Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Suo-moto writ -- Covid-19 situation – Interim direction/ Bail/ Stay --  Following directions are re-imposed with immediate effect and shall be operative till 28.02.2022:-

i)       that all the interim orders/directions issued or protection granted including any order requiring any compliance by the parties to such proceedings, passed by this Court or any other Court subordinate to it or any Family Court or Labour Court or any Tribunal or any other Judicial or Quasi Judicial forum, over which this Court has power of superintendence, which are subsisting today shall stand extended till 28.02.2022; provided that the Court concern shall not automatically continue the interim directions and would be free to continue, modify or recall, as the case may be, the interim orders in case it is of the opinion that the direction contained above is being misused or abused and for that purpose may take up the matter on the date fixed. In all other cases, the interim direction, as contained above, shall continue to be extended uptill 28.02.2022.

ii)      that it is further directed that the interim orders or directions of this Court or any Court subordinate to this Court, which are not of a limited duration and are meant to operate till further orders, shall continue to remain in force until modified/altered/vacated by specific order of the Court concerned in a particular case;

iii)     that the time for filing of written-statement or return in any Suit or proceeding pending before any Civil Court or any other forum, unless specifically directed, shall stand extended till 28.02.2022. It is however clarified that this will not preclude the parties from filing such written-statement or return before 28.02.2022;

iv)     that it is further directed that the orders of eviction, dispossession, demolition, etc. passed by this Court or any   Court subordinate to it or any Tribunal or Judicial or Quasi   Judicial forum, which have so far remained unexecuted, shall remain in abeyance till 28.02.2022;

v)      that interim protection given in the anticipatory bail applications by the High Court or Court of Sessions for a limited period, which is likely to expire from now up to 28.02.2022, shall stand extended till 28.02.2022. However, any party aggrieved by the conduct of the accused on such interim protection, may move the Court seisin over the matter for discontinuation of such interim protection, if any prejudice is caused to him/her, in which event, the Court concerned shall be entitled to take independent view of the matter;

vi)     that all the interim bails granted under Section 439, Cr.P.C. by the High Court or Courts of Sessions, limited by time-frame specifying an expiry date from now up to 28.02.2022, shall stand extended till 28.02.2022, subject to the accused not abusing such liberty or else it may be cancelled at the instance of the State or the complainant, on application with adequate proof of the abuse of the liberty so granted by the Court concerned;

vii)    that parole granted to a person by order passed by a Court exercising the criminal jurisdiction and limited by time-frame specifying an expiry date from now up to 28.02.2022, shall stand extended till 28.02.2022, subject to the condition specified in Point No.(vi) above;

viii)   that the State Governments, Union Territory, Chandigarh, or any of its Departments or any Municipal Corporation / Council  / Board or any Gram Panchayat or any other local body or any other agency and instrumentality of the State shall not take any action for eviction and demolition in respect of any property, over which any citizen or person or party or any Body Corporate, has physical or symbolic possession as on today till 28.02.2022;

ix)     that it is further directed that any Bank or Financial Institution shall not take action for auction in respect of any property of any citizen or person or party or any Body corporate till 28.02.2022; subject to the clarification issued by this Court vide orders dated 20.08.2021 and 23.09.2021 restricting its applicability.

x)      that if the Government of Punjab, Haryana, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and/or any of its Departments and/or functionaries, Central Government and/or its departments or functionaries or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Public or Private Companies or any Firm or any individual or person is/are, by the order of this Court or any Court subordinate to it or the Tribunals, required to do a particular thing or carry out certain direction in a particular manner, in a time frame, which is going to expire at any time from now up to 28.02.2022, the time for compliance of such order shall stand extended up to 28.02.2022, unless specifically directed otherwise by the Court concerned; subject to the fact that the aforesaid prohibition shall not apply to the orders/directions, which were required to be complied with and are meant for the benefit of the litigant or public at large.

xi)     that in order to dispel any ambiguity, it is clarified that:-

(a)     those interim orders / directions, which are not for a limited duration and are to operate until further orders, shall by this order remain unaffected;

(b)     that, in case extension of interim order(s) as per the present order passed by this Court, causes any undue hardship and prejudice of any extreme nature, to any of the parties to such proceeding(s), such parties would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief by moving appropriate application(s) before the Competent Court(s), Tribunal, Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Forum, and these directions shall not be taken as a bar for such Courts/Forums to consider such application(s) filed by the aggrieved party, on its own merit, after due notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the other side;

(c)     that the directions enumerated above shall not preclude the States or Union Territory, Chandigarh or Central Government from moving appropriate application for vacation/modification of such order in any particular case for reason of overriding public interest;

(d)     that all Courts, Tribunals, Judicial and Quasi-judicial authorities are directed to abide by these directions, and the parties seeking relief(s) covered by these directions can file hard copy or soft copy of this order before the competent court/forum, which shall be given due weightage.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 5(iii), 12 -- Run-away couple – Police protection petition -- Concealment of previous voidable marriage – Perjury proceedings – Requirement of -- Earlier husband never instituted any civil proceeding for annulling the marriage solemnized – Slumber of the previous husband, co-petitioner No.1 being a minor, further that co-petitioner No.1 is not alleging that she had entered into any sexual intercourse with the previous husband contrarily alleging that the earlier marriage never became consummated – Purported marriage construable to become never entered into amongst the concerned – Court declined proceedings of perjury against the petitioners -- Parents of co-petitioner No.1-wife directed to ensure not to interfere in the happy married life of the co-petitioners.

(Para 9-14)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 – Muslim law – Marriageable age of Muslim girl – Girl aged 17 years (Minor) -- Marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by the Muslim Personal Law -- As per Article 195 from the book ‘Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla’, petitioner No.1 (girl) being 17 years of age, is competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice -- Article 21 of the Constitution provides for protection of life and personal liberty and further lays down that no person shall be deprived of his or her life and personal liberty except as per the procedure established by law -- Court cannot shut its eyes, merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of the fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution – Direction to Senior Superintendent of Police to decide the representation moved by the petitioners, and grant protection to them, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(Para 10, 11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Tender finalization – Challenge to -- Scope of interference with a tender matter is extremely limited -- It is limited only to cases of established malafides, manifest arbitrariness or wednesbury unreasonableness -- Employer is the best interpreter of clause(s) of a tender as well as the best judge of the suitable person(s) to be awarded the same and that this Court cannot sit over the decision of the authorities as an appellate forum – Petition dismissed.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 21 – Live-in relationship -- Life and liberty – Protection of -- Non-attaining the marriable age of boy – Held, it is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations cast upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen -- Mere fact that petitioner No. 2/ boy is not of marriageable age, would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Appointment on compassionate ground – Pay Scale different than regular appointee – Permissibility of -- Once a person is appointed on a particular post, maybe on compassionate ground, that person is entitled to the pay-scale of the same post -- There cannot be two different pay-scales for the employee appointed on compassionate ground and the employee appointed on regular basis.

(Para 2-3)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 63, 65 – Secondary evidence – Revisional jurisdiction -- Trial Court, keeping in view the facts of the case permitted the plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence in order to prove the alleged first rent note -- Such permission is always granted subject to the existence and proof of the document -- Trial Court has only granted permission to lead secondary evidence – Court found it not appropriate to interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 2)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Correction of Mother’s name in Certificate – In Birth certificate mother’s name is ‘Rajneesh Sharma (Akshi)’ – ‘Akshi’ is merely another name by which the person is probably called – Objection of CBSE that document is ambiguous cannot be accepted -- CBSE directed to correct the Class-X and Class-XII certificates of the petitioner by incorporating the mother’s name as ‘Rajneesh Sharma’.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Refusal to appoint Local Commissioner – Revisional jurisdiction -- Challenge to the order passed by the trial Court while refusing to appoint Local Commissioner, the revision petition itself is not maintainable. Rajender Prasad’s case 1979 PLJ 562 and Malkiat Singh’s case 1990(2) PLR 191 relied.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Live-in-relationship by married woman – Police protection -- Right of -- Petitioner No.1 aged about 23 years is legally wedded wife of respondent No.4, and without seeking divorce from her spouse she is living a lustful and adulterous life with petitioner No.2 – Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase “live-in-relationship” or “relationship” in the nature of marriage – Petitioners have no legal right for protection inasmuch as the protection as being asked may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 IPC -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Live in Relationship – Both are earlier married -- Police protection – Right of -- Petitioners were earlier married, husband of petitioner No.2/ girl had died and the wife of petitioner No.1 is still living but on account of differences in opinion, they are not residing together – Held, every person, more so, a major, has right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice at any rate -- Whenever this Court, prima-facie, is satisfied that on account of some relatives/ persons being unhappy with the relationship between the petitioners could cause harm to the life and liberty of the petitioners, and in such circumstances, the Courts are then required to pass necessary directions for their protection -- Respondent no.2 directed to consider the representation and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 13,14)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Service matter -- Disciplinary action on account of FIR/Criminal case -- Acquittal in – Writ petition directing the respondents to revoke an order, whereby her salary was re-fixed and petitioner has been held entitled to subsistence allowance only for the period she remained under suspension and termination with a further prayer to release arrears of salary with all consequential benefits along with interest -- In CWP-7794-2018, Surender Singh versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.10.2019 it was held that every acquittal is honourable acquittal, there is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code nor is there any rule of criminal jurisprudence for treating the effects and consequences of an honourable acquittal from an acquittal on failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned order quashed with direction to the respondents to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its actual realization.

(Para 1,6-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Suit for Permanent injunction – Handwriting and finger print expert in rebuttal evidence – Permissibility of – Defendants denied signatures on documents – Application to examine expert in rebuttal evidence -- Trial Court has rightly observed that the plaintiff had an opportunity to examine hand writing expert while leading evidence in affirmative -- Furthermore he could have called upon the defendants to admit or deny the documents in question which is not said to have been done -- He had an occasion to prove such documents during the course of his evidence -- He could not have possibly presumed that the documents would admit their signatures on family settlement and defendant No. 2 would concede the signatures on demarcation report -- Nature of the suit is one for grant of permanent injunction wherein main thing is to be seen is as to whether the plaintiff is in established possession of a particular piece of land and question of title is not to be decided – Revision dismissed.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 – Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 2 (d), 3 (1) (d) – Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007, Rule 8 (iii) – Parole -- As per the jail records no new case was registered against the petitioner during the period he had been released on interim bail in the past – Court deemed it appropriate to grant parole to the petitioner for 3 weeks.

(Para 1-4)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Section 170 does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet – Held, if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody -- The word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the chargesheet.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate -- Occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond -- Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made -- A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it -- If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Trial courts are stated to be insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the chargesheet on record in view of the provisions of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C – Held, such a course is misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 13)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Appellant has joined the investigation, investigation has completed and he has been roped in after seven years of registration of the FIR -- No reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the chargesheet is taken on record – Counsel for the appellant has already stated before the Court that on summons being issued the appellant will put the appearance before the trial court -- Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.

(Para 14)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- SLP against review order – Maintainability of -- SLP would not lie against only a review order. Yashwant Singh Negi’s case (2013) SCC online 308 relied.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Review after 56 years 6 days -- One can find no error apparent after 50 years for the Court to exercise the jurisdiction of review – It is an abuse of process of law and complete wastage of judicial time – SLP dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-.

(Para 5, 6)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B – Constitution of India, Section 227 – Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six month period for second motion -- It is a case of broken marriage between the spouses with little chances of their resuming cohabitation and living together -- Spouses are stated to have settled all the issues between them in an amicable manner and asking them to wait for a period of six months shall only amount to prolong their agony -- Petition accepted, parties to move an application for preponing the date of hearing and then the Court may pass appropriate order in light of the order passed in the revision petition.

(Para 9, 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Suit challenging gift deed – Defendant executed lease deed – Amendment of plaint – Revisional jurisdiction -- Held, any transaction with respect to the suit property during the pendency of the suit is governed by the principle of lis pendens -- Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ordinarily prohibits the amendment of the pleadings after the trial has commenced -- Trial has already made substantial progress -- Any transaction between the defendants and third party is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, particularly, when these are during the pendency of the suit -- Hence, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

(Para 3, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Contractual employee – Renewal of contract – Right of -- It is settled law that no contractual employee has a right to have his/her contract renewed from time to time. Yogesh Mahajan’s case 2018(1) SCT 690 relied.

(Para 15)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12, 19 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- SARFAESI proceedings -- Contempt of Court -- Undertaking before the High Court to make payment on specific dates – Non-honouring of commitment – Held, series of acts committed by the petitioners (i) in issuing post-dated cheques, which were dated beyond the date within which they had agreed to make payment; (ii) in allowing those cheques to be dishonoured; (iii) in not appearing before the Court on the first date of hearing with an excuse that was found to be false; (iv) in coming up with an explanation about their own debtors committing default; and (v) in getting exposed through the report of the SFIO, convinced the High Court to believe that the undertaking given by the petitioners was not based upon good faith but intended to hoodwink the Court – No fault with the High Court holding the petitioners guilty of contempt -- No dispute on facts that the mortgaged properties have now been sold and with extraordinary efforts, the Bank has also taken possession -- Petitioners have also spent 11 days in custody out of the total period of imprisonment of three months imposed by the High Court -- In such circumstances, it is sufficient punishment for the petitioners – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(Para 12-14, 27, 33, 34)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Shamilat deh – Writ jurisdiction -- If the proprietors claim that the Shamilat land has never been reserved/used for common purposes, they can get their title decided from the Civil Court -- Writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. Jai Singh’s case 2003(2) PLR 658 relied.

(Para 3)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Live-in-relationship – Police protection – Petitioner No.2 (boy) is of the age of 19 years and 9 months whereas petitioner No.1 (girl) is of the age of 20 years and 6 months – Petition disposed of with a direction to Station House Officer, that representation, if any, filed seeking protection of life and liberty, be got looked into and contents thereof be duly verified and if necessary, requisite steps be taken, strictly in accordance with law for grant of protection of life and liberty to the petitioners.

(Para 1, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Selection of Anganwari worker -- Ineligible candidate selected – Later removed from post -- Appellant is claiming the said post on the ground that she is next to removed candidate in the select list – Immediately after removal, the appellant staked her claim on the said post by moving application – It being so, the next candidate in merit be considered for appointment – LPA allowed, with a direction to the respondents to consider the appellant for appointment to the post of Anganwari worker.

(Para 12, 13)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship -- Girl aged 23 years and boy 20 years – Protection of life and liberty -- Dismissal of protection petition – Latter Patent Appeal against – Having chosen to stay together, the appellants have exercised their choice out of their own free will -- Apprehension of the appellants cannot be said to be misplaced at this stage, especially when they have highlighted a grievance in this regard in their representation submitted to the SSP – Appeal allowed, impugned order set-aside and a direction issued to the SSP to look into the representation and if some substance is found therein, appropriate steps in accordance with law be taken so that the life and liberty of the appellants is not jeopardized in any manner, except in accordance with law.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Valuation of marks – Interference in -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner secured 63 marks in the written examination and 05 marks have been awarded to her for socio economic criteria, thus making aggregate secured total as 68 marks -- Petitioner self-acclaims to have secured 64 marks in written on the basis of some purported self-evaluation/ self-calculations, which has no legal sanctity – High Court cannot sit in appeal to re-evaluate the declared result and the valuation of marks awarded to the candidates by the expert examiners -- Merely because the petitioner has filed an affidavit, claiming therein, that she has secured 64 marks, is no ground to interfere.

(Para 2)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 26 – Live-in relationship – Life and liberty -- Police protection – Right of -- Petitioners are over 18 years of age, are in a live-in-relationship and they have an apprehension that the private respondents might cause physical harm to them -- Petition disposed of with a direction to SSP to look into the representation and take steps, if necessary, in accordance with law to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

(Para 3-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Parole – Criminal writ petition -- On earlier parole, petitioner surrendered back on time and was not involved in any criminal activity – Present parole rejected -- It is disturbing that once a particular set of reasons have been specifically rejected by Court, the SSP has mentioned same reasons again -- 6 weeks' parole granted to the petitioner -- Respondent No.4 to file personal affidavit as to why identically same reasons were stated when first set of reasons had been rejected by High Court.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 – Allotment of liquor vend license in residential area – Challenge to -- Petitioner stated to have made various representations -- Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two weeks.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Daily wages period – Counting for pensionary/retiral benefits – Writ for mandamus -- Writ seeking mandamus directing the respondents to count daily wages/work charge services for the purpose of pensionary benefit/retiral benefits to the petitioners, which rendered prior to regularization, along with interest @ 24% per annum – Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the legal notice of the petitioners and take a conscious decision thereon by passing a speaking order; within a period of 3 months -- If the petitioners are found entitled to any pecuniary benefits; then the said pecuniary benefits shall also be released to the petitioners within a further period of 3 months.

(Para 1-6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- 50% amount in fixed deposits – Revision against -- All the claimants are major by age; having lived a considerable number of years of social life -- While lying in F.D., the money may not generate the same additional value as it can create through a business enterprise or other means of income, which can be created through this money -- Petition allowed, order passed by the Court below; to the extent it has retained the 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside -- Hence, entire amount ordered to be released to the petitioners, in accordance with law.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Transfer of employee – Challenge in writ – Said order was stayed on 23.08.2017 and the petitioner continues to stay at the same place and almost a period of 4 years has expired since then -- Transfer is a incidence in service and the guidelines issued by the State are not enforceable for the purpose of assailing it and the employee cannot claim to remain at a particular place or post of his choice -- Interim order stands vacated -- It is open to the official respondents to take action in accordance with law.

(Para 2-6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Run-away marriage – Police protection – Aadhar Card as proof of age – Admissibility of -- Though the petitioners are shown to be 26 years and 25 years of age respectively, however, there is no firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhar Cards, which is actually no proof as no documentary proof is asked for at the time of applying for the Aadhar card or the issuance thereof -- However, since protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, petition disposed of with a direction to respondents no.2 and 3, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not put to any harm or threat.

(Para 4, 5)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 3, 15 -- Run-away marriage – Police protection given – Marriage with minor – Voidable -- If upon actual verification, the age of the petitioners, especially petitioner no.1/girl, is found to be below marriageable age in terms of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the order will not bar proceedings under the provisions of that Act -- In terms of Section 3 of the said Act, a marriage performed by a child (as defined under that Act), may not be void but only voidable upon the said minor attaining maturity -- However, that still does not bar proceedings under that Act for entering into a marriage before the legally marriageable age as per the Act.

(Para 6, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Re-employment/ Extension of employment after superannuation – Right of – Jurisdiction of -- Claim of the petitioner for grant of re-employment or extension beyond the age of superannuation provided under the statutes governing the university employees is the sole discretion of the University and it is the employer only, who has to decide on the said issue keeping in view the various aspects and the Court has no jurisdiction to direct the University to grant extension merely on the asking of an employee and that too without any plausible ground for the same. Petition dismissed

(Para 16-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police protection – Right of -- Petitioners aged about 21 and 19 years -- Petitioners being major are entitled to live together in live-in-relationship and are also entitled to protection of their life and liberty against any harm from respondents No.4 and 5 -- Direction given to Senior Superintendent of Police to look into the grievances of the petitioners and take appropriate action for protection of their life and liberty as may be warranted by the circumstances.

(Para 3, 11, 12)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Stamp Duty and penalty imposed – Challenged in writ -- Delay and laches -- Opportunity of hearing – Joint sale deed -- One of the co-sharers has duly been served and has represented the matter before the concerned authority -- Even qua the present petitioner, as per the record, the notice was sent to him and it has been received by an adult member of the family -- Mere alleged non-receipt of a notice by the petitioner, cannot be any ground to set aside the order – Otherwise also, the petitioner not substantiated as to how the deficiency in the stamp duty paid by the petitioner has been wrongly assessed -- Order was passed in the year 2016, petition has been filed only in the year 2021 -- Petition suffers from delay and laches, as well -- No ground for interference, the present petition is dismissed.

(Para 2)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter – Contractual employees -- Petitioner subjected to hostile discrimination as similarly situated Lab Technicians were taken back in service in the years 2019 and 2020, though on contract, relieved from contractual service in the year 2015 – It is specifically stated in writ petition that similarly situated employees, when they approached the Court vide CWP No.6325 of 2019 and CWP No.18772 of 2020 were taken back on contract -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision on representation, in accordance with law.

(Para 1-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter -- Transfer policy -- Challenge to -- Transfer being matter of administrative exigency, High Court generally refrains to interfere and treads cautiously, unless it is a case of extreme hardship -- In discharge of its administrative functions/duties, the department has introduced a online transfer policy across board for every serving Forest Guard/Foresters, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory -- Being a matter of policy, in itself is sufficient ground alone for High court to refrain from interfering in the domain of policy making by state -- No grounds to interfere – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 14 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- SARFAESI proceedings – Writ jurisdiction -- Vide impugned order, the District Magistrate appointed a receiver to take possession of the secured assets of the petitioner-firm -- Petitioner-firm has failed to point out any illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondent-Bank and also the petitioner-firm not approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal for efficacious remedy -- When appropriate forum is provided under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, High Court stands injuncted from interfering with any matter arising out of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act -- Finding no merit, present petition ordered to be dismissed.

(Para 2-10)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Repudiation of insurance claim – Award by PLA -- Small amount involved – Writ jurisdiction -- Scooter was stolen FIR in this respect was duly registered -- Police authorities not being able to trace the vehicle, submitted an untraced report – Permanent Lok Adalat directed the payment of Rs.43,655/-along with interest on account of theft of a scooter along with Rs.5000/- each for mental agony, harassment and litigation charges -- Keeping in view the petty amount involved, Court did not find it a fit case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

(Para 3-6)

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 115 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Non-disposal of revision/stay – Writ petition against --  Revision petition pending has neither been listed nor any orders on stay application passed -- It would be suffice to direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose off the revision petition including stay application, preferably, within a period of two months -- In the meanwhile, no order adverse to the interest of the petitioner shall be passed by the respondents.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 – Contractual appointment through service provider – Removal from service by replacing other contractual employees – Challenge to -- Appellant failed to produce his appointment letter, if any, issued by Haryana Government or any of its department, he unable to establish that he was under the direct employment of respondents -- Appellant was engaged by Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner through service provider -- However, the said private outsourcing agency was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition by the appellant – Learned Single Judge rightly observed that there was no relationship of master-servant between the respondents and the petitioner (appellant herein) -- Consequently, the appeal dismissed being devoid of merits.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973), Section 181 -- Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (24 of 1972), Section 4 -- Illegal encroachment on road – Non-removal of -- Writ of mandamus – Maintainability of -- Remedy of writ petition is not panacea to each and every inaction on the part of the State officials -- Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent the alternative statutory remedies -- Writ petition is an extraordinary remedy which can be invoked only after having attempted to get the desired relief by exploring all other options -- When the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation and a specific remedy is provided under law, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except in compelling circumstances -- Ordinarily, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the first instance -- Petitioners are relegated to the alternative remedy.

(Para 2-9)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3, 4 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Parole – Rejection of – Speaking order – Requirement of -- Impugned order rejecting parole merely states that in case prisoner is released on parole, he might help smugglers and there is threat to peace and security of the State – Held said order is non-speaking in nature – Order set aside and case remitted to the same authority for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties -- Petitioner shall be at liberty to cite judgments he seeks to place reliance upon.

(Para 3)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Tender matter – EPF Certificate – Requirement of -- Submission that as per clause 34 of the terms and conditions of the tender notice, the petitioner-society having less than 50 employees is not required to file any EPF certificate and an affidavit to this effect has already been submitted -- Respondent-State submits that orders on the issues raised by the petitioner society shall be passed expeditiously in accordance with law – In view the statement/undertaking the petition stands disposed of -- However, the aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur, preferably before finalizing the tender proceedings.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Service matter -- Retiral benefits – Gratuity and Revised pay scale -- Non-release of -- Legal notice for -- Writ of mandamus -- Directions issued to respondents to duly consider the “Legal Notice and Advance Notice for Writ Petition” as representation of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, preferably, within a period of one month.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 -- Service matter – Transfer of employee – Non-follow of guidelines -- Interference in -- Transfer is an incidence of services and the Court should be slow to interfere in the matters of transfer unless mala-fide or something serious is raised by the employee -- Guidelines for transfers and postings issued by the State Government are general in nature and would not come in the way of transfers made in the public interest or on the basis of administrative exigencies.

(Para 9-11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Release of payment for carrying out various works for government agencies/departments -- Writ petition – Amount as claimed is admittedly due -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide legal notice in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within a period of two months and in case any payment is found due towards the petitioner, the same be released to him within six weeks thereafter.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 3, 4 -- Life imprisonment till death – Parole – Right of -- Temporary parole wrongly rejected only on the ground that petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment till natural death and is thus not eligible for temporary release on parole -- Writ petition allowed, petitioner's application for parole is remitted to the Commissioner to consider afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 10, 11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer Policy/ Guidelines – Violation of -- Writ jurisdiction -- It is settled proposition that generally High Court does not readily interfere in the transfers/posting matters -- However, the case of the petitioner is that the guidelines and transfer policy have been violated, as such, direction be given to respondents to decide his representation, which he has preferred to respondent No.3 -- Writ petition disposed off with direction to respondents to decide the same within a period of two months.

(Para 2-7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police Protection – Right of -- Petitioner No.1 (male partner) is though married but his wife has deserted him to live with another partner -- Out of his wedlock, he has two children i.e. son aged 19 years old and daughter aged 16 years old, who are in his custody -- While on the other hand, petitioner No.2 is stated to be a widow and out of her wedlock she too is blessed with two children i.e. two sons aged 12 years and 7 years, respectively – Petitioners submits that the live-in-relationship is merely for the sake of better upbringing of the four children – Both the petitioners have decided to live under the same roof for providing them better co-parenting – Senior Superintendent of Police shall look into the threat perception of petitioner No.2 and in case, so warranted, provide her with mobile number of a lady police official to whom she can approach, in case of any untoward incident at odd hours, in case, she feels any threat to her life.

(Para 2-8)