Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 9, 16, 23 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Letter patents Appeal -- Death of senior citizen – Benefits under Senior citizen Act stands abated on his death -- As senior citizen/ respondent No.2, at whose instance the Maintenance/ Appellate Tribunal had passed the impugned order, had since expired, so the proceedings in the case are rendered infructuous/ otiose as senior citizen's right to seek benefits under the special statute abated on his death -- Parties/ legal heirs of respondent No.2 are given the liberty to avail the civil remedy available under law.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 239-AA, Article 239-AA(7)(b) --- National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 – A primary reading of Article 239-AA(7)(a) indicates that the law shall not alter the existing constitutional structure envisaged for NCTD in Article 239-AA -- However, a prima facie reading of Article 239-AA(7)(b) denotes that the law enacted under Article 239-AA(7)(a) could alter the existing constitutional structure of governance of NCTD -- Apparent conflict between the two clauses on the nature of law making power vis-à-vis NCTD’s constitutional structure of governance needs to be resolved -- Following questions refer to a Constitution Bench:

(i) What are the contours of the power of Parliament to enact a law under Article 239-AA(7); and

(ii) Whether Parliament in the exercise of its power under Article 239-AA(7) can abrogate the constitutional principles of governance for NCTD.

(Para 15, 16)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ of mandamus -- Acquisition of land -- Petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 1500 square yards, only 1000 square yards acquired -- Now petitioner is sought to be dispossessed, gave representation – Estate Officer directed to examine the representation and take a decision and pass a speaking order within four weeks after examining the necessary revenue records and the acquisition record after giving notice to petitioner to put in an appearance and submit all necessary documents in support of his claim -- Till the decision, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.

(Para 1-7)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 22 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Suspension of Sarpanch – Authorized Sarpanch -- Sitting Sarpanch suspended and out of 11 Panches, 8 Panches, i.e. petitioners No.2 to 8 are with petitioner No.1 – Petitioners submits that, petitioner No.1 be appointed as the authorised Panch in view of Section 22 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Writ petition disposed of with a direction DDPO to decide the representation given by petitioners in accordance with law preferably within one month.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 14 -- Retired employee as Enquiry officer – Permissibility of -- Disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority -- It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant -- Urged that disciplinary authority had not recorded specific reasons why a retired government servant was appointed to act as an inquiry officer – Argument rejected as a belated afterthought -- This submission should not be entertained before this Court, post the inquiry etc.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Extension of period of Parole – Petitioner released on parole -- Suffered a fracture on his right ankle joint – Held, jurisdiction at this stage not exercisable by High Court, but is exercisable only by the Competent Authority -- Review jurisdiction exercisable only in case a declining order is made by the Competent Authority -- Prayer is mis-constituted, and, is liable to be rejected – However, one week protection from step into prison given and one week time granted to move application before competent authority for extension of parole, then on such application valid speaking order shall be expeditiously recorded.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 – Refusal of Passport, travel documents etc. -- Show cause notice -- Opportunity of hearing – Reasons for denial -- Right to travel abroad is part of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India -- State can deny right to travel subject to compliance of safeguard in the form of show cause notice, opportunity of hearing and order disclosing reasons for the denial.

(Para 10)

B. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 19(1)(a), (g), 21 -- Refusal of Passport, travel documents etc. -- Umpteen number of persons are travelling abroad for the sake of business or employment -- If these persons are mechanically denied passport or permission to visit abroad, without allaying fear to flee from justice, not only would deprive them from their right to earn livelihood but also violate their fundamental right to freedom of business and profession, guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India -- Denial of passport not only amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 & 21 but also freedom of speech, business and trade contemplated by Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution unless and until procedure prescribed by law is followed.

(Para 26)

C. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6(2) (f), (e) -- Right to Passport -- Registration of FIR – Criminal trial – Conviction – Acquittal -- Effect of – Held:

i) Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of Passport Act, 1967 is inapplicable to post conviction or post acquittal proceedings.

ii) As soon as a person is convicted or acquitted, he would be governed by Clause (e) of Section 6(2) of 1967 Act.

iii) Notification dated 25.8.1993 is applicable to criminal proceedings pending before trial court and as per instructions dated 10.10.2019, mere registration of FIR is not sufficient whereas a case should be registered before Court and Court must have taken cognizance.

iv) Clause (e) of Section 6(2) can be invoked if an applicant; within 5 years preceding the date of application, for the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude has been sentenced to imprisonment of not less than 2 years.

v) High Court is not criminal court in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act.

(Para 27)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Promotion as Assistant Engineer (Civil) – Pendency of criminal case -- FIR u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Result of the petitioner kept in sealed cover – Closure report by Police in FIR – Held, sealed cover procedure was wrongly adopted by the respondents – Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to open the sealed cover and in case the petitioner is found eligible for promotion, all consequential benefits shall be given to him from the due date.

(Para 3-5)

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Juvenile in conflict with law – Trial as Adult -- Bail – Applicability of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act -- Held, appellant/CCL was directed to be tried like an adult, but still he remains a juvenile in conflict with law and can never be denied the benefit of Section 12 of the “Act”.

(Para 9)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Juvenile in conflict with law – Trial as Adult -- Bail – Appellant was arrested on 07.12.2020 and is continuing in custody which may bring him in association with any known criminals and his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also violated – Appeal allowed, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail pending trial.

(Para 10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Writ remedy is an extraordinary remedy but does not the panacea of all evils.

(Para 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 22, 23 -- Writ of mandamus – Vacation of house from daughter-in-law – Writ with prayer as “that a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 to oust respondent No.4 from the house of petitioner.” --  Respondent no.4 is daughter in-law -- Held, writ petition is not maintainable in respect of dispute between two private parties.

(Para 3, 4, 10-12)

Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (17 of 1950), Section 14(3) – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Eviction of tenant – Suit for eviction within 5 years of tenancy -- Suit may have been defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy, more than 38 years have now elapsed since the suit was filed – Held, passage of time beyond the period of five years would wash away the initial impediment against the suit -- To say that the landlord should now, once again, restart the proceedings would be a travesty of justice -- Expression used is ‘shall lie’ or ‘be entertained’ would really make no difference -- Objective is to create an impediment in the institution and trial of the suit for a period specified under the said Act -- Spirit of protection is fulfilled with the passage of the prescribed time period – Supreme Court is also armed with the extraordinary power under Article 142 to do absolute justice inter se the parties -- Decree of eviction passed by the first appellate court affirmed.

(Para 16-22)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 24, 26 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quorum of Panchayat incomplete –Panchayat Secretary not writing down resolution -- Legal notice to handover charge from Panchayat Secretary to other official –  Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent to decide the legal notice within a period of two weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Delayed payment of arrears -- Writ petition claiming interest -- Petitioner was paid arrears of Rs.8,44,618/- for the period from 06.11.2017 to 05.01.2020 in September 2021, with a delay of 20 months -- In writ jurisdiction, direction given to respondent to consider and decide legal notice and pass a speaking order within 03 months.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 16, 21, 226 – Pharmacy Act, 1948 (8 of 1948), Section 36(4) -- License of Pharmacist – Restoration of licence -- Petitioners have acquired qualification of D. Pharmacy from approved college, however, the enrollment cancelled for the reason that the 10+2 certificate was found to be fake -- Petitioners have thereafter passed 10+2 from an approved board – Petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 36 (4) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 before the State Government -- Liberty given to the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available to them in accordance with law.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Municipal law – Removal of Encroachment – Demarcation of land – Public street made on petitioner’s land – Petitioner filed a representation before the respondent-Municipal council for carrying out demarcation of land of Municipal Council so that the encroachment on the land of the petitioner could be removed, however, till date Municipal Council has not carried out demarcation – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to get demarcated the land within two weeks and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Interest on the amount of Contributory Pension Scheme Fund – Amount released to the petitioners pursuant to death of their husbands – Petition disposed, with a direction to DGP to consider legal notice and to decide the same in light of ratio of judgment of the Court in CWP-35361-2019 titled as Constable Bikramjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Natural justice – Show cause notice -- No proposal in the show cause notice qua blacklisting the petitioner -- Show cause notice disclosing allegations, adverse material and proposed penalty is foremost fundamental requirement of principles of law -- Penalty of blacklisting without show cause notice is contrary to rule of law -- Every action which is contrary to rule of law is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India -- Adjudicating Authority cannot travel beyond the show cause notice -- Writ petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 14-16)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Correction in the record of rights – Writ petition – Petitioner has already filed an representation before Deputy Commissioner and the same is pending consideration since 22.04.2022 and no progress is being made in the same – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Deputy Commissioner to look into the representation and decide the same within a period of one month in accordance with law.

(Para 1-5)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Abolition of post -- An employer has the sole discretion to decide as to whether a post is to be retained or abolished -- Ground for discontinuation of services is that there was poor intake of students which would warrant no interference by the court -- It is not for High Court to decide what would be an adequate number of students to justify the retention of a teacher.

(Para 13)

B. Guru Gobind Singh Inderprasth University Act, 1988 (9 of 1988), Section 22 -- AIT Service Rules, Rule 20.2 -- Termination of services -- Show cause notice -- Violation of Act/ Rules -- Institute has flouted the Service Rules with great impunity as the Service Rules itself provide for three months’ notice in terms of Rule 20.2 of AIT Service Rules, but Section 22 of the Act of 1988 to which the Institute was affiliated, provided for a show cause notice to be issued before termination which procedure was never followed -- Since there was a violation of Section 22 of the Act of 1988, the termination is illegal and is set aside as well as the order of the Tribunal -- Consequently, respondent No.2 which stands merged with respondent No.3 directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all notional benefits -- In case the petitioner seeks arrears of salary, the respondents would be at liberty to seek information on whether the petitioner had been gainfully employed during the pendency of these proceedings and take an appropriate decision -- Entire exercise regarding entitlement of arrears of salary be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months on the demand being made.

(Para 13)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Revenue case – Speedy disposal – Case pending before Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner, Revenue (Haryana) since 2016 – Respondent No.1 directed to expedite the hearing of the said case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309 -- Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970, Rule 9 – Departmental proceedings -- Re-inquiry – Retiral benefits -- “Whether it is permissible to hold a departmental inquiry after the competent officer has closed the departmental proceedings based on the inquiry report?” – Held, there is no provision in the rules that allows for a re-inquiry after the charges have been dropped by the competent authority in a detailed order -- Principal Secretary has not recorded his reasons to justify such re-inquiry – Writ petition allowed and the impugned orders set aside -- Petitioner is a physically disabled person and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired, hence, the respondents directed to recalculate and release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of next two months.

(Para 10-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Deletion of name of husband from passport -- Name of PS was jotted down in the application seeking passport as husband as they had planned to go out of country and solemnize marriage -- Petitioner could not solemnize marriage with PS, thus, she wants to get his name deleted from her passport –  Direction given to respondents to pass an appropriate order on representation within 6 weeks.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Termination of services – Punishment u/s 354/ 448 of Ranbir Penal Code -- Contention that during service, the petitioner was adorned with 30 rewards including 4 Commendation Cards and punishment of termination of services is harsh and is disproportionate to the alleged offence – Petition disposed of, punishment set aside, matter remanded back to the competent authority to pass afresh order qua quantum of punishment.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Regularisation of services – Consequential benefits – Discrimination -- 65 persons were found entitled to be regularized -- Act of regularizing the services of only 35 employees and not regularizing the services of other employees is patently discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India -- Services of the appellants directed to be regularized from the date on which the services of other 35 employees were regularized and the backwages and other consequential benefits etc., to which the appellants would be entitled to, shall be paid to them within a period of six months.

(Para 10-13)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Choice of the Collector cannot be interfered in a cavalier manner and the same has to be given weightage unless and until there are some serious discrepancies in the appointment made by the learned Collector.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Illegal custody – Compensation – Writ jurisdiction – Public Law remedy -- Petitioner was illegally kept in judicial custody between 14.02.2014 to 27.07.2014 for a crime, which has not been committed by him – Subsequently the police submitted the final form stating the mistake of fact, the petitioner was discharged by the learned court – Case of the petitioner is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the Public Law Remedy -- Respondent-State directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks as a compensation for illegally detaining the petitioner into the custody for the aforesaid period.

(Para 14-20)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Contractual employees -- Regularisation of service -- Class-IV Helpers in Regional Hospital completed more than eight years of service – Services of similarly situated persons, whether initially appointed by Govt. or Rogi Kalyan Samiti had been regularised as per policy of government -- Denial of the relief to the petitioner would amount to sheer discrimination among similar situate persons, which is not permissible under law – Writ allowed, respondents directed to regularize the services of the petitioners strictly as per policy.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(N), 506, 294, 323 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 – Rape – Quashing of FIR – Delay in lodging of FIR – Long standing relationship between prosecutrix and petitioner – There is no allegation that there was false promise to marry – There is also FIR against other men by prosecutrix which shows that FIR has been lodged malafidely due to break in their relationship or for some other ulterior motives – FIR quashed, writ petition allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5), 226 – Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3, 4 -- Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 13 -- Quashing of detention order -- Non supply of the dossier to the detenu – Legality of -- Detenu cannot be expected to make a meaningful exercise of his Constitutional and Statutory rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, unless and until the material on which detention order is based, is supplied to him – Failure on part of detaining authority to supply material, relied at the time of making detention order to detenu, renders detention order illegal and unsustainable – Petition allowed, Jail Superintendent directed to release the detenu forthwith.

(Para 4-7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Tender – Work contract – Non-renewal of registration – Effect of -- Bid submitted by petitioner could not qualify the technical evaluation and was held non-responsive due to non-validation of registration as per Clause-15(a) of General Condition (IFB) of Standard Bidding Document (SBD) -- Till the opening of bids, registration of petitioner had not been renewed – Only the application submitted by petitioner for renewal of enlistment as “Class-A” contractor -- Nothing on record to suggest that petitioner was granted provisional renewal – No case for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 3-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 25, 29, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Speedy trial -- Petitioner in custody since 1.6.2021 -- Trial is not likely to conclude within short time -- Indisputably, accused has constitutional right for speedy trial -- Weighed against such constitutional right, it cannot be said that the rigors of Section 37 of the Act can have efficacy in perpetuate and more particularly in case where trial is not concluded within a reasonable period -- Nothing on record to suggest that the delay in trial has been caused for any reason attributable to the petitioner – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be release on bail.

(Para 6-9, 17)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Public Interest Litigation/ PIL – Quashing of affiliation -- Society imparting Bachelor of Education Course -- NOC with the condition that the Society should be owning the land on which the institution is being operated -- Secretary of the Society requested the Director of Higher Education to transfer the land in the name of the Society and such transfer was also recommended by the Director of Higher Education, but the said transfer had not materialized probably because the Revenue Department had not effected such transfer – Held, no public interest involved in the matter and that the Society cannot be punished if the Revenue Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh has delayed in implementing the transfer of the land – Petition dismissed.

(Para 2-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Regularisation of services -- Writ jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 – Tribunal allowed O.A. and directed the petitioner to regularize services of the respondent on completion of eight years continuous service with all consequential benefits in accordance with law within two months, while restricting the actual financial benefits to three years prior to filing of O.A -- Challenging the same, writ petition preferred on 24.05.2023, without offering any explanation for the delay in filing the same – Delay not explained satisfactorily -- Writ petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

(Para 1-7)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police protection – Petitioner No.1/ married lady is in a live-in-relationship with petitioner No.2 -- Petitioners are Muslim by religion -- Every person, more so, a major, has right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice – Petition dispose of with a direction to respondent no.2 to consider the representation/ P-3 and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, respondent No.2 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 13-15)

Constitution of India, Article 226(2) -- Unconstitutional law – Setting aside by one High Court – Effect on nation -- Ratio decidendi -- Stare decisis – Once a provision of the Central Law or a Rule is held to be unconstitutional by a High Court, the same would stand effaced from the statute book in respect of the entire Nation and it cannot be said that it would not be valid within the jurisdiction of the particular High Court and it would be valid in other areas.

(Para 23)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of receptionist in University – Waiting list -- Selected person did not join and the person in the waiting list too did not join – Petitioner at Serial no.2 in waiting list – Right of appointment -- Since the petitioner was on the waiting list and the respondents did not call him to join after persons higher in merit list had failed to do so, the onus of filling up the vacancies was squarely on the respondents and this cannot be permitted to take the defence of the waiting list having expired -- Writ petition allowed and the respondents-University directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner -- Petitioner will only get notional benefits for the purpose of seniority, length of service etc. from the date his batchmates under the advertisement were appointed but he will not be entitled for actual monetary benefits.

(Para 9-10)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(1)(2) -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Eviction -- Illegal possession of gair-mumkin gali -- Demarcation report – Proof of -- Authors of 4 different demarcation reports never stepped into witness box – Demarcation got conducted on the directions of High Court, the author of that demarcation report, is also required to be stepping into witness box, to prove such demarcation, and, the petitioner has a right to cross-examine such witness – The above recourse cannot be adopted before the writ Court rather it can be adopted only before the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade -- Impugned orders quashed, lis remanded to Assistant Collector Ist Grade -- Author of the demarcation report to step into witness box to prove the same and thereafter petitioner to cross-examine such witness – Thereafter, Assistant Collector Ist Grade to make a lawful decision thereon after hearing all the affected persons.

(Para 5)

Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1952, Rule 6, 7, 7A -- Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Termination of service – Violative of rule of natural justice – Re-instatement after age of superannuation – Notional benefits -- Services of the petitioner were terminated, without any notice and reason, by invoking clause 3 of the appointment letter and that too, after the petitioner had worked for 15 years, without any complaint made against him -- Writ petition allowed and consequently orders terminating the services and dismissal of appeal set aside – Petitioner ought to have attained the age of superannuation, deemed to be reinstated from the date of his termination and will be entitled to all notional benefits i.e. pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc., as per relevant service Rules.

(Para 1, 8-11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Contractual liability – Writ jurisdiction – Interest on delayed refund of security deposit -- Interpretation of clause of agreement -- There is no dispute about the makings of complete satisfactory execution of the awarded works by the petitioners -- Dispute limited to an interpretation of Clause 19 of contract -- High Court can well make an interpretation of Clause in the exercise of writ jurisdiction -- It would be extremely harsh and oppressive for the petitioners being relegated to a civil remedy.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Contractual liability – Writ jurisdiction – Interest on delayed refund of security deposit – Purposive interpretation -- Harmonious interpretation -- No objection certificate issued to the petitioners on 26.7.2010 – Release of security amount in January, 2020 -- First component of clause bars/ estop the contractors to claim interest on security deposit – Second component mandate refund of security amount to the contractors within 3 months from the execution of the works or determination of the contract whichever is earlier – If State or the executing agency delay the releasing of security amount beyond 3 months, said estoppel has a tenure of only 3 months -- Interest @ 7% p.a. from 2010 upto January 2020 on the security deposit awarded.

(Para 1, 9-11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Presumption of innocence -- Accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty -- Presumption of innocence is a facet of Article 21 of Constitution of India.

(Para 18)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 317 – Exemption from appearance of accused -- Following parameters can be applied for grant of exemption from personal appearance by the Courts while exercising power under Sections 205 and 317 of the Code -- The personal appearance of the accused should be dispensed with when the accused is:-

i) a woman;

ii) an elderly person;

iii) a person with disability;

iv) when accused is facing inconvenience and unjustified ordeal on account of delay in trial attributable to the prosecution;

v) facing extreme hardship i.e. economic and physical;

vi) required to travel a long distance to attend the trial.

These instances are not exhaustive but only illustrative.

(Para 19)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 317 – Exemption from appearance of accused -- When the presence of an accused becomes indispensable at any subsequent stage of an inquiry or trial, the Court has ample powers to secure his presence in such eventuality – One size fits all approach cannot be taken while exercising the powers u/s 205 and 317 as each case is required to be assessed on its own facts and circumstances.

(Para 20)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 317 – Exemption from appearance of accused -- If the trial is being delayed on account of the absence of the accused when the witnesses are required to identify him, the accused can be directed to be present for this purpose -- Courts should only order appearance of the accused when it becomes indispensable.

(Para 22)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 317 – Sections 341, 379, 448, 451, 452, 506, 34 -- Exemption from appearance of accused – High Court exempted personal appearance of accused before Trial court subject to the following conditions:

i) Petitioners shall be represented through their counsel;

ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings;

iii) shall not dispute their identity as accused;

iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel;

v) shall appear before the trial Court as and when required; and

vi) any other condition which the trial Court may impose.

(Para 23)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular  bail – Fair trial – Recovery of 2Kg 45 grams of ‘Cannabis’ -- Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act in perpetuity -- Petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2021 and the facts suggest that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future -- Nothing on record to suggest that delay in trial is attributable to the petitioner -- Bail petition allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2, 8, 17, 18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Life imprisonment – Premature release – Non-deposit of fine – Not known to anyone in locality – Ground of rejection -- Petitioner requires to undergo actual sentence of 10 years; and sentence of 14 years by including the remission period, as per Policy, but despite having undergone actual sentence of more than 14 years; and total sentence of more than 22 years by including remission;

-- In case, petitioner has not paid the fine imposed by the court, he is required to undergo default sentence as per the trial court judgment but that cannot be reason to consider petitioner’s case for premature release.

-- If family of petitioner has shifted from earlier address, that again cannot be the reason to decline the relief, once petitioner has fulfilled the parameters provided in the policy.

-- simply because petitioner is not known to anyone in Ludhiana, cannot be a ground to presume that his presence there will create a law and order situation.

Petition allowed, respondents directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(Para 1, 5-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 61, 85, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- 500 bottles of Siorex Syrup recovered from rear set of car -- Petitioner in custody from the last 02 years -- None of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Petitioner is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against him under the NDPS Act -- In such a situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the petitioner can be granted the concession of bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 2, 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Scope of judicial review – Punishment order passed by department upheld in writ petition – In LPA punishment order against respondent no.1 was set aside -- Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to reappreciate the entire evidence as if conviction in a criminal trial was being re-examined by the next higher court -- There was no answer to the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report that the changed form of quotation contained original signature of respondent no.1 -- The fact that this “Form of quotation” was changed is not in dispute -- When the changed form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document -- This fact has not even been noticed by the Division Bench of the High Court – Appeal allowed, impugned order passed by the Division Bench set aside.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Encroacher of government land – Discretionary relief in writ -- Any person, who approaches High Court seeking a discretionary relief, should come with clean hands -- Petitioners, pertinently, have no title to the land which they have occupied, and are illegally occupying the government property – Court will not lend its hands, and come to protection of such persons, who are encroaching and illegally occupying the government property – High court cannot pass orders to protect or advance an illegality.

(Para 4)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Encroachment over government land – Adverse possession -- Plea of adverse possession could not have been raised by the petitioners, as they are occupying government land, i.e. public land, wherein each member of the public has an interest, including the petitioners -- They cannot claim hostile possession over such land, hostile to themselves, and to the public at large -- When the encroached land is a public land, mere inaction on the part of the public functionaries, who have the responsibility of taking action for removal of encroachment, cannot take away the right of public at large over public property -- Public functionaries discharge a public trust in their official functioning -- They act as trustees qua public assets, in respect whereof they have authority to protect -- The breach of trust by the trustee, cannot be the detriment of the beneficiary.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Appointment of Supervisor -- OBC category candidate – Applied as General category candidate – Petitioner was interviewed as a General category candidate and remained unsuccessful as a General category candidate -- Petitioner was not in possession of OBC certificate at the time of applying for the posts – She did not take any legal step for getting the OBC certificate at the relevant time or for consideration of her candidature under OBC category -- Having participated in the selection process through out as a General category candidate and allowing the selection process to culminate, petitioner now cannot be heard to complain that her candidature was required to be considered under OBC category -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 20, 142 – Voice sample – Right to Privacy -- Magistrate is given the power to order for collection of voice sample for the purpose of investigation of a crime until explicit provisions are engrafted in the CrPC by the Parliament -- Such direction was issued by invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – No infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Special Court ordering the accused to give his voice sample to facilitate investigation of the crime. Ritesh Sinha’s case (2019) 8 SCC 1 relied.

(Para 3, 4)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23(1) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Gift by Senior citizen to be void -- Prospective effect -- Constitutional validity of Section 23(1) of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23(1) of the Act, restricts the applicability of the Section only to the gifts of property made by a senior citizen after the commencement of the Senior Citizens Act – Held, Act did not intend to disturb the rights of the donee which has already been created and vested in him -- Legislature is conscious of the fact that vested rights of the donor are not to be given a retrospective operation despite the fact that the object of the Act is to provide for measures for welfare of senior citizens -- This is not a case of casus omissus – High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make the provision what the Legislature did not intend it to be.

(Para 1-4, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for a period of 05 years, 09 months and 23 days -- Trial is getting delayed and speedy trial is a constitutional right provided to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Furthermore, the petitioner also becomes entitled to bail on the principle of parity as co-accused has been granted bail – Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Recusal of judge – Earlier no such objection was raised and no such prayer was made – On number of occasions the matter was adjourned even at the request on behalf of the petitioner – Earlier, merely because some proceedings might have been heard by one before the High Court in connection with the present matter and/or proceedings and some observations might have been made against the petitioner on the delaying tactics, cannot be a ground to accede to the request made by the petitioner -- As the prayer lacks bona fide and seems to have been made with mala fide intention to avoid the Bench for no valid reason, the prayer for recusal rejected.

(Para 4, 5)