Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 – Life and liberty – Live-in relationship with married lady -- Protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India as emanating out of Article 21 -- Every person, more so, a major, has right to live his / her life with a person of his/ her choice -- Respondent No.2 directed take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 13, 14)

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (20 of 1959), Section 13(2) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Creation of Sub-divisions in a district – Writ of mandamus -- Creation of a new sub-division is a considered policy decision of the State Government for good governance -- No mandamus can be issued directing the State Government to constitute new sub-division under Section 13(2) of the Code, 1959 -- Government is expected to act and must act in a way which would make it consistent with the good administration – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of  India, Article 226 – Writ of mandamus -- Service matter -- Contractual employment – Renewal of contract – Right of -- Petitioner engaged for a specific term under an agreement and its term has expired -- As such the petitioner ceases to be in the employment of the respondents, who have taken a conscious decision, not to renew the contract -- At this stage, the respondents can neither be forced to reinstate the petitioner nor to renew the agreement.

(Para 9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980), Section 2(3), 3(3) -- Detention under NSA -- Revenue officials went to the property to recover their dues, allegation that petitioner was of endeavoring to obstruct locking of premises -- Subsequently added that on a phone call he threatened the officers -- Assuming all the facts to be correct, the exercise of the said Act (NSA) in respect of the incident is shocking and unsustainable – Proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-10)

B. National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980), Section 1, 2(3), 3(3) -- Detention order under NSA – Object and reason -- Statement of object and reasons of the Act would show that it was to control the antisocial and antinational elements including secessionist, communal and pro-caste elements, that affect the services essential to the community, thereby posing a grave challenge -- This was particularly in respect of defence, security, public order and services essential to the community which have resulted in the National Security Ordinance, 1980 being promulgated and the Act was to replace the ordinance.

(Para 9)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Only manner in which such special conditions as enacted u/s 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty -- Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted u/s 37 of the NDPS Act.

(Para 19)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 25, 29, 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable – Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling – Incarceration has further deleterious effects, where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society -- The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials, especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily -- Appellant directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 21-23)

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A -- Public auction – Market value of property – Additional stamp duty – Demand of -- Property sold by the Company Court in an open auction conducted by the Official Liquidator and the sale stands confirmed by High Court itself -- Registering authority is unjustified in demanding additional stamp duty -- Order impounding the sale deed set aside, sale deed directed to be released immediately, after its due registration.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Deficient stamp duty -- Additional stamp duty – Demand of -- Alternative remedy – Writ jurisdiction -- Objection as to availability of alternate remedy of appeal -- There is no specific bar to a writ court exercising its jurisdiction if alternate remedy has not been availed of – Objection held to be not tenable – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 15, 16)

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (19 of 1976), Section 16, 17 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Bonded labour -- Life and liberty – Release of detenues -- Writ of habeas corpus -- Direction issued to District Magistrate to treat this petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law within a period of one week.

(Para 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Allotment of land to family member of martyr in Indo-Pak-War-1971 – Delay in Sanad – Compensation for -- State in the year 1974 merely handed over possession of 3 biswas of land to the father of the deceased martyr -- Sanad not entered, revenue record not updated -- State of Punjab directed forthwith make atonements by remitting forthwith a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs to the petitioner as compensation for the above procrastinated delay and, for its devaluing the eminent services as a soldier in the Indian Army, as rendered by the deceased brother of the petitioner -- Rigorous condition imposed against the allottee barring him to mortgage or alienate the allotted land is oppressive and also contrary to the completest rights as owner vested in the allottee.

(Para 4, 7, 8)

A. Service Rules – Government Resolution – Effect of -- In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail -- There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same -- Government resolutions issued by the Administrative Department cannot have the status of a statutory rule although such resolutions may have their own effect.

(Para 25)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Maharashtra Forest Service, Group A (Junior Scale) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998, Rule 2, 3B, 6 -- Appointment of Divisional Forest Officer – Appointment by promotion from amongst officers of the Maharashtra Forest Service -- Exclusion of period of probation -- Proviso to Rule 2 is unambiguous and quite clear, i.e., the period spent on training at Government Forest Colleges and other period of probation including extended period of probation, if any, “shall not be counted towards the requisite period of service.” -- Even if the Government Resolution upgraded the post of ACF from Class II to Class I, the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules will continue to hold valid in determining the period of service -- Rules 3B and 6 of the 1988 Rules also leave no ambiguity in this behalf and in fact read in consonance and the period of probation has to be necessarily excluded from period of service – Grant of monetary benefit is a different aspect – Held, Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules, and the resolutions neither speaking about promotion to the post of DFO nor about seniority conclusively, the Proviso would operate with full force.

(Para 25-30)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 313, 376(2)(n), 34 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(5), 14A(2) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix stands examined, in her examination as well as FIR, the allegation that physical relations with appellant on the pretext of marriage and now he is not solemnizing marriage -- Prosecutrix is major, she met appellant in Jail which prima facie shows that there was consensual relation -- Appellant is in custody since 25.02.2022 and he is not involved in any other offence – Out of 12 prosecution witnesses till date only 5 have been examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future -- In view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India appellant has right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody -- Prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of appellant being flee from justice or tampering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses – Appeal allowed, appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, Rule 5(1)(b) -- Constitution of India, Article 233 – Appointment of District Judge through limited departmental competitive examination – Appointment above 10% Quota – Challenge to -- Any appointment beyond 10% seats filled up by limited departmental competitive examination shall have to be considered appointment excess in quota -- No relief can be granted to the original writ petitioners in absence of those selected/appointed candidates -- High Court directed to see that 10% seats are filled up by limited departmental competitive examination on and from 1.1.2011 and if it is found that in any recruitment subsequent to 1.1.2011, the 10% quota is breached, all such posts shall be adjusted in the future recruitments. All India Judges’ Association case (2010) 15 SCC 170 relied.

(Para 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Change of name in educational certificate – Writ of mandamus – Petitioner permitted to file representation keeping in view the parameters laid down in the judgment in Jigya Yadav (minor)’s case 2021(7) SCC 535 through the school -- Respondents to decide the representation within a period of six weeks in accordance with law.

(Para 1-8)

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 16 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 1 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Written statement filed after one year – Application for placing on record rejected -- Revisional jurisdiction – By Sec.16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Code of Civil Procedure stands amended, which mandates that the defendant(s) has to file the written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons, failing which the defendant(s) right to file the written statement will stand forfeited and the Court shall not accept the written statement on record – Held, there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 6-11)

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)