.02.2010 and on h is passing away, his legal heir i.e. his wife and sons have impleaded themselves by
way of necessary substitution.

HELD BY COURT: 2008 on attaining the age of supernation n and breathed his last on 05.05.2010. The
related writ petition i.e. WP(C) 2396 /2009 was filed by him challenging an order of penalty dated
02.02.2010 and on h is passing away, his legal heir i.e. his wife and sons have impleaded themselves by
way of necessary substitution.

FACT: Basic facts to be noticed is that during his lifetime when he was working as Sub-Accountant
attached to Sadiya Branch of the Bank, he was served with the Charge Sheet dated 18.06.1998.
Allegations made against him related to submiss ion of false spot verification report against collateral
security offered by ben eficary and also having prepared false verification report with highly inflate ed
valuation rates etc. Written statement of defence was filed on 03.08.1998. The matter did not proceed
thereafter for long five years and it was only by letter dated 05.05.2003 he was informed that enquiry
would be conducted on 10.05.2003 . He was advised to attend the enquiry accordingly. Even thereafter
the enquiry did not proceed for the next about seven years. On 02.02.2010 the Managing Director of the
Bank, being the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order.

COURT HELD: The setting aside of the order dated 02.02.2010 stands affirmed as well as in respect of
the entitlement of the legal heirs to receive gratuity, leave encashment and all other retirement benefits
which would have normal ly accrued on Dilip Kumar Bordoloi had he been alive. Resultantly, this writ
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.
RISHABH SHUKLA

COURT NO-1

BENCH:  [HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI
NARASIMHA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

ITEAM NO:10

CASE: NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS (NCPCR) vs. GULAAM DEEN

CASE DETAIL: This is a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for
issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to protect the life and liberty
of the petitioners at the hands of private respondent Nos.5 to 7.

FACTS: In the present case, both the petitioners are Muslims. They fell in love some time ago and
decided to perform marriage. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 14.05.2001 and that of petitioner
No.2 is 01.01.2006 as per their Aadhar Cards, which have been annexed with the petition as Annexures
P-1 and P-2, respectively. Both the petitioners have solemnized their marriage on 08.06.2022 as per
Muslim rites and ceremonies.

COURT OBSERVE: This Court has taken note of the judgements cited on behalf of the petitioners and
also the fact that the girl in the instant case i.e. petitioner No.2 is aged more than 16 years. In the case of
Yunus Khan(supra) it has been noted that the marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by the personal law
of the Muslims. Article 195 from the book ‘Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji
Mulla’ has also been reproduced in the said decision which Article reads as under :
HELD BY THE COURT: The law, as laid down in various judgments cited above, is clear that the marriage
of a Muslim girl is governed by the Muslim Personal Law. As per Article 195 from the book ‘Principles of
Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla’, the petitioner No.2 being over 16 years of age was
competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice. Petitioner No.1 is stated to
be more than 21 years of age. Thus, both the petitioners are of marriageable age as envisaged by Muslim
Personal Law.
In view of the above discussion and without expressing any opinion with regard to the veracity of the
contents of the petition and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present
petition is disposed off with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot (respondent
No.2) to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure P-4) and take
necessary action as per law. It is, however, made clear that this order shall have no effect on any other
civil or criminal proceedings, if any, instituted/pending against either of the parties.