18th May 2023 - Legal News Analysis

1. Electricity is no longer a luxury and it is the government's

responsibility to ensure that it is adequately available to
citizens: Meghalaya High Court

 In the case, Flaming B Marak v State of Meghalaya, a plea was filed

before the High Court complaining about rampant power cuts in the
State and arbitrary load-shedding resorted to by the State authorities.

 The respondents stated that the monthly demand for power in the State
was as high as 200 million units and availability was only 88 million units.
It was further stated that such shortfall was because of a power plant in
Tripura being shut down for technical reasons and the State finding no
alternative source of power.

 The High Court said that it was open to the State to buy power from the
open grid and enter into arrangements with power companies, several
of whom operate in the north-east. The State should ensure that
adequate electricity is available to the citizens subject to the cost being
met by the citizens.

 The High Court further said that "Electricity is no longer a luxury. It is the
State’s responsibility to ensure that there is adequate availability of
electricity as per demand and plans should be in place to meet the
increased future demands.”

 The Meghalaya High Court further directed the State and the Meghalaya
Energy Corporation to file independent affidavits indicating the
immediate, short-term and long-term measures, projections of demand,
plan of action during accidental shutdown of any power plant and
alternative sources that may be available.

1
2. The Supreme Court came down upon the Manipur High Court
for its recent judgment which had called for inclusion of the
Meetei/ Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list.

 In the case, Manipur Tribal Forum vs Union of India, a PIL was filed
before the Top Court regarding the matter related to the Manipur
violence. The Manipur High Court had ordered the Manipur government
to “consider inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled
Tribe list, expeditiously, preferably within a period four weeks” from the
date of the order. This led to clashes between tribal and non-tribal
communities leading to loss of lives.

 The Counsel appearing for the petitioner, told the apex court that the
High Court judgment was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgments.

 The Supreme Court said that "We leave it open for parties aggrieved by
single judge order to make submissions before the division bench and
parties aggrieved by writ appeal order can move this court. Let the state
of Manipur apprise us of what steps have been taken. As a constitutional
court we will ensure this.”

 The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud

and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that “We have to stay
the order of the Manipur High Court. It is completely factually wrong
and we gave time to Justice Muralidharan to remedy his error and he did
not. We have to take a strong view against it now. It is clear if High Court
judges do not follow constitution bench judgments, then what should
we do. it is very clear.”

3. This drink (Rooh Afza) is century-old and it has acquired a

character: Supreme Court

 In the case, Dil Afza vs Hamdard Foundation, an appeal was filed before
the Top Court against a Delhi High Court order which restrained the

2
 manufacturers of a sharbat named ‘Dil Afza’ from selling the product
after Hamdard Foundation filed a trademark infringement suit alleging
that it was deceptively similar to its ‘Rooh Afza’ product.

 Hamdard Foundation had moved the Delhi High Court arguing that the
sale of another sharbat by the name Dil Afza (manufactured by Sadar
Laboratories) is deceptively similar to Rooh Afza and that the defendants
have infringed on its trademark since the words ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ have
similar meanings. It was also stated that the bottles in which the two
products are being sold are similar.

 The Counsel appearing for the Hamdard foundation said that "This drink
is century-old and it has acquired a character...a structural phonetic and
visual mark has to be compared as a whole...Division Bench [of High
Court] has found circular rings in bottle which gives away dishonest
intentions...They are selling since 2020 and we are selling since
1907...this looks like a variant of Rooh Afza...They are riding on my
goodwill.”

 The Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and

Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala held that "Rooh Afza has a well-
established reputation across India and suddenly you sell some
medicines and in 2020 you start selling some Sharbat...Division Bench
has held correctly...We will not interfere. Dismissed.”

4. No bail applications of accused would be filed before different

single-judge benches in cases involving the same criminal
complaint: Supreme Court

 In the case, Pradhan Jani vs State of Odisha, an appeal was filed before
the Supreme Court against a High Court order rejecting bail.

 The Top Court noted that various applications filed by various accused
have been entertained by different learned Single Judges of the same

3
 High Court. In many of the High Courts, the practice followed is that the
applications arising out of the same FIR should be placed before one
Judge. However, it appears that it is not the practice in Orissa High
Court. In the present case, we have come across orders passed by at
least three different Judges in the applications of various accused arising
out of same FIR.

 The Top Court said that such a practice leads to anomalous situation.
Certain accused are granted bail whereas certain accused for the very
same crime having similar role are refused bail.

 The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol while
allowing the appeal said that We, therefore, quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 31.01.2023 and remand the matter back to the
High Court. The High Court is requested to consider the effect of the
orders passed by the other coordinate Benches and pass orders afresh.
The same shall be done within a period of one month.

5. Courts must not entertain or encourage petitions seeking

orders for consideration of the petitioners' representations
made to State authorities without waiting for 'adequate time':
Madras High Court

 In the case, G Rajasulochana v The Inspector General, a writ petition

was filed where the petitioner had approached the High Court within
just 10 days of having made an application before the District Registrar
with a complaint of fraudulent sale deed registration.

 The High Court said that "Filing an application/appeal before the

competent authority and immediately filing a writ petition before the
High Court cannot be considered as a good practice nor can be
encouraged by the High Courts. The authorities competent, who are
empowered to deal with the applications/appeals by conducting an

4
 inquiry, must be afforded with reasonable time enabling them to deal
with the issues.”

 The High Court further said that "Entertaining such writ petitions, filed
immediately after filing an application or appeal and issuing a direction
to dispose of such application/appeal within a specified period, would
result in infringement of the rights of all other persons, who are having
interest over the issues.”

 The High Court noted that there were no comprehensive guidelines

setting deadlines or time limits for authorities to inquire into appeals,
pass orders etc. And aggrieved parties, therefore, chose to approach the
High Court whenever they wished to.

 The Madras High Court directed the Inspector General of Registration to

issue a "comprehensive circular to all the competent authorities across
the State of Tamil Nadu setting out the procedures for dealing with the
applications/appeals" and to ensure that such guidelines were
"scrupulously followed."