Y. Balaji vs Karthik Desari & Anr. etc.

Criminal Law – Matters pertaining to Jobs-for-cash scam in the State of Tamil Nadu – Impugned order allowed de novo investigation on a ground not raised in the petition – Held: ‘D’, whose original complaint led to the registration of FIR in Crime No.441 of 2015 seems to have had a genuine grievance against the culprits at the bottom of the layer, but he later turned out to be a Trojan horse, willing to sabotage the investigation against influential persons – Order directing de novo investigation in all the three cases, actually inured to the benefit of the accused, but the High Court put it on the ground that the credibility of the investigation should not be eroded – In fact, the accused did not seek de novo investigation on the ground of slackness on the part of the Investigating Officer, but it was ‘D’ who sought it, with the able assistance of the Investigating Officer – What is shocking is that the High Court directed reinvestigation to be started ab initio, wiping out the earlier investigation altogether – By issuing the said direction, the High Court not only directed the wiping out of the investigation carried out so far, but virtually wiped out even the judgment of Supreme Court dtd.08.09.2022 passed in the previous round of litigation – The problem with the impugned order is not merely one of improper usage of language, as sought to be diluted by the accused and the complainant, but something more – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 –Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of stare decisis – Whether in the light of the fact that notice has been ordered in the review petition and a few interim orders have been passed in some proceedings, it is necessary for this Court to tag these appeals along with a review petition or defer the hearing of these matters until a decision is rendered in the review petition and other petitions – Held: A notice ordered in the review petition will not destroy or diminish the precedential value of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary – The argument of the counsel for the accused, if accepted, will not only destroy the principles of judicial discipline and the doctrine of stare decisis, but also bring to a grinding halt, all pending investigation in the country – Accused is not entitled at all either to seek a reference to a larger Bench or to seek to defer the matter till a decision is rendered in the matters involving larger issues – Appeals arising out of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court are allowed – Order of the Division Bench of the High Court dtd. 01.09.2022 is set aside – ED entitled to proceed further from the stage at which their hands were tied by the impugned order – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 –Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal Law. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – History of – Discussed.

Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 – rr.231(3), 237 – Appellant contended that the High Court overlooked the provisions of r.231(3) and also s.65B, Evidence Act – Held: Both the contentions are without substance – r.231 primarily deals with the grant of certified copies of certain other documents to the accused, before filing of the Final Report – It states that certified copies of unmarked documents shall not be given – High Court has not passed any order directing the grant of certified copies of unmarked documents – It has only permitted the ED to have an inspection of the documents u/r.237 and thereafter to file a proper copy application – This is not contrary to r.231(3) – Further, it is not known how an argument revolving around s.65B, Evidence Act is raised – s.65B concerns the admissibility of electronic records – Without certification, ED may not be able to use those electronic records in evidence, in the prosecution under PMLA – But it does not mean that they cannot even have a look at the electronic record – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.65B – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 –Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal Law.

Criminal Law – Matters pertaining to Jobs-for-cash scam in the State of Tamil Nadu – Objection to the maintainability of the appeals by appellants, against the order of de novo investigation – Held: Criminal jurisprudence recognizes a limited role of victims and it is the state which is entrusted with the onerous responsibility of prosecuting the accused and getting them punished – These theories of law were developed when process of administration of criminal justice system was largely unpolluted – However, where some of the complainants and the accused have come together to form an unholy alliance, victims cannot be left at the mercy of such partnerships – What was compromised between the complainant and accused is not just their disputes, but justice, fair play, good conscience and the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence – Investigation trail of a criminal case cannot be converted by the complainant and accused into a friendly match – Further, submissions made on the question of locus in the previous round of litigation in were rejected by Supreme Court in the very same proceedings in the first round – Therefore, the accused cannot raise the question of locus again and again.

Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 – rr.207(12), 210 – Some of the appellants filed copies of the confession statements u/s.164, CrPC, as part of the paper book in the appeals – It was contended that the confession statements recorded before the Magistrate are sacrosanct and that the copies of the same cannot be made available to third parties – Held: It is clear from r.207(12) that a confession statement is a confidential document till the time investigation is complete and Final Report filed – r. 210 enables “third parties to apply to the Court for the grant of copies of Judgment or order or any proceeding or document in the custody of a Court” – Therefore, it is not as though the appellants have filed something to which they could have never had any access – Further, many of the documents had started appearing in the public domain at the instance of several persons – Hence, it is futile to contend that the appeals are liable to be thrown out on the ground that the appellants came up with documents to which they could not have had any access – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.164.

Criminal Law – Matters pertaining to Jobs-for-cash scam in the State of Tamil Nadu – Political vendetta alleged – On the basis of the timeline of events, it was alleged the Minister was implicated in the case on 08.03.2021, for offences under the PC Act immediately after the announcement of the elections to the Legislative Assembly, as he had switched over from the party in power to another – Held: That the Investigation Officer did not choose to include the offences under the PC Act from the year 2015 till 08.03.2021, cannot be taken to the credit of the Minister, but should be taken as a discredit of the prosecution – If the shield of office protected him from 2015 till he formed part of the splinter group and the shield stood temporarily removed for a brief period of time until he again became a Minister in the next regime, the same cannot be said to be a case of political vendetta – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Practice and Procedure – For all the accused in the PMLA case, arguments were advanced for the grant of larger reliefs than what they got under the impugned order, without even filing any appeal against the same – Held: It is possible in law for a successful party (though in civil proceedings) to support the decree without supporting the judgment – But what the accused sought to do before Supreme Court was to support the judgment and seek an enlargement of the decree, without independently filing appeals – Since they took a chance by adopting such a course, they may not even be able to challenge the impugned order hereafter, once the seal of approval on the same is affixed by this Court and the doctrine of merger comes into play – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of merger. Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The order directing de novo investigation in all the three cases, has actually inured to the benefit of the accused, but the High Court put it on the ground that the credibility of the investigation should not be eroded. In fact, the accused did not seek de novo investigation on the ground of slackness on the part of the Investigating Officer, but it was ‘D’ who sought it, with the able assistance of the Investigating Officer. The fact that ‘D’s petition was intended to help the accused is also borne out by one more fact. His original complaint dated 29.10.2015 which led to the registration of FIR in Crime No.441 of 2015 was against ten persons and the offences registered therein were only under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. On this complaint, a Final Report was filed under Section 173(2) of the Code on 13.06.2017 and this resulted in the registration of Calendar Case in CC No.3627 of 2017. ‘D’ was happy with the fact that the Report filed under Section 173(2) did not include the offences under the PC Act. ‘D’ was not bothered at that time about the fact that the register for entering the interview marks, sent to the Forensic Department had not been received. Suddenly, he became worked up after the filing of the Report under Section 173(8) leading to the registration of Calendar Case No.24 of 2021 including the offences under the PC Act. What is shocking is that the High Court directed reinvestigation to be started ab initio, wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. One saving grace in this case is that even the learned senior counsel appearing for ‘D’ and the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused could not support the operative portion of the impugned order dated 31.10.2022, in Criminal O.P. No.15122 of 2021. By issuing the aforesaid direction, the High Court not only directed the wiping out of the investigation carried out so far, but virtually wiped out even the judgment of this Court dated 08.09.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1514-1516 of 2022. This Court has said in paragraph 45 of the decision dated 08.09.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1514-1516 of 2022 “We are constrained to say that even a novice in Criminal Law would not have left the offences under the PC Act, out of the final report.” Ignoring the said opinion of this Court, the High Court has directed the Investigating Officer to find out afresh whether the offences under the PC Act are made out or not. Therefore, the problem with the impugned order is not merely one of improper usage of language, as sought to be diluted by the learned senior counsel for the accused and the complainant, but something more. [Paras 19-22, 25][1054-B-G; 1055-D; 1056-C-D]

2. It is true that criminal jurisprudence recognizes a limited role for victims and it is the State which is entrusted with the onerous responsibility of prosecuting the accused and getting them punished. But we must remember that certain theories of law were developed at a time when the process of administration of the criminal justice system was in the hands of honest and responsible Police officials and the stream remained largely unpolluted. Today the situation is different. In cases of this nature, where some of the complainants and the accused have come together to form an unholy alliance, the victims of crime cannot be left at the mercy of such partnerships. We have seen in this case, persons aspiring to secure public employment, paying illegal gratification, through persons who are public servants, to persons in power and later coming to the Court supporting the accused on the basis of an out of Court settlement. What was compromised between the complainant and accused is not just their disputes, but justice, fair-play, good conscience and the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. In fact, the case on hand is one where there are two teams just for the purpose of record, but no one knows who is playing for which team and where the match was fixed. As a matter of fact, very vocal submissions were made on the question of locus in the previous round of litigation in P. Dharamaraj vs. Shanmugam in Criminal Appeal Nos.15141516 of 2022. But the objections relating to maintainability were rejected by this Court in the very same proceedings in the first round. Therefore, the accused cannot raise the question of locus again and again. [Paras 33, 34][1060-D-H; 1061-A]

3. It is clear from Rule 207(12) that a confession statement is a confidential document till the time investigation is complete and Final Report filed. The relevant portion of Rule 207(12) states “… not to make its contents public until the investigation is completed and final report filed”. Rule 210 extracted above enables “third parties to apply to the Court for the grant of copies of Judgment or order or any proceeding or document in the custody of a Court”. Therefore, it is not as though the appellants have filed something to which they could have never had any access. Many of the documents have started appearing in the public domain at the instance of several persons. Hence, it is futile to contend that the appeals are liable to be thrown out on the ground that the appellants have come up with documents to which they could not have had any access. [Paras 39-41][1062-DE, G-H;]

4. That the Investigation Officer did not choose to include the offences under the PC Act from the year 2015 till 08.03.2021, cannot be taken to the credit of the Minister, but should be taken as a discredit of the prosecution. If the shield of office protected him from 2015 till he formed part of the splinter group and the shield stood temporarily removed for a brief period of time until he again became a Minister in the next regime, the same cannot be said to be a case of political vendetta. [Para 44][1064-D-F] Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 : [1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 226; Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 653 – held inapplicable.

5. What is worrisome is the fact that V. Ganesh Kumar is an employee of the Transport Corporation. In the charge-sheet filed on his complaint, which has been taken on file as CC No.19 of 2020, this V. Ganesh Kumar is stated to have collected amounts ranging from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/- for every post of Driver, Conductor or Mechanic, as the case may be. We do not know whether the Transport Corporation has at least placed him under suspension and initiated departmental proceedings. If they have not done so far, the Corporation should initiate disciplinary action against this V. Ganesh Kumar not only for being party to a job-for-cash scam but also for turning turtle and supporting the accused and thereafter coming to this Court to assail the order of de novo investigation, despite being an employee of the Corporation. [Para 47][1065-C-D]

6. ED registered an Information Report on 29.07.2021, only after filing of a Final Report under Section 173(8) of the Code., in CC No.24 of 2021, including the offences punishable under the PC Act. This Final Report was in FIR No.441 of 2015, which was originally registered as CC No.3627 of 2017 (it became CC No.24 of 2021). The Final Report filed under Section 173(8) of the Code on 08.03.2021, named Shri V. Senthil Balaji (Minister) as Accused No.1 and the offences charged against the accused were under Sections 406, 419, 420 read with Section 34 and 120B, 465, 467,

471 and 201 IPC read with Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 109 of IPC. Since the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC and Sections

7 and 13 of the PC Act are included in The Schedule to the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 200211, the registration of the Information Report by ED on 29.07.2021 cannot be faulted. [Para 50][1066-B-D]

7. The High Court has not quashed the summons issued by ED. The High Court had merely injuncted ED from proceeding further till the clog on the cases relating to the predicate offences is removed. Interestingly, none of the accused has come up with any appeal challenging the order of the High Court dated 01.09.2022, on the ground that the High Court ought to have quashed the summons issued by the ED in total, on other grounds. Instead, the accused appeared through counsel only to defend the impugned order dated 01.09.2022. Therefore, in law, (i) once the dismissal of the petition for discharge has attained finality with the dismissal of Criminal Revision Case No.224 of 2021; (ii) once the order for de novo investigation in Criminal O.P. No.15122 of 2021 is set aside; (iii) once the order of the High Court dated 30.03.2022 relating to right of the ED to secure the copies of documents is dealt with; (iv) once the order of the High Court dated 30.07.2021 quashing one of the criminal cases is set aside; and (v) once the stay operating in two of the criminal cases for predicate offences is vacated, then the temporary reprieve that has been granted by the High Court to the accused in the impugned order would automatically go. Realising this difficulty in law, the accused changed the theme of the song completely before us, despite the fact that they were ordained as respondents in the appeals only to support the impugned order of the High Court. In fact, all the learned senior counsel appearing for all the accused in the PMLA case, advanced arguments for the grant of larger reliefs than what they got under the impugned order, without even filing any appeal against the same. It is possible in law for a successful party (though in civil proceedings) to support the decree without supporting the judgment. But what the accused sought to do before us was to support the judgment and seek an enlargement of the decree, without independently filing appeals. Since they took a chance by adopting such a course, they may not even be able to challenge the impugned order hereafter, once the seal of approval on the same is affixed by this Court and the doctrine of merger comes into play. [Paras 67-70][1072-A-F]

8.1 If the main part of Section 3 is dissected with forensic precision, it will be clear that Section 3 addresses itself to three things (we may call them 3 ‘P’s) namely, (i) person; (ii) process or activity; and (iii) product. Insofar as persons covered by Section

3 are concerned, they are, (i) those who directly or indirectly attempt to indulge; or (ii) those who knowingly assists; or (iii) those who are knowingly a party; or (iv) those who are actually involved. Insofar as process is concerned, the Section identifies six different activities, namely (i) concealment; (ii) possession;

(iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting; or (vi) claiming as untainted property, any one of which is sufficient to constitute the offence. Insofar as product is concerned, Section 3 identifies “proceeds of crime” or the property representing the proceeds of crime as the product of the process or activity. Out of the three things that Section 3 addresses, namely (i) person; (ii) process; and (iii) product, the first two do not require any interpretation or definition. The third aspect namely “product”, which Section

3 refers to as “proceeds of crime” requires a definition and hence it is defined in Section 2(1)(u). [Paras 96 and 97][1088-A-D]

8.2 All the three FIRs allege that the accused herein had committed offences included in the Schedule by taking illegal gratification for providing appointment to several persons in the Public Transport Corporation. In one case it is alleged that a sum of more than Rs.2 crores had been collected and in another case a sum of Rs.95 lakhs had been collected. It is this bribe money that constitutes the ‘proceeds of crime’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u). It is no rocket science to know that a public servant receiving illegal gratification is in possession of proceeds of crime. The argument that the mere generation of proceeds of crime is not sufficient to constitute the offence of moneylaundering, is actually preposterous. As we could see from Section 3, there are six processes or activities identified therein. They are, (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use;

(v) projecting as untainted property; and (vi) claiming as untainted property. If a person takes a bribe, he acquires proceeds of crime. So, the activity of “acquisition” takes place. Even if he does not retain it but “uses” it, he will be guilty of the offence of moneylaundering, since “use” is one of the six activities mentioned in Section 3. The FIRs for the predicate offences identify all the three components of Section 3, namely, (i) persons; (ii) process; and (iii) product. Persons accused in the FIRs are those who have indulged in the process or activity. The illegal gratification that they have taken, represents the proceeds of crime. The (i) acquisition of such illegal gratification in the first instance; (ii) the possession of the tainted money before putting it to use; and

(iii) today projecting it as untainted money, is the process or activity in which the accused have indulged. The corruption money represents the proceeds of crime. [Paras 99, 100][1089-A-F]

8.3 It is true that there are some offences, which, though scheduled offences, may or may not generate proceeds of crime. For instance, the offence of murder punishable under Section

302 is a scheduled offence. Unless it is a murder for gain or murder by a hired assassin, the same may or may not generate proceeds of crime. It is in respect of such types of offences that one may possibly argue that mere commission of the crime is not sufficient but the generation of proceeds of crime is necessary. In the case of an offence of corruption, the criminal activity and the generation of the proceeds of crime are like Siamese twins. Even if an intangible property is derived as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, it becomes proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u). In view of the above, we are not impressed with the contention that the investigation by ED was triggered without any foundational/jurisdictional facts. In our view, the allegations in the FIR point out to (i) involvement of persons in criminal activity relating to scheduled offences; (ii) the generation as well as (iii) laundering of the proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 3. This is in view of the fact that wherever there are allegations of corruption, there is acquisition of proceeds of crime which itself tantamount to money-laundering. [Paras 102, 104][1089-G-H; 1090-A, E-F]

8.4 Once an information relating to the acquisition of huge amount of illegal gratification in the matter of public employment has come into the public domain, it is the duty of the ED to register an Information Report. This is because “acquisition” is an activity amounting to money-laundering and the illegal gratification acquired by a public servant represents “proceeds of crime,” generated through a criminal activity in respect of a scheduled offence. Therefore, it does not require any expedition, much less a fishing expedition for someone to say that the receipt of bribe money is an act of money-laundering. The contention that there was no explanation for the delay on the part of the ED in registering the Information Report, is a self-serving argument. If the ED registers an Information Report immediately upon the registration of a FIR for a predicate offence, ED will be accused of acting in haste. If they wait until the drama unfolds up to a particular stage, ED will be attacked as guilty of delay. The accused should be thankful to ED for giving a long rope from 2016 till 2021. Therefore, all the arguments on facts and all the legal contentions emanating from some portions of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, to challenge the validity of the proceedings initiated by ED are completely unsustainable. [Paras 112-114][1092-B-F]

9. A notice ordered in the review petition being Review Petition (Crl.) No.219 of 2022, will not destroy or diminish the precedential value of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused, if accepted, will not only destroy the principles of judicial discipline and the doctrine of stare decisis, but also bring to a grinding halt, all pending investigation in the country. In fact, the order dated 25.08.2022 passed in Review Petition (Crl.) No.219 of 2022 discloses that prima facie the Court was of the view that at least two of the issues raised in the review petition require consideration. Though it is not precisely spelt out in the order, those two issues relate to (i) not providing the accused with a copy of the ECIR; and (ii) reversal of the burden of proof and presumption of innocence. The points that the respondents are canvasing in this case, have nothing to do with those two issues. Therefore, the accused cannot have a piggyback ride on the review petition. In fact, as we have pointed out elsewhere, the accused have not come up with any appeal challenging the order of the High Court dated 01.09.2022. Therefore, they are entitled at the maximum, to argue only for the dismissal of the appeals filed by ED and others against the said decision. Suppose we agree with the learned counsel for the accused and dismiss the appeals filed by ED, even then they cannot have an escape route since the impugned order of the High Court protects them only till the other proceedings are kept at bay. Therefore, the accused is not entitled at all either to seek a reference to a larger Bench or to seek to defer the matter till a decision is rendered in the matters involving larger issues. In view of the above, the appeals arising out of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court are liable to be allowed. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 01.09.2022 is set aside. ED will now be entitled to proceed further from the stage at which their hands were tied by the impugned order. [Paras 116-119][1093-A-F]

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 – referred to.

10. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the High Court has overlooked the provisions of Rule 231(3) of the Rules, 2019 and also Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But both the above contentions are without substance. Rule

231 primarily deals with the grant of certified copies of certain other documents to the accused, before filing of the Final Report. Rule 231(3) states that certified copies of unmarked documents shall not be given. The High Court has not passed any order directing the grant of certified copies of unmarked documents. All that the High Court has done is permitting the ED to have an inspection of the documents under Rule 237 and thereafter to file a proper copy application. This is not contrary to Rule 231(3). We do not know how an argument revolving around Section 65B of the Evidence Act is raised. Section 65B concerns the admissibility of electronic records. Without certification, ED may not be able to use those electronic records in evidence, in the prosecution under PMLA. But it does not mean that they cannot even have a look at the electronic record. Therefore, we find no merits in the appeal. Hence, the appeal challenging the order of the High Court dated 30.03.2022 passed in Criminal O.P. No.5726 of 2022 is dismissed. [Paras 122-124][1094-C-F]

11. The appeals arising out of the order for de novo investigation are allowed. That portion of the order of the High Court dated 31.10.2022 passed in Criminal O.P. No. 15122 of 2021 is set aside. The directions issued in the said original petition for de novo investigation are set aside. The Investigation Officer shall proceed with further investigation in all cases by including the offences under the PC Act. Any let up on the part of the Investigation Officer in this regard will pave the way for this Court to consider appointing a Special Investigation Team in future. (ii) The appeals arising out of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 01.09.2022 are allowed. The order dated 01.09.2022 is set aside. All the three writ petitions challenging the initiation of proceedings by ED shall stand dismissed. (iii) The appeal arising out of the order of the High Court dated 30.03.2022 is dismissed. (iv) The appeal challenging the orders dated 27.11.2019 and 01.11.2021 of the High Court relating to extension of time for completion of investigation is dismissed. The Investigation Officer shall proceed with further investigation and file Further/Final Reports within two months. (v) The Contempt Petitions and I.A. No. 26257 of 2023 are dismissed. [Para 133][1096-F-H; 1097-A-C]

P. Dharamaraj vs. Shanmugam 2022 SCC OnLine SC

1186; Dharmaraj vs. Shanmugam 2022(13) SCALE

142; Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak (2013) 5 SCC 762 : [2012] 13 SCR 1005; Arun Kumar vs. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 732 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 290; Bihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Bank of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 389 : [1967] SCR 848; Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (2023) 3 SCC 315; Shauqin Singh vs. Desa Singh (1970) 3 SCC 881; Enforcement Directorate vs. Gagandeep Singh 2022 SCC Online Del 514; Parvathi Kollur vs. State through ED Crl. Appeal No.1254/2022 dt.16.08.2022; Jairam Ramesh vs. Union of India SLP (C) No.13103 of 2019; Thomas Franco Rajendra Dev vs. Union of India WP (C) No.366/2022 dated

12.05.2022; Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) 9 SCC 121; Asgar Ali vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2022 SCC Online SC 3095; Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC Online SC 129; Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (2000) 8 SCC 395 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 573; State of Kerala vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam (2001) 10 SCC 191; State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770: [2011] 15 SCR 540; Management of the Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur vs. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (1967) 2 SCR 476; Sakshi vs. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 723; Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 673 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 1054 – referred to.

Street Tramways vs. London County Council (1898) AC

375 (378); Redcliffe vs. Ribble Motor Services (1939) AC 215 (245) – referred to.