Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976), Section 246-A -- Ludhiana Municipal Corporation Building Bye-Laws, 1997, Bye-law 2(lix) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Illegal and unauthorized commercial constructions – Removal of -- Writ of mandamus -- Case of the petitioner that construction is against the provisions of Chapter XIV of “Building Regulations” of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation Building Bye-Laws, 1997 -- Writ Petition disposed of with directions to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to look into the representation and after considering the same take appropriate action as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the persons against whom the action is sought to be taken.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226(2) – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act, 1985), Section 25 – Transfer of Original Application/ O.A. -- Challenge to -- Territorial jurisdiction of High Court -- Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench Delhi transferred Original Application / OA pending from Allahabad Bench (Nainital Circuit Bench) to the Principal Bench, New Delhi – Order challenged in Nainital High Court, writ was allowed and order passed by the Principal Bench, New Delhi set aside – Matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court referred to larger Bench.

(Para 1,6)

Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994), Section 408, 408-A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Illegal encroachment – Unauthorized possession / construction -- Removal of – Writ of mandamus – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to consider the legal notice, in accordance with law and also to take appropriate action therefrom after following due procedure of law as expeditiously as possible.

(Para 3)

A. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 167(b), 174(1) – Summoning of House of Legislature – Non-calling of Budget Session by Governor – Power of -- Whether discretion of Governor -- Authority which is entrusted to the Governor to summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Minsters -- This is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to exercise his own discretion -- Governor was not summoning the House for the first time following a general election, but was advised by the Council of Ministers to convene the Budget Session, at the behest of a government which has been duly elected in the general election -- Plainly, the Governor was duty bound to do so.

(Para 22)

B. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 167(b), 174(1) – Summoning of House of Legislature -- Non-calling of Budget Session by Governor – Power of -- Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) on matters relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation -- Once such information is sought, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it -- Not furnishing the information which was sought by the Governor would be plainly in dereliction of the constitutional duty which is imposed on the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) -- Dereliction of the Chief Minister to do so would not furnish a justification for the Governor not to comply with the constitutional obligation to summon the House for its Budget Session in terms of the advice which was tendered by the Council of Ministers.

(Para 24)

C. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1)(a), 167(b), 174(1) – Parliamentary democracy – Non-calling of Budget Session by Governor – Power of – Requirement of Court’s interference – Genesis of the controversy has required the intervention of this Court at two distinct levels: first, to ensure that the constitutional duty of the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers to summon the Legislative Assembly is fulfilled without delay or demur; and second, to ensure that the obligation of the Chief Minister to furnish information to the Governor in terms of Article 167(b) of the Constitution is fulfilled – There are two equally important aspects for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy – First, the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation – Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of free speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in Article 19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship.

(Para 25)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 506 – Murder -- Appeal against acquittal -- Trial Court acquitting all the respondents/ accused holding that none of the eyewitnesses supported the case of the prosecution – In appeal High Court found that acquittal by Trial Court  was based on proper appreciation of evidence and facts – Held, in cases where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, on grounds of it surviving the rigours of a full trial, is strengthened and stands fortified -- An additional layer of protection is granted to an accused -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6, 11,12)

Constitution of India, Article 217 – Elevation as High Court judge from District and Session judges – Counting of period as Fast Track Court/ Adhoc Judges – Permissibility of -- Since the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized by Supreme Court for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retiral benefits, the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution is not legally sustainable.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Equal pay for equal work – Job evaluation – Though the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value -- The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary -- The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions -- There could be more than one grade in a particular service -- The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.

(Para 14)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Eviction from shamilat deh – Writ of mandamus -- Mandamus cannot be made as yet the statutorily prescribed remedies are still available to become recoursed at the instance of BDPO or by the petitioner or at the instance of the Gram Panchayat, through the institution a petition u/s 7 of the PVCL Act, 1961 – Directions given that BDPO, does forthwith draw a petition u/s 7 of the Act, against the encroachers, upon the petition land(s) -- On such a motion being drawn, thereupon, a lawful order, positively within five months from its preferment, and, but after hearing all the affected persons be made.

(Para 1)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Misrepresentation -- Rule of natural justice -- Once a person misrepresents in getting certain benefit, for withdrawal of the same, principles of natural justice are not required to be followed.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 46 -- Constitution (SC) Order, 1950, Order 2 – Schedule caste in one State – Status after marriage in Punjab -- Writ petitioner-wife was born in Maharashtra and belongs to Mahar Caste, which is Scheduled Caste category as per the Constitution (SC) Order, 1950 for the said State -- On account of her marriage with an Ad-dharmi caste person she had started residing at Phagwara (Punjab) – Held, mere marriage would not make a person as such to claim that she belongs to an Ad-Dharmi caste for the State of Punjab.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Interim order by Single judge – Letter Patent Appeal against interim order – Special Leave Petition -- It would be appropriate that the main dispute itself pending adjudication before the learned single Judge be decided on merits -- Pendency of the LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court against an interim order will serve no useful purpose -- LPA stands dismissed, Ld. Single Judge of the High Court requested to decide the proceedings on its own merits expeditiously preferably within a period of three months -- Status quo ordered to be maintained.

(Para 2-6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 13, 368 – Constitutional Validity of Statute -- When a party wants to challenge the constitutional validity of a statute, he must plead in detail the grounds on which the validity of the statute is sought to be challenged -- In absence of the specific pleadings to that effect, Court cannot go into the issue of the validity of statutory provisions -- Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the law made by the Legislature unless it is specifically challenged by incorporating specific grounds of challenge in the pleadings -- Reason is that there is always a presumption of the constitutionality of laws -- Burden is always on the person alleging unconstitutionality to prove it -- A Constitutional Court cannot casually interfere with legislation made by a competent Legislature only by drawing an inference from the pleadings that the challenge to the validity is implicit.

(Para 14)

B. Constitution of India, Article 170, 239A -- Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019), Section 1 – Conflict with Article 170 of Constitution -- Article 170 will have no application to Legislative Assembly of the Union territory of J & K as it forms a part of Chapter III of Part VI which deals with only the State Legislature -- Legislative Assemblies of the concerned Union Territories will be governed by the law made by the Parliament in accordance with Article 239A and not by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI -- Argument that certain provisions of the J&K Reorganisation Act and actions taken thereunder are in conflict with Article 170 and in particular Clause (3) thereof is clearly misconceived and deserves to be rejected.

(Para 23)

C. Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019), Section 11, 60, 62, 63 – Constitution of India, Articles 81, 82, 170, 330, 332, 370 -- Increase and adjustment of Legislative Assembly/ Parliamentary seats – Appointment of Delimitation Commission – Challenge to -- There is no illegality associated with the delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K -- No illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission -- Once the Delimitation Commission was established, there is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed.

(Para 31-36)

Haryana Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (9 of 2006), Section 11 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3(3), 49, 54 – Constitution of India, Article 265 -- Special Economic Zone – Exemption from stamp duty – Refund of stamp duty -- Stamp duty collected from respondent No.7 while registering the lease deed of plot situated in SEZ whereas charging of stamp duty in such a case is specifically exempted u/s 3(3) of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 11 of the SEZ Act – Held, and once the said instrument is exempted, charging of stamp duty for purposes of registration is without any authority of law and, therefore, would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India – Action of the respondents No.1 to 6 in charging of stamp duty and thereafter illegally retaining the same is contrary to the provisions of law -- In case the stamp duty is not refunded, said respondent is held entitled of the same along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date, the same was deposited till the said amount is refunded.

(Para 11-12)

Constitution of India, Articles 21, 25, 26 – Ex-communication of a member of Dawoodi Bohra community – Civil rights – Constitutional morality

-- A person who is ex-communicated by the community, will not be entitled to use the common property of the community and the burial/cremation grounds of the community -- In a sense, such a person will virtually become untouchable (being banished or ostracized) within the community -- In a given case, it will result in his civil death -- It can be argued that the concept of Constitutional morality which overrides the freedom conferred by clause (b) of Article 26, will not permit the civil rights of ex-communicated persons which originate from the dignity and liberty of human beings to be taken away -- The concepts of equality, liberty and fraternity are certainly part of our Constitutional morality -- Basic ideas enshrined in our Constitution are part of Constitutional morality -- The conscience of our Constitution is Constitutional morality -- Therefore, the Constitutional Court ought not to tolerate anything which takes away the right and privilege of any person to live with dignity as the concept of Constitutional morality does not permit the Court to do so -- Therefore, the protection under Article 26(b) granted by the decision in the case of Sardar Syedna, (1962) Suppl. (2) SCR 496 : AIR 1962 SC 853 to the power to ex-communicate a member of the Dawoodi Bohra community, needs reconsideration as the said right is subject to morality which is understood as Constitutional morality.

-- The ex-communication will have many civic consequences which will, prima facie, affect his fundamental right to live with dignity and the right to lead a meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21 -- Therefore, the question is whether the said right of the community to ex-communicate its members can be balanced with the other fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and in particular, Article 21.

Issues require examination by a larger Bench.

(Para 28-35)

Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Admission in Medical college – Violation of stay order passed by Supreme court – High Court permitted the Medical College to continue with the admission of 100 students – Supreme Court stayed the High Court order -- Once the order of the High Court permitting the Medical College to admit 100 students for 2021-22 was stayed, the Medical College could not have unilaterally chosen to proceed with the admission process -- Subsequent inspection conducted in pursuance of the interim order did not entitle the Medical College to take the law for granted -- Medical College was permitted to admit 100 students following the inspection which took place and it has accordingly admitted 100 students for the subsequent academic year – Admissions granted to 100 students for 2021-22 ordered not to be disturbed conditional on the Medical College depositing an amount of Rs 2.5 crores with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution – Amount ordered to be utilized at the discretion of the Director, AIIMS for meeting the requirements of poor and needy patients.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 32, 217 – Appointment of High Court Judge -- Recommendation by Collegium of Supreme Court – Judicial review – Permissibility of -- Supreme Court while exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- To do so would violate the law as declared, as it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person -- Writ petitions dismissed at the admission stage.

(Para 10-14)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO – Regular bail -- Keeping in mind petitioner is in custody since 20.09.2022 and he is 63 years old man; police report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed and charges stand framed; Out of 15 prosecution witnesses till date no witness been examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future; accused in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody; petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case; prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses. Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 310 – Death-cum-retirement gratuity -- Option to retire at the age of 60 years – Death of employee prior to  Government order seeking option – Deceased employee would have completed 60 years of his age on 30.06.2011 -- As per Government Order dated 16.09.2009, deceased would have exercised his option to retire at the age of 60 years on or before 1.7.2010, however, before he could exercise the option, unfortunately he died on 11.08.2009, infact prior to the Government order dated 16.9.2009 -- Therefore, there was no chance for him to exercise any option at all -- High Court has rightly observed that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 and would be entitled to the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity being the heirs of the deceased employee.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18-C, 29, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial Quantity -- Regular bail – Petitioner in custody for the last 1 year, 6 months and 3 days; he is a first offender; though charges were framed on 03.01.2022 but only 2 out of 15 prosecution witnesses have yet been examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, thus the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed -- Petition allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Regularization of daily rated employee – Juniors were regularized – Ground of -- Initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working -- These two conditions clearly missing in the case -- Appellant had no case for regularization -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3,4)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003),  Section 3, 44, 45 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 403, 406, 418, 420 – Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Summoning of accused – Lack of territorial jurisdiction – Writ jurisdiction -- Contention that offence punishable u/s 44(1) of PMLA shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed – Held, issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence -- An answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out -- Liberty given to the petitioner to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction before the Trial Court – Petition dismissed.

(Para 11, 12, 46)

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016), Section 43(5) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- RERA Appeal – Withdrawal of -- Maintainability of writ thereafter -- Petitioners preferred an appeal which they withdrew after arguing the matter at length before the Appellate Tribunal -- Petitioners not been able to justify the filing of the writ petition after the withdrawal of the appeal  -- Held, once the RERA had given a decision against the petitioners and the appeal against the same had been withdrawn, the petitioners would have no right to file a writ petition -- Writ petition is totally misconceived and devoid of merit, dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 20(3) -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Interim maintenance – Expeditious decision – Prayer of -- Petitioner/daughter of respondent is pursuing undergraduate course in Medicine and Surgery in China, requires money for meeting her expenses – Petition allowed, Family Court directed to decide the application for interim maintenance expeditiously preferably within one month.

(Para 1, 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357 -- Haryana Victims Compensation Scheme, 2013 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)Section 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Compensation to rape victim under repealed scheme – Writ jurisdiction -- Victim cannot be denied benefit merely due to an act of oversight by the Court -- Act of Court should not prejudice her claim to just compensation -- Victim being a minor and 10 years of age, the Court is the supreme guardian of her best interests as parens patriae -- Hence, the deprivation is now being undone in exercise of the power of prerogative writ -- Sending of the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal would be an exercise in futility as the authorities under the scheme cannot award compensation under a repealed scheme – Petition allowed, respondent-District Legal Services Authority directed to award a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- as per the Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2013 -- Amount of Rs.4,00,000/- already disbursed be adjusted from the amount above.

(Para 14-16)

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 33 (7) -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 19, 32 -- Constitutional validity of Section 33 (7) of the Representation of the People Act -- Election for MP/MLA from more than one constituency -- Challenge to – Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat in a Parliamentary election or at an election to the State Legislative Assembly is a matter of legislative policy – In the absence of any manifest arbitrariness of the provision so as to implicate the provisions of Article 14 or a violation of Article 19, it would not be possible to strike down the provision as unconstitutional.

(Para 2, 3, 12)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Letter Patent Appeal -- Long pendency of appeal -- Appointment of Assistant Superintendent Jail – Change of condition – Candidature of the respondent rejected on the ground that he is suffering from colour blindness – Held, in the absence of any prescription in the Service Rules or even in the advertisement in that regard, it is not open to the appellants to introduce such a requirement in the process of recruitment to the said post – Ld. Single judge allowed the writ on 10.02.2016 and order of issuance of appointment letter --  Respondent attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of appeal -- Since the delay on part of this Court to decide the appeal cannot operate to prejudice the respondent/ writ petitioner and create an advantage to the appellants – Appeal dismissed, appellants directed to pay to respondent, wages for the period from the date when the impugned order was passed by the ld. Single Judge, till the date he had attained the age of superannuation of 58 years all consequential benefits.

(Para 18-21)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 146, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Rioting – Details in FIR – Requirement of -- Quashing of FIR -- In order to attract the provision of Section 146 or 147, basic ingredients of these offences which are force/ violence/ Criminal force/ resistance have to be explicit from the description of events in the FIR, so as to prima facie constitute the offence -- Neither, violence or any kind of use of force/ resistance, on part of the protesting persons, has been alleged even in FIR, nor has it been shown that in what manner any force/ Criminal force/ resistance was used by the accused persons -- FIR quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 147, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Rioting – Unlawful assembly -- Details in FIR – Requirement of -- Quashing of FIR -- Mere averment to the effect that accused blocked the road will not suffice to construe the use of force or violence as the same is required to be portrayed from the description of events in FIR itself – No offence u/s 147 and 149 of the IPC is made out there being no allegation of rioting or creating an unlawful assembly -- FIR quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Details of offence in FIR – Requirement of -- FIR cannot be the encyclopedia of all the events of the case, but at the same time, there must be description of basic actions of accused persons from which it can be prime facie construed that alleged offences were committed by accused person.

(Para 9)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 195, 482 -- Disobedience to order promogulated by public servant – Quashing of FIR -- In order to constitute this offence, there must be disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant -- Pre-requisites the Court to take cognizance of this offence only on a complaint filed by the concerned public servant – Neither there was any mention of promulgated order issued by any public servant nor any such complaint was filed at its instance, thus, applicability of Section 188 itself erroneous -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10, 18)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 283 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Blockage of road – Quashing of FIR -- No videography or photographs of alleged blockage -- Vague allegations regarding blocking of road, in the absence of any basic minimum details, does not lead to prima facie satisfaction for constituting offence u/s 283 of IPC -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10, 12, 18)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 19 -- Fundamental right to protest -- Quashing of FIR u/s 482 Cr.P.C – Alternative remedy – Just because the petitioner and other accused persons could avail their remedy before the Trial Court u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C., they could not be left in lurch to face the agony of criminal trial while exercising their fundamental right to protest.

(Para 15)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Two different versions of same order – Challenge to -- Two different orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on the self-same subject matter which was reserved on 29.08.2022 and pronounced on 01.09.2022 – Justification tendered by Registrar General of the High Court accepted and left it for the High Court to take appropriate necessary course corrective measures – Without going into the merits/demerits of the matter, orders set aside – Case before the High Court restored.

(Para 3-8)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- Competitive exam by Public Service Commission – Allocation of marks on pro-rata basis for 2 questions found wrong in answer key -- As per Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017 a conscious decision was taken to allocate the marks on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions whose answer keys were found to be wrong and when all the candidates were awarded two marks (one mark each for the aforesaid two questions) -- It cannot be said that the Public Service Commission acted illegally and/or arbitrarily and/or committed any wrong – Held, Division Bench of the High Court committed a very serious error in ordering re-evaluation of only two candidates, namely, the original writ petitioner and original respondent No. 5 only – Impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ordering re-evaluation of the papers quashed and set aside.

(Para 5-7)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 161(3), 173, 207 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 74, 76 -- Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), Section 4(1)(b) -- Public Interest litigation -- Free public access to chargesheets/ final reports u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. on State websites :

– Conjoint reading of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and Section 207 Cr.P.C. the Investigating Agency is required to furnish the copies of the report along with the relevant documents to be relied upon by the prosecution to the accused and to none others -- It may as such violate the rights of the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency

-- Chargesheet/ documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents u/s 74 of the Evidence Act, reliance placed upon Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is absolutely misplaced.

-- Copies of the chargesheet and the relevant documents along with the charge-sheet do not fall within Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act -- Under the circumstances also the reliance placed upon Section 4(1)(2) of the RTI Act is also misconceived and misplaced.

Petitioner is not entitled to the relief namely directing all the States to put on their websites the copies of all the chargesheets/challans filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 1-7)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Constitution of India, Article 300-A -- Temporary acquisition of land -- Temporary acquisition cannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years -- ONGC using land for oil exploration, it may not be possible for the landowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/or to deal with the same in any manner – It would be arbitrary and can be said to be infringing the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21, 136 -- Cheating and forgery – Regular bail – Allegations against the petitioner are extremely serious -- She is involved in 19 criminal cases -- In most of the cases there are allegations of forging documents and duping the financial institutions like Bank of Maharashtra to avail cash credit running into crores of rupees -- Husband of the petitioner who stood as the guarantor is equally involved -- Mortgage deeds of the properties furnished as security were also found to be forged:

-- Petitioner is in custody for almost seven years.

-- Out of 19 cases, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in 17 cases.

-- There are 61 prosecution witnesses and the third witness is being examined now. The conclusion of trial will thus take a long time.

-- Assuming that the petitioner is eventually found guilty and appropriate sentence is awarded, yet the period of almost seven years spent by her as an under-trial prisoner cannot be taken lightly.

Held, balance between the rights, emanating under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the one hand and the State’s right to ensure a fair and proper trial on the other hand, need to be balanced. Consequently, without expressing any view on the merit, the petitioner directed to be released on bail.

(Para 1-4)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Equal pay for equal work – Higher qualification, higher Pay scale -- Classification based upon the higher educational qualification for grant of higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessing higher qualification, upheld.

(Para 4.4)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Equal pay for equal work – Experience and qualification -- Nursing Assistants are being paid ‘Hospital Patient Care Allowance’ -- Nursing Assistants in the BSF neither have relevant experience for appointment as Staff Nurse nor they possess any educational qualification for appointment as Staff Nurse -- Finding of High Court that Nursing Assistants shall be entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurse quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Murder – Judicial discipline and propriety -- Conviction upheld by Supreme Court, matter remanded back to High Court to consider the question of sentence, after hearing the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the accused – In paragraph 42 of the impugned judgment and order certain unwarranted observations made by High Court -- Judicial discipline requires that once the conviction was confirmed by Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case – High Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment after considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Paragraph 42 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside and expunged -- Commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment not interfered with.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Regular bail – Condition to deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- in the Court was imposed on the statement of the petitioner – He could not comply with the condition and resultantly continues in custody since 30.06.2016 -- Subsequently he applied for modification/recall of the condition turned down by the High Court – Held, pre-condition of deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- for his release on regular bail, is totally unwarranted and uncalled for and set aside -- Petitioner directed to be released on bail forthwith subject to his furnishing bail bonds.

(Para 1-6)

Constitution of India, Article 44, 162, Seventh Schedule, Concurrent list-Entry 5  – Uniform Civil Code -- Constitution of the Committee on the Uniform Civil Code by Uttarakhand – Challenged on the ground that that in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy such a Committee can only be set up by the Union Government – Held, constitution of a Committee per se cannot be challenged as ultra vires -- Petition, dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 2 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Lawyers abstained from work -- Closure of evidence – Revision -- Petitioners/defendants seeking one opportunity to examine the witness who could not be examined on date as the Lawyers had abstained from work – Held, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioners are granted one opportunity subject to payment of cost -- Petition allowed and the petitioners afforded one opportunity subject to payment of Rs.5,000/-, to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 10 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Non-filing of written statement – Defence struck off – Civil Revision -- Although, no illegality or infirmity can be found with the impugned order, however, in the interest of justice so as to ensure that the revision petitioner is not prejudiced by closing doors of contest upon him, the petition accepted and the revision petitioner afforded one opportunity to file written statement within 15 days subject to paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the plaintiff.

(Para 4)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 17, 18 -- SARFAESI proceedings – Challenge to order of DRT – Alternative remedy of appeal -- Writ jurisdiction -- By entertaining the writ petition straightway under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the DRT-I, the High Court has allowed / permitted the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – In view of alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal before the DRAT, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, Rule 8(1)(2) – Possession of secured assets -- Possession Notices were published in two leading newspapers having sufficient circulation in the locality -- Even the Possession Notices were served upon the borrowers also -- Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in holding that there was a breach of Rules 8(1) & (2) of the Rules, 2002 -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 6.2, 8)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, Rule 9(3)(4) -- Auction of secured assets -- Deposit of 25 % of auction price on next day – Deposit of 75% amount on 15^th day from communication by Bank – Permissibility of – High Court observed and held that there was non-compliance of the Rule 9(3) inter alia on the ground that 25% of the amount of sale price and thereafter 75% of the balance sale price was not deposited within the time stipulated under Rule 9 – Held, findings are just contrary to Rules 9(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2002.

-- Purchaser was required to deposit 25% of the amount of the sale price on the same day of sale or not later than the next working day -- Auction was held on 17.02.2017 -- Entire 25% of the sale price came to be deposited by 18.02.2017.

-- By communication / letter dated 08.03.2017, the secured creditor/ Bank directed the auction purchaser to deposit the balance 75% of the bid amount within 15 days and the auction purchaser deposited the balance 75% of the sale price on 23.03.2017, i.e., on the 15th day from the date of communication by the secured creditor/ Bank -- As per Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2002, the balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the Authorized Officer on or before 15th day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period, in any case not exceeding three months -- Therefore, the communication dated 08.03.2017 can be said to be the extended period by the secured creditor/ Bank.

Held, it can be said that the entire sale price was deposited within the time prescribed under Rules 9(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2002 -- Therefore, the High Court has committed an error in holding that there was a breach of Rules 9(3) & (4) of the Rules, 2002 -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 2.3, 6.3, 6.4, 8)

D. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 31(i) -- Agricultural property – Exemption from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act -- Once the secured property is put as a security by way of mortgage etc. meaning thereby the same was not treated as agricultural land, such properties cannot be said to be exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act under Section 31(i) -- No evidence was led at all on behalf of the borrowers that the secured properties in question were actually put to use as agricultural land and/or any agricultural activity was going on -- High Court has committed an error in applying Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act and quashing and setting aside the entire Possession Notice, Auction Notice as well as Sale etc. -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 7.2, 8)

E. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 31(i) -- Agricultural property – Exemption from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – Onus of proof -- When it was the case on behalf of the borrowers that in view of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the properties were agricultural lands, the same were being exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the burden was upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on.

(Para 7.3)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B -- Murder -- Life imprisonment – Suspension of sentence -- Appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court since 2018 -- High Court, however, declined to grant suspension of sentence pending the disposal of the appeal – Petitioner has undergone over twelve years and six months of actual imprisonment – Since the appeal before the High Court is likely to take time for disposal, Supreme Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail, pending the disposal of the appeal.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Protection of life and liberty --  Live-in Relationship -- Protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India -- Petitioners living in a “Live in Relationship” are entitled to the protection of their life and liberty.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- MBBS in Govt. Quota Seat (Backward Class Category) – Vacant seat -- Respondent No.5 surrendered the seat and on account of the same, one seat has fallen vacant -- Petitioner/College has filed representation before respondent No.3/ University, to declare the surrendered seat as vacant, however, till date, despite number of representations, no call has been taken – Submitted that portal is open till 31.12.2022 – Mop up round is also over -- However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3/ University to decide the representations by tomorrow, i.e. 31.12.2022 and take appropriate decision on the same, keeping in view the submissions made by the petitioner.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Run-away Couple -- Inter-caste marriage – Police protection -- Petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of respondents no.4 and 5 and sought protection to their life and liberty -- Petition dispose of with a direction to Senior Superintendent of Police to decide the representation of the petitioners and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(Para 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Run-away Couple -- Police protection to solemnize marriage -- Petitioner No.1 aged more than 20 years -- Petitioner No.2 aged more than 21 years is major – Both want to solemnize marriage against the wishes of respondents no.4 to 6 and sought protection to their life and liberty – Direction issued to Senior Superintendent of Police to decide the representation of the petitioners and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Mutation -- Long pendency of revision/ Stay – Writ jurisdiction -- Rejection of application for additional evidence by Collector in appeal -- Revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner on 08.08.2022 but has not been taken up for consideration till date, next date of hearing is 07.02.2023 – Meanwhile, the Collector is due to pass an order on the appeal on 27.12.2022 – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition on 07.02.2023 alongwith the stay application and till the decision of the stay application the Collector shall not pass the final order.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(b) – Charge of taking bribe -- Contradictory enquiry report – Dismissal of employee -- After the enquiry officer concluded that the charge against the petitioner was not proved, he went on to hold the petitioner guilty – Such a contradiction within the same enquiry report is irreconcilable -- Finding of guilt has been returned only because visuals of the petitioner could be seen in the CD which the enquiry officer himself describes to be doctored or edited as the same was also found to contain visual clips which were absolutely unrelated to the event which was being inquired into – Finding of guilt cannot be sustained -- Since, the impugned orders passed by the SP, the IG and the DGP are based solely on the afore finding of guilt by the enquiry officer, as a necessary corollary, such orders would also be unsustainable and accordingly, they too are set aside.

(Para 2, 21, 22)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Rent laws – Eviction of tenant – Direction for expediting execution – Eviction by Rent Controller on 21.02.2018, appeal was dismissed on 26.07.2022 -- Execution petition on 16.03.2022, respondent-tenant appeared before the executing court and the case was adjourned for filing objections -- However, objections were not filed on the adjourned date nor on the next date -- Case now stands adjourned to 20.01.2023 for filing objections – Direction given to Executing Court to decide the execution application as expeditiously as possible without affording unnecessary adjournments to the respondent-judgment debtor.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 311 – Cancellation of appointment --Graduation degree not produced -- De-recognition of University -- Petitioner failed to submit his graduation degree even though detailed mark-sheets of all three years had been supplied -- On account of not submitting his graduation degree, appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled -- At the time of admission of the petitioner, Karnataka State Open University was recognized by UGC -- Petitioner could not be made to suffer on account of de-recognition of the University in the year 2014 – It cannot be said that the petitioner obtained appointment on fraudulent grounds -- Moreover, the said University has already been recognized by UGC -- Petitioner ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(Para 2, 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Interim restoration of electricity connection -- Suit for possession and mesne profits by respondent no.1/plaintiff – Suit still pending -- Electricity being a basic necessity, is an integral part of right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- As long as the petitioner is in possession of the suit property, he cannot be deprived of electricity -- Electricity connection ordered to be restored subject to payment of requisite charges by the petitioner, if any, till the final decision of the suit -- Petitioner shall continue to pay the electricity charges regularly.

(Para 5-7)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Constable -- In BC Category the last selected candidate scored 26.41 marks whereas the petitioner has 26.50 marks -- Argument of respondent-State that the petitioner had refused to accept offer of appointment at Jalandhar District is not sustainable, as despite a specific direction given by Court to place on record any communication regarding non-acceptance of offer of appointment by the petitioner, no document has been placed on record -- Petitioner is duly entitled for appointment to the post of Constable under BC category in District Jalandhar -- Writ petition allowed -- Respondent-State directed to offer appointment with all consequential benefits.

(Para 5-9)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Promotion with retrospective effect – Fixation of pay – Monetary benefits -- Petitioner given promotion with retrospective effect from the date from which he was actually discharging the duties of HOD independently – Held, once he was given promotion w.e.f. 01.02.2012, it is unjustified on the part of the respondents to deny him the fixation of his pay from the back date -- Writ petition allowed, direction issued to the respondents to refix the pay and allowances of the petitioner w.e.f, 01.02.20212 in terms of the promotion order with all consequential benefits within one month and the monetary benefits be calculated and paid within the next one month.

(Para 7, 8)