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)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Refusal to – Remedy of -- Order refusing to enter mutation passed by the Deputy Commissioner -- Same can always be challenged u/s 16 of the 1887, Act – Writ dismissed with liberty to avail the alternative remedy.

(Para 1-3)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Runaway couple -- Live-in relationship -- Protection of life and liberty – Both the petitioners are earlier married and they both do not have any issue from the earlier relationship -- Petition disposed of with directions to SSP to decide the representation within a period of one week and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(Para 2-10)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rules 9, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23 – Service of summons -- Territorial jurisdiction -- Defendant-petitioners were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the suit was instituted -- Service by way of registered post acknowledgement due directly by the Court where the suit was instituted cannot be deemed to be proper service -- Procedure adopted by the Trial Court was contrary to that laid down in Order 5 Rules 9 and 21 CPC -- Impugned order set aside, petition allowed.

(Para 2, 18, 19)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3(1)(aa) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 392, 307, 302, 34 -- Constitution of India, Article 226/227 -- Parole -- State security and public order -- Apprehension that the release of the petitioner on parole could be dangerous to the State security and maintenance of public order in itself cannot be made a ground to reject the parole – Parole sought on the ground of serious illness of old aged mother granted.

(Para 3-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Contractual appointment -- Right to continue on post – Writ jurisdiction -- Contractual employee has only very limited rights confined within the four corners of the contract of employment -- It is the prerogative of an employer to continue and/or discontinue with the contractual services in terms of the contract – High Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction – writ petition dismissed with liberty to seek appropriate alternative remedy.

(Para 1,5,6)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Election of Panch -- Wrong declaration of result – Writ Jurisdiction -- After declaring the result, Presiding/Returning Officer, while preparing the list, i.e. Form No.9 and Annexure-IX, inadvertently by mistake, sent incorrect result to the higher authorities for issuance of notification and respondent no. 6 was declared elected -- Petition allowed, notification set aside and a direction given to Punjab State Election Commission to carry out the correction in the notification and fresh notification with respect to the result of the petitioner be issued.

(Para 3)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of chowkidar – Writ jurisdiction -- Maintainability of appeal – Even though, the Chowkidara Rules do not provide for an appeal, an appeal can still be filed u/s 13 of the Act as the Collector, who has passed the impugned order is a revenue official too – Writ petition is not maintainable.

(Para 1,4,5)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 199 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Honorarium to Sarpanch -- Government of Haryana ordered payment of Rs.3,000/- per month as Honorarium to each Sarpanch – Contention that amount is on the lower side and they are not paid various allowances, medical facilities, pension etc., whereas, the M.L.A. and M.P are granted various other allowances – Held, Honorarium cannot be claimed as a matter of right -- It depends upon the policy decision taken by the Government at the relevant time -- Sarpanch is not an employee -- Elected Sarpanch cannot claim equation with the M.P. or the M.L.A. – Writ dismissed.

(Para 2-6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 -- Change of Investigating officer – Adding of offences – Power of High Court -- Investigations is still underway -- Domain of investigation, and, also the manner of their conducting, lies squarely within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer concerned, and, that the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the investigating officer concerned, to hold investigations into the offences, cannot be either fettered, nor can become trammeled by High Court, through its coaching, mentoring and guiding the investigating officer concerned – However, a rider, inasmuch as upon, evident, and, palpable material suggestive of the investigations rather being done with active mala fides or becoming actuated by some extraneous considerations.

(Para 2, 3)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Change of Investigating officer – Higher links – Effect of -- Mere connections, if any, of co-respondent No.7 with high profile politicians and bureaucrats, cannot per se, and, if so, be concluded to hold the imminent potentiality of endangerment being caused to the fairness, and, impartiality of investigations being conducted into the writ offences hence by the Investigating Officer.

(Para 8)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173 -- Change of Investigating officer – Adding of offences – Remedy as available to the petitioners is to either ask for, through an application u/s 173 (8) Cr.P.C., becoming filed by them before the Court concerned, and, that too, only after a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., being filed by the Investigating Officer, before the Court concerned, whereins, there are untenable exculpations of the accused, rather both for change of the Investigating Officer concerned, and/or, for further investigations being conducted by the Investigating Officer concerned.

(Para 10)

D. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 482 – Arrest of accused – Power of -- High Court, cannot proceed to order the official respondents concerned, to arrest the respondents concerned,

(Para 11)

E. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Police protection against threats -- Mandamus cannot be granted, as there is no credible evidence, at this stage before the Court, rather in personification of potentialized life endangering threats, if any, becoming meted to the petitioners – However, in the larger interest of justice, if the co-petitioners apprehend the meteing of life endangering threats to them, by co-respondent Nos.6 to 8, thereupon they can make a representation at the appropriate stage, to respondent Nos.1 to 3 -- Upon the afore representation being made, the co-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, may promptly proceed to, in accordance with law, pass a speaking decision thereon.

(Para 12)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of minor child – Criminal writ jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of civil court -- No evidence on record in respect of ill nourishment, and, ill upkeep of the minor boy, by his mother and by wife’s  parents -- Under the statute, the mother of a minor child, less than seven years, is his/her natural guardian -- However, the statutory contemplation, does not override, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court concerned, to, while acting as parens patriae, to order for removal of the minor child, aged upto seven years, from the custody of his/her mother, to the custody of some more suitable, and, befitting person -- Petition held to be not maintainable, and, rather is gross mis-constituted -- However, leaving liberty to the petitioner, to, access the appropriate Civil Court concerned.

(Para 3-5)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Meeting with minor child – Right of father – Criminal writ petition -- Since the petitioner is the father of the minor boy, and, is required to be accessing him to bless him, and may, be to provide financial assistance for his upkeep and maintenance -- Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to access his minor baby, who is residing alongwith his mother -- Accessing be ensured to be facilitated by the SHO of the police station concerned.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 5(iv), 11 -- Run-away couple – Marriage in prohibited relationship – Void marriage -- Police Protection – Right of – Even if assuming that the co-petitioners have entered into a legally prohibited marriage, as arising from theirs being sapindas to each other -- There is no bar entering into a live-in-relationship -- Court directed the respondents concerned, to decide representation within three weeks through a speaking order by affording all concerned, an adequate opportunity of personal hearing.

(Para 3-5)