A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 56 -- General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 3(10) -- Chief Controlling Revenue Authority -- ‘Chief Controlling Revenue Authority’ has not been defined under the Act of 1899 and, therefore, Section 3 Clause 10 of the General Clauses Act has to be read -- As per the said Clause, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab , Chandigarh would be the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for the purposes under this Act.

(Para 8)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Sections 31, 40, 41, 47-A – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Deficient stamp duty -- Jurisdiction of Financial Commissioner -- Aggrieved against any order passed by the Collector in proceedings u/s 47-A of the Act, an appeal is to be filed u/s 47-A (4) of the Act before the Commissioner -- Only remedy available to the aggrieved party thereafter, would be to challenge the order of the Commissioner before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India -- Financial Commissioner (Revenue) exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding an issue -- Financial Commissioner (Revenue) could have exercised his jurisdiction upon an order passed by the Collector, when the Collector acts u/s 31, 40 and 41 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, whereas the order impugned before him was passed by the Commissioner exercising his jurisdiction upon an appeal filed under Section 47-A(4) of the Act of 1899 – Held, orders so passed was by a person not competent to do so and is thus, set aside -- Liberty given to challenge the orders afresh, within a period of two months before the appropriate forum.

(Para 10-13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 – Cheque bounce case – Security deposit cheque – Quashing of Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – High Court quashed the complaint -- Dispute between the parties regarding the quality of the material supplied – Respondent/ accused made a complaint in writing of the defective material and then stopped the payment – Respondent has already filed a Civil Suit for damages – Held, the issues between the parties can be effectively resolved through Civil Suit only – Petitioner shall be at liberty either to file counter claim or a separate suit in accordance with law – Observations made by the High Court in its impugned order shall have no bearing on the outcome of the Civil Suit.

(Para 1-7)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Live-in relationship -- Reproductive choice of women – Abortion -- Personal liberty -- A woman’s right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution -- She has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity -- Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom.

(Para 19, 20)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971), Section 3(2)(a)(b), Explanation 1 -- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003, Rule 3B -- Live-in relationship -- Abortion of appox. 24 weeks pregnancy -- Personal liberty – Petitioner should not be denied the benefit on the ground that she is an unmarried woman -- Distinction between a married and unmarried woman does not bear a nexus to the basic purpose and object, which is conveyed specifically by the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 3 of the Act -- Petitioner had moved the High Court before she had completed 24 weeks of pregnancy -- Delay in the judicial process cannot work to her prejudice -- Ad interim order direction issued in the event that the Medical Board concludes that the fetus can be aborted without danger to the life of the petitioner, a team of doctors at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences shall carry out the abortion in terms of the request -- Before doing so the wishes of the petitioner shall be ascertained again and her written consent obtained after due verification of identity.

(Para 21, 22)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Section 2(2), 96 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Decree -- Rejection of plaint – Remedy of appeal -- Maintainability of Revision – Decree would include within its ambit an order of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC -- An order would be amenable to the remedy of appeal – Not appropriate to entertain petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Special leave to Appeal – Nature of -- Article 136 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary jurisdiction which Supreme Court exercises when it entertains an appeal by special leave and this jurisdiction, by its very nature, is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice -- Terms and powers conferred under the said Article is not hedged by any technical hurdles -- Overriding and exceptional power is, however, to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of cause of justice -- Thus, when the judgment under appeal has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension or misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence then Supreme Court is not only empowered but is well expected to interfere to promote the cause of justice.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Special leave to Appeal – Finding of fact – Interference on -- It is not the practice of Supreme Court to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the Trial Court and the High Court are correct or not -- It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence, that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact.

(Para 16)

C. Evidence law – Criminal trial -- Testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission.

(Para 22)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Conviction for murder -- Facts and evidence squarely analyzed by both Trial Court as well the High Court that prosecution discharged its duties in proving the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt -- When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of weapon from the appellant would not materially affect the case of the prosecution -- If the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise found trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved and rejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or natural contradictions have appeared into his testimony -- Deceased has been attacked by the appellant in broad daylight and there is direct evidence available to prove the same and the motive behind the attack is also apparent considering there was previous enmity between the appellant and PW-1 – Held, Trial Court as well as the High Court were right in convicting the appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC – No ground warranting interference with the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 24-26)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Adverse remarks in ACR – Reliance upon -- Nothing has been placed on record that the annual confidential report were ever served upon the petitioner for her comments -- These reports cannot be taken into consideration.

(Para 14)

B. Haryana Government Regularisation Policy dated 1.10.2003 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 309 -- Appointment on adhoc basis – Regularisation of – Pensionary benefits – Right of -- Petitioner has rendered more than 25 years of service whereas, a regular employee, who has served for 10 years, becomes entitled for the grant of pension -- Petitioner retired in 2009, direction issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a regular employee w.e.f. 01.10.2003, which benefit has already been extended to not only similarly situated employees but even to the juniors of the petitioner – Petitioner is before High Court for the last 10 years waiting for the pensionary benefits held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum as the arrears to be paid to her from the date the petitioner file the petition i.e. 08.05.2012.

(Para 29-31)

A. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – Doctrine of reasonableness -- Where an Act or the statutory rules framed thereunder left an action dependent upon the opinion of the authority concerned, by some such expression as ‘is satisfied’ or ‘is of the opinion’ or ‘if it has reason to believe’ or ‘if it considered necessary’, the opinion of the authority is conclusive, (a) if the procedure prescribed by the Act or rules for formation of the opinion was duly followed, (b) if the authority acted bona fide, (c) if the authority Itself formed the opinion and did not borrow the opinion of somebody else and (d) if the authority did not proceed on a fundamental misconception of the law and the matter in regard to which the opinion had to be formed -- Courts will not readily defer to the conclusiveness of the authority’s opinion as to the existence of matter of law or fact upon which the validity of the exercise of the power is predicated -- Doctrine of reasonableness thus may be invoked -- Where there are no reasonable grounds for the formation of the authority’s opinion, judicial review in such a case is permissible.

(Para 28-30)

B. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – Court can inquire whether the facts and circumstances so found to exist have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the power is to be exercised.

(Para 34)

C. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – Court can interfere if the constitutional or statutory term essential for the exercise of the power has either been misapplied or misinterpreted -- The Courts have always equated the jurisdictional review with the review for error of law and have shown their readiness to quash an order if the meaning of the constitutional or statutory term has been misconstrued or misapplied.

(Para 35)

D. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – It is permissible to interfere in a case where the power is exercised for improper purpose -- If a power granted for one purpose is exercised for a different purpose, then it will be deemed that the power has not been validly exercised.

(Para 36)

E. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – Grounds which are relevant for the purpose for which the power can be exercised have not been considered or grounds which are not relevant and yet are considered and an order is based on such grounds, then the order can be attacked as invalid and illegal -- On the same principle, the administrative action will be invalidated if it can be established that the authority was satisfied on the wrong question.’

(Para 37)

F. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Assam Rifles Regulation, 2016, Regulation 107(c), 108 – Assam Rifles Manual, Rule 24 – Four red ink entries – Discharge from service -- Entry 1 (1996) For staying back to take care of his ailing mother – ‘without sufficient cause over staying leave granted’. Sentenced to 14 days of rigorous imprisonment with deduction in salary -- Entry 2 (1998) For being on the way out to make a phone call, but stopped before he could leave the compound – “visited out of bound areas as specified in unit BRO Part I Ser No 202 dated 30 Aug 96 without permission from his superior officers”. Sentenced to 28 days of rigorous custody and 14 days of Military Custody -- Entry 3 (1999) For losing his luggage while coming back from home – “lost his identity card bearing machine No. 078550 by neglect the property of the Government issued to him for his use”. Sentenced to 28 days of rigorous imprisonment and 14 days of detention in AR custody -- Entry 4 (2004) For playing cards all alone by himself – ‘to obey unit standing orders and was found Gambling in unit line’. Sentenced to 28 days of rigorous imprisonment and 14 days of fine -- Having regard to the nature of the misconduct alleged against the appellant, ends of justice would be met if order of discharge set aside and treat the appellant to have been in service till the time, he could be said to have completed the qualifying service for grant of pension – Nothing on record to indicate that the nature of the misconduct leading to the award of four Red Ink entries was so unacceptable that the competent authority had no option but to direct his discharge to prevent indiscipline in the force -- Order of discharge against the appellant set aside -- Benefit of continuity of service for all other purpose shall be granted to the appellant including pension.

(Para 39, 40)

A. Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Criminal appeal -- Scope and width of appeal in Supreme court -- Following principles emerge:

(i) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances.

(ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly.

(iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court.

(iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it.

(v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record.

(Para 23)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 60 -- Evidence law -- Criminal case -- Appreciation of ocular evidence – Scope of – Appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task -- There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence -- The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:

I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.

II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.

III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.

IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.

V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.

VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.

VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.

VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.

XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.

XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.

XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.

(Para 27)

C. Evidence law -- Criminal case – Value of eyewitness – Assessment of -- In assessing the value of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence -- In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence -- Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or puts forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence -- Few contradictions in the form of omissions here or there is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence of the eye-witnesses.

(Para 28, 29)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Criminal case -- Discovery Panchnama – Reading over of it – Exhibition of – A panchnama which can be used only to corroborate the panch has to be read over to the panch and only thereafter it can be exhibited – If the panch has omitted to state something which is found in the panchnama, then after reading over the panchnama the panch has to be asked whether that portion of the panchnama is correct or not and whatever reply he gives has to be recorded – If he replies in the affirmative, then only that portion of the panchnama can be read into evidence to corroborate the substantive evidence of the panch – If he replies in the negative, then that part of the panchnama cannot be read in evidence for want of substantive evidence on record – It is, therefore, necessary that care is taken by the public prosecutor who conducts the trial that such a procedure is followed while examining the panch at the trial – It is also necessary that the learned trial judge also sees that the panchnama is read over the panch and thereafter the panchnama is exhibited after following the procedure as indicated above.

(Para 39)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Discovery Panchnama/ Memo – Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly as under:

(1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused;

(2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to;

(3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave informations and

(4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible.

Two conditions for application –

(1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and

(2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered.

(Para 42)

F. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Discovery Panchnama/ Memo – Value of – Involvement or usage of weapon -- Statement does not suggest that the appellant indicated anything about his involvement in the concealment of the weapon -- Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon -- He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also -- He might have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it.

(Para 45)

G. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Discovery Panchnama/ Memo – Recovery of weapon – Contents of Panchnama/ Memo – Proof of -- In the absence of exact words, attributed to an accused person, as statement made by him being deposed by the Investigating Officer in his evidence, and also without proving the contents of the panchnamas, the trial Court was not justified in placing reliance upon the circumstance of discovery of weapon.

(Para 47)

H. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27 – Conduct of accused – Disclosure statement – Recovery of – Reliance upon -- While discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama the conduct of the accused would be relevant u/s 8 of the Act -- Evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct u/s 8 of the Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement u/s 27 -- Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact u/s 8 of the Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder -- Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of an accused is also one of the circumstances which the court may take into consideration along with the other evidence on record, direct or indirect – Held, conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant u/s 8 of the Act, cannot form the basis of conviction.

(Para 48-50)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 – De facto complainant – Transfer of investigation to CBI -- If a citizen, who is a de facto complainant in a criminal case alleging commission of cognizable offence affecting violation of his legal or fundamental rights against high Government officials or influential persons, prays before a Court for a direction of investigation of the said alleged offence by the CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking -- In an appropriate case when the Court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in a proper direction, and in order to do complete justice in the case and if high police officials are involved in the alleged crime, the Court may be justified in such circumstances to handover the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI.

(Para 44-46)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 – Chargesheet filed in criminal case – Transfer of investigation to CBI – Permissibility of -- After the filing of the charge sheet the court is empowered in an appropriate case to handover the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI.

(Para 46)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 191, 192, 193, 195 -- Perjury -- There are two conditions, on fulfillment of which, a complaint can be filed against a person who has given a false affidavit or evidence in a proceeding before a court -- The first condition being that a person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the court and, secondly, in the opinion of the court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by him – There should be something deliberate -- A statement should be made deliberately and consciously which is found to be false as a result of comparing it with unimpeachable evidence, documentary or otherwise.

(Para 72-78)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 191 – Perjury -- False evidence -- Affidavit -- An affidavit is ‘evidence’ within the meaning of Section 191 of the IPC and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury.

(Para 79)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 191, 192, 193, 195 -- Perjury -- Before initiating the proceedings for perjury, the court concerned has to consider whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to sanction such prosecution – Court has to see that the false statement was deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely -- In other words, before sanctioning the prosecution there must be a prima facie case of a falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge.

(Para 79)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 211 – False charge of offence made with the intent to injure -- Meaning of charge -- Essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence -- Complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person -- This complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person – A false "charge" in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning, of a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion.

(Para 91)

G. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 340 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 211, 120-B – False charge of offence made with the intent to injure – FIR/ First information reports lodged at the different police stations -- At the end of the investigation, the investigating agency reached to the conclusion that the police force had no role to play, rather Naxals were responsible for the massacre – Prima facie, it could be said that false information was given by the first informants to the police as regards the alleged massacre by the police force – Essential ingredient of an offence u/s 211 IPC is to institute or cause, to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge – “falsely charges” in this section, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial -- “To falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial -- The words “falsely charges” have to be, read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceeding” -- Statement in order to constitute the “charges” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion – Court left it to the State /CBI to take appropriate steps in accordance with law -- It shall not be limited only to the offence under Section 211 of the IPC -- A case of criminal conspiracy or any other offence under the IPC may also surface – Court left it to the better discretion of the State /CBI to act accordingly keeping in mind the seriousness of the entire issue -- Having regard to the facts of the present case the bar of Section 195 CrPC would not apply if ultimately the State/ CBI decides to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 90-96)

Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 68 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Removal of member of the Managing Committee/President by Asst. Registrar – Writ jurisdiction – Appeal/ Revision -- Appeal would lie before the Deputy Registrar and the revision, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Registrar, would lie before the Joint Registrar -- Petitioner would file his appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab within a period of one week -- Appeal be decided after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months thereafter -- In the meantime, the impugned orders kept in abeyance.

(Para 5-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction -- Compounding of offence -- In conformity with the settlement requisite payment accepted -- It does appear appropriate to accept the terms of settlement between the parties and allow the compounding of offence – Orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court are set aside.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appeal and stay application pending before Joint Development Commissioner – Non decisioning of – Writ jurisdiction -- Earlier stay application for constructed portion decided – Second application for stay for entire land pending -- In order to avoid any further delay in disposal of the appeal, Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab to decide the stay application(s) afresh expeditiously, preferably within a period of 15 days on receiving a certified copy of the order -- Till the time the stay application(s) is decided by respondent No. 2/appellate authority, the status quo shall be maintained.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship with married girl – Life and liberty -- Police protection – Right of -- Petitioner no. 1/ lady already married have three children – Divorce petition pending -- Held, every person in the territory of India has an inherent and indefeasible fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21 of India’s Constitution and the State is duty bound to protect life -- Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week -- However, if the petitioners no longer require the protection, then at their request it may be discontinued even before the expiry of one week -- After that, the concerned officers shall extend the protection on day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon the oral or written request of the petitioners – Petition allowed.

(Para 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Online transfer Policy of Haryana – Interpretation of clause -- In the event of completion of a tenure of 5 years at a given zone, an employee shall have to mandatorily participate in the online transfer policy -- Interpretation of the aforesaid clause cannot be given to mean that State Government is prohibited from effecting a transfer of the employees at all prior to a period of five years stay in a zone.

(Para 5-7)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee – Power of Court to interfere -- Prerogative of the State to deploy its resources cannot be steered by the Court -- Same is the primary domain of the Executive unless exercise of such executive discretion is infested with malice, caprice, arbitrariness, inherent lack of jurisdiction or as a means of inflicting punishment or satisfy the judicial conscience about being gross abuse of the authority of law or complete disregard to the Rule of Law -- No such aspects have been established or argued -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6, 8 -- Writ of habeas corpus – Custody of new born child -- Agreement of adoption before birth – Petitioner is natural mother, no registered agreement -- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not envisage an agreement to adopt a child, who is not yet born -- Thus, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot claim to be in lawful custody of the minor child in question -- Writ petition allowed and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to hand over the custody of the baby boy to the petitioner forthwith -- It is open to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take steps to enforce any agreement, which they have, in an appropriate Court of law.

(Para 1-5)

A. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) , Section 25 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custody of minor child – Writ of habeas corpus – Scope of -- Where the court is of the view that a detailed inquiry is required the Court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of a Writ Court and direct the parties to approach the Civil Court -- It is only in exceptional cases, where the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in a petition for Habeas Corpus -- Where in the circumstances of a particular case the ordinary remedy of the Civil Courts is either not available or is ineffective, a writ of Habeas Corpus is certainly maintainable, moreso, where it is shown that the detention of the minor child by a parent or others was illegal, without any authority of law and was also to the detriment of the child.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6, 13 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) , Section 25 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custody of minor child – Writ of habeas corpus – Paramount consideration ought to be the welfare of the child and due weight should be given to the child's comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development, familiar surroundings etc. -- Question of the welfare and interest of a minor child has to be judged on the consideration of the acknowledged superiority of the mother's love and affection for her children -- Girl child is less than five years old -- She was brought back to India by respondent no. 7 and 8 (grand-parents) on 23.1.2020 after which due to COVID-19 the petitioner-mother was unable to see her till March 2022 -- Even if the child had refused to go with the mother, that by itself does not have any significance as a child of such tender age does not know what is in her best interest -- Minor girl child may have developed a bond with the respondent nos.7 & 8 with whom she is residing for the last more than two years because of which she might have stated that she does not wish to go with her mother -- However, in the long term for the benefit and welfare of the child, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the welfare of the child would be better taken care of by the grandparents viz-a-viz the mother -- Even otherwise, in the case of child who is less than 05 years old the custody should ordinarily be with the mother – Petition allowed, custody of the minor child ordered to be handed over to the petitioner (mother) immediately.

(Para 17-21)

Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, Rule 4 (3) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Bifurcation of votes -- Final voter list published -- It is not the case of the petitioner that he had filed his objection to the draft electoral rolls –  Held, at this stage, no directions could be issued to the respondents-authorities to consider the representations as electoral roll has already been published in accordance with rules – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 3)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Correction in revenue record – Writ jurisdiction -- Note in the revenue record that the property of the petitioner is under mortgage – Submitted that said entry is illegal and, thus, an application has been moved for removal of the note but no action has been taken and thus legal notice issued -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the pending legal notice by passing a speaking order within twelve weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 365, 452, 366, 506 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 3(i), 101(3)(a) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Acquittal of juvenile in rape case – Criminal writ petition against -- Place of occurrence i.e. the shop of the accused is situated in a public place, however, as per the deposition of the victim she was forcibly taken from her home to the shop by forcibly making her to sit on the motorcycle of the accused is also improbable as there was strong possibility of the family members coming to know of the same -- Besides this, the ocular version is not even medically corroborated beyond reasonable doubt -- Once the accused is acquitted there lies double the presumption of innocence in his favour -- Interference can be in a situation when there are perversities in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court -- If there are two views possible then the one favouring the accused should be adopted -- Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced on record on the anvil of the law settled, Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Juvenile Justice Board in acquitting the accused -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 148 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Writ jurisdiction -- Where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writ court should not interfere at such a pre-mature stage -- Moreover it is not a case where from bare reading of notice it can be held that the authority has clutched upon the jurisdiction not vested in it -- By now it is well settled that there is vexed distinction between jurisdictional error and error of law/fact within jurisdiction -- For rectification of errors statutory remedy has been provided -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 10, 11)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Revision/ Stay application pending before Financial Commissioner – Non-consideration of – Writ jurisdiction – Revision and stay application filed on 13.10.2021 but the same has not been taken up for consideration – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition on the next date of hearing along with the stay application -- Till the decision of the stay application, there shall be a stay of dispossession.

(Para 1-6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Appeal without certified/plain copy of impugned order -- Permission to file appeal without certified/plain copy of impugned order granted.

(Para 1)

B. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (19 of 2010), Section 14, 15, 18, 29 – Constitution of India, Article 136, 323-B -- Public Interest litigation -- Jurisdiction/ Power of National Green Tribunal – Quashing of proceedings before National Green Tribunal/ NGT -- Interim order by High Court “In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.” – In proceedings before NGT, interim order that no further construction to be undertaken – Application for vacation of stay rejected – Held, it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it – Orders passed by the constitutional courts would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals – Continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice – Proceedings pending before the learned NGT quashed and set aside.

(Para 2-14)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Pendency of revision before Financial Commissioner – Stay declined -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner confines his prayer for a direction to the Financial Commissioner to decide the pending revision petition – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the concerned Financial Commissioner to dispose of the pending revision petition as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 16.24 -- Constitution of India, Article 311 (2) (a) (b) -- Dismissal of employee – Registration of FIR – Ground of – Procedure of – Departmental Enquiry – Requirement of -- Mere registration of a FIR would not be sufficient ground to invoke Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India to dispense with holding of a departmental inquiry before dismissing a delinquent employee – In case of conviction, the situation is altogether different -- Adequate reasons have to be given in the order of dismissal as to why it would not be reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry – In impugned order of dismissal, it is apparent that no reasons have been recorded to show as to why it is not possible to hold an inquiry -- Writ petition allowed, impugned order set aside, leaving it open to the Department to take departmental action in accordance with law.

(Para 5-11)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 121 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Sanad Takseem – Revision/ Stay petition pending – Warrant possession – Writ jurisdiction – Sanad Takseem challenged before Financial Commissioner, the matter has not taken up even for preliminary hearing – Meanwhile warrants of possession have been issued – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition alongwith stay application – Till the decision of the stay application, dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Dismissal of application – Revision against – Maintainability of -- Order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

(Para 9)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Writ jurisdiction – Contention that Tehsildar has refused to enter a mutation, even though, civil proceedings have been finalized, thus, the concerned official needs to be hauled up -- Only prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the revenue authorities to perform their statutory duty as stipulated in Section 34 of the Act, 1887 -- If, an erroneous order has been passed, it can be challenged in accordance with law -- Writ petition disposed of.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 16, 17 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter -- Writ jurisdiction – Remedy of statutory appeal -- Recovery of Rs.21,858/- imposed -- State contended that order is appealable without exhausting the remedy of statutory appeal, petitioner has approached High Court while invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction – Writ petition withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the remedy of statutory appeal – If an appeal is preferred within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by the competent authority while passing reasoned order within six months from its institution -- Appellate Authority on the point of delay, shall take into consideration the pendency of proceedings before High Court.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Correction in revenue records – Writ jurisdiction -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation by passing a speaking order within eight weeks.

(Para 1-5)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – Liability of Electricity Supplier – Onus of proof – Strict liability -- In case of an incident involving electricity line, burden is essentially on the Electricity Board to plead and prove that it was not their fault and the snapping of the live wire can be described to be an act of negligence – When an incident of this nature is involved, inference can surely be drawn that there has been an element of carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining the supply line – Facts of the case lead to application of principle of “strict liability” -- Respondent-Nigam held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – 100% permanent physical impairment – Keeping in view the principles laid down for awarding compensation in Naval Kumar’s case (2017) 3 SCC 115, Rs.95 lakhs awarded to the petitioner with interest payable @7% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition as compensation -- Amount enhanced considering the fact that 5 years have elapsed since the amount was awarded by the Supreme Court in almost similar circumstances and taking into account the cost of inflation, stated to be almost 15% as on date.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 12, 226 -- Appointment on contractual basis for PUNBUS though outsourcing Agency – Termination of services – Writ jurisdiction -- It is settled law that no writ petition would lie against an outsourcing agency, insofar as it is not an authority in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India – No merit in petition, especially when the petitioner was employed through an outsourcing agency and was also being paid salary through the outsourcing agency -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Family pension -- Excess payment of Rs.1,12,794/- to pensioner – Recovery of -- Submitted that inadvertently while computing pension of the petitioner D.A was added @ 200% whereas, the same was 100% starting from January, 2014 onwards till June, 2014 and 107% from July, 2014 to March, 2015 and when the said discrepancy was corrected by the respondents in April, 2015, it was found that an excess amount of Rs.1,12,794/- was paid to the petitioner, which needs to be recovered – Held, excess amount has been paid to the petitioner due to the fault of the respondents themselves, therefore, no recovery of the excess amount can be made from the petitioner and, consequently, the same is held to be bad and is set aside -- Amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner by the respondents so far be refunded to her within a period of two months.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 -- Charge sheets after retirement – Pensionary benefits – Right of -- Charge sheet issued subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner does not give jurisdiction to the respondents to retain his pensionary benefits - - Petitioner held entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed release of pensionary benefits.

(Para 6)

Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 3, 4 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Parole – Application to competent authority – Requirement of – Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner should not have approached this Court directly without exhausting the remedy before the competent authority -- Writ dismissed -- However, the petitioner shall always be at liberty to approach the competent authority for the grant of parole in accordance with law.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3, 4 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Parole – Rejection of – Reason assigned that the State Government or any officer authorised is satisfied that the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or maintenance of public order and there is a possibility of the petitioner indulging in heinous crime, if he is released on parole -- Recommendation for rejection being based upon no material on record, the impugned order cannot sustain specially when there is no other case pending against the petitioner – Writ allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on parole.

(Para 8, 9)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Alternative remedy of Appeal/ Revision – Writ jurisdiction – Challenge to order passed by the Tehsildar, whereby attachment has been made on account of recovery proceedings for dues of Rs.83,39,159/- to the government -- Held, orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collectors and other Revenue Officers are appealable and revisionable – Petitioner has also alternative efficacious remedy available to him – Writ petition is misconceived on the face of it and resultantly, the same is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

(Para 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 -- Family pension – Excess payment – Recovery from pensioner -- Permissibility of -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner played any role in getting the excess pension rather, the respondents have conceded the fact that it was due to wrong data fed in the computer -- Where a person continued to get a benefit for a period of 5 years before the same is sought to be withdrawn, the recovery cannot be made and further, the recovery cannot be made from a retired person -- Pension to the petitioner was paid at a higher rate from 01.01.2006 to 28.02.2013, which is more than period of 5 years and further, the petitioner was being paid family pension, which is admissible to a widow/widower of a retired employee – Held, no recovery is permissible -- Amount recovered from the petitioner be refunded back to her within a period of two months.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 107, 151 -- Protection of life and liberty -- Private respondents are extending threats to the petitioner and her husband – Petition disposed of with a direction to the S P that in case there is any threat perception to the petitioner and her husband or vice-versa preventive measures u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C., be taken against the party.

(Para 1-4)

National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3(E) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Demolition of shops and residence – Damages for – Writ jurisdiction -- Non-following of procedure as envisaged under Section 3(E) of The NH Act, 1956 alleged -- Since demolition had already taken place and damages are being prayed for, an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners by way of leading evidence -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances.

(Para 1, 5-7)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Additional explanation -- State must not be allowed to bring in additional explanation to justify their actions when those are conspicuous by their absence, in the government decision.

(Para 26)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16(1) – Doctrine of legitimate expectation -- Intelligible differentia -- Contention that the +2 lecturers have no semblance of similarity with the BSES, to enable assimilation into the BES -- No intelligible differentia could be pointed out by the state’s counsel to sustain such arbitrary classification between +2 lecturers and the BSES secondary level teachers, posted in government schools -- High Court declared that the +2 lecturers, both in the Government and the nationalized (taken over) secondary schools, appointed pursuant to Advertisement No.1/87, have always been part of the Bihar Subordinate Education Service (“BSES”) and thereby, they are entitled to be merged with the Bihar Education Service Class II (“BES”), pursuant to the Government decision dated 07.07.2006 – Manifest departure smacks of arbitrariness and the government action, to selectively protect the interest of the BES cadre, does not conform to rules of justice and fair play -- Where the substantive legitimate expectation is not ultra vires the power of the authority and the court is in a position to protect it, the State cannot be allowed to change course and belie the legitimate expectation of the respondents -- Regularity, Predictability, Certainty and Fairness are necessary concomitants of Government’s action and the Bihar government failed to keep to their commitment by the impugned decision, which was rightly interdicted by the High Court – Appeal by State dismissed.

(Para 2, 27, 33, 34, 38)

Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940), Section 39 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Arbitration award -- Alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal – Writ jurisdiction – When the statute provides a further remedy by way of appeal against the award and even against the order passed by the learned trial Court making the award a decree of the court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and ought not to have set aside the award, in a writ petition -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside -- Liberty reserved in favour of the respondent to take further recourse to law under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in accordance with law -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits without raising the issue with regard to limitation.

(Para 2-5)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Excess payment to employee – Recovery thereof -- If the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable – Relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered -- If it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Excess payment to employee – Recovery thereof -- Not a case of misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant-employee -- Appellant retired on 31.03.1999 -- Case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General – Held, attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified -- Appeal allowed, recovery notice set aside.

(Para 14-16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Constitution of India, Article 20(3) -- Maintenance – Salary slip – Court asking the respondent/ husband to produce his salary slip -- Protection granted under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not apply to the respondent.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Maintenance – Salary slip – Right to privacy -- Asking the husband to produce his salary slip cannot be termed as violation of his privacy -- Since, the respondent has refused to place his salary slip on record, Court may draw an adverse inference against the respondent.

(Para 16)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custodial death case – Contributory negligence -- Compensation to family – Petitioner are father, widow and two sons of the deceased -- Multiplier as provided in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 can be applied to the cases of custodial death as well -- Deceased aged 49 years -- Annual income of the deceased prima to be Rs.3,52,588/- as per ITR – Future prospects @ 25% added -- Deduction towards personal expenses to the tune of 1/4th applied -- Annual loss of dependency assessed to be Rs.3,30,551/- -- After applying multiplier of 13 annual loss of dependency comes out to be Rs.42,97,163/- After adding Rs.70,000/- for conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium total compensation assessed as Rs.43,67,163/- -- Contributory negligence to the extent of 50% attributed to the deceased while attempting to come out of the block without seeking permission -- Compensation slashed down by 50% i.e. Rs.21,83,581/- – Rs.1,00,000/- already paid as per policy framed by the State, deducted -- Petitioners held entitled to the compensation of Rs.20,83,581/-  -- Amount be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months, failing which the claimants/petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of expiry of three months till actual realization of the amount.

(Para 12-18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 4 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Ex-parte injunction – Setting aside of – Non-decisioning on application – Revisional jurisdiction -- Trial Court adjourning the application for setting aside ex-parte injunction order and extending the ad-interim order without deciding the application – Revision disposed of with directions to the trial Court to decide and dispose of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC expeditiously preferably on the next date of hearing fixed before it, in accordance with law.

(Para 1-3)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Guest teachers – Adhoc employee -- Appointments through due selection procedure – From the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis – It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed – Writ petitioners-appellants would be entitled to continue on their respective posts till they are replaced by regularly selected candidates -- Provided that a sufficient number of students are available for the particular course(s) for which the writ petitioners-appellants are appointed -- Advertisements clearly provided that the selected candidates would be paid the honorarium -- Direction issued by the learned single judge of the High Court that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the salary in accordance with the UGC circular is not sustainable – Writ petitioners-appellants would be entitled to honorarium as is being paid to them presently.

(Para 12-16)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Protection of life and liberty – Held, if the allegations of apprehension of threat to life turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss -- It shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week -- However, if the petitioners no longer require the protection, then at their request, it may be discontinued even before the expiry of one week -- After that, the concerned officers shall extend the protection on day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon the oral or written request of the petitioners -- Protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioners shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the close relatives or close friends.

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 1, Part 1, Rule 7.3 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Removal from service on account of FIR – Re-instatement after acquittal -- Petitioner was denied salary for the period when he remained out of service i.e. from the date of his dismissal from service till his reinstatement in service, by considering it as a period of duty without salary on the basis of no work no pay – No departmental inquiry was initiated, petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of FIR that was registered against him u/s 326, 324, 34 IPC and therefore, would be entitled to pay and allowances for the period he remained out of service -- Writ petition allowed -- Reinstatement in service shall be treated as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes.

(Para 1,2, 6-8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 – Eviction proceedings – Personal necessity -- Landlady 86 years old – Revision to expedite the proceedings -- Petition disposed off with a request to the Rent Controller to conclude the ejectment proceedings expeditiously preferably within a period of one year.

(Para 1-3)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Deficiency in ad-valorem court fee – Maintainability of revision -- Revision petition on behalf of defendants complaining deficiency in payment of the Court fee is not maintainable.

(Para 2)