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)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Live-in relationship with minor girl – Police protection – Petition for -- Petitioner No.2 being only 14 years and 8 months old is a minor -- Petitioner No.1 is representing her, claiming himself to be the next friend of minor -- Petitioner No.1 is already an accused in case FIR and is accused of kidnapping the minor daughter of respondent No.5, therefore, his stand to claim himself as lawful representative of minor girl is not worth acceptance -- Writ petition dismissed --  SP, directed to depute a responsible police officer to ensure that the custody of the minor girl is restored to her parents.

(Para 13-17)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Child marriage – Void-abinitio -- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Independent Thought's case, has given a suggestion to the Government of India and the State Governments to follow the decision of the State of Karnataka, which had declared child marriage as void ab initio through an amendment – This suggestion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was given in the year 2017, but the same is yet to attract the attention of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, therefore, court feels it necessary to remind the States to consider this important issue to eradicate menace of child marriage.

(Para 18,19)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police Protection – Right of -- Both the petitioners have attained the age of majority -- Petitioner No.1 is married with respondent No.4 and the marriage is still subsisting -- Petitioner No.2 is unmarried -- Petitioners are stated to be in live-in relationship and they are apprehending threat and danger to their life and liberty at the instance of respondents No.4 to 7 – Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent Senior Superintendent of Police to look into the grievance of the petitioners as projected in the representation.

(Para 4-8)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship – Minor girl -- Police protection – Right of -- Concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence – Petitioners have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision – Petition disposed of with directions to Senior Superintendent of Police to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of one week and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(Para 6-11)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in-relationship without divorce – Police protection – Right of – Matter referred to larger Bench -- Hon'ble Chief Justice requested to constitute a Larger Bench to decide the following questions:- 1. Where two persons living together seek protection of their life and liberty by filing an appropriate petition, whether the Court is required to grant them protection, per se, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case? 2. If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?

(Para 2, 3)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(a)(f)(q) -- Live-in relationship – Life and liberty – Protection of -- Petitioners have not approached court either seeking permission to marry or for approval of their relationship – Concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence – Even under D V Act, 2005, a woman who is in a ‘domestic relationship’ has been provided protection, maintenance etc. -- Thus, the female live-in-partners and the children of live-in-couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament -- Petition disposed of with directions to grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(Para 6-11)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Police protection petition -- Validity of marriage -- Scope of -- Present petition is only regarding the protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and, therefore, the validity of the marriage cannot be a ground for denial of such protection.

(Para 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim orders/directions/ protection – Extension of -- All the interim orders/directions issued or protection granted including any order requiring any compliance by the parties to such proceedings, passed by High 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 High Court has power of superintendence, which are subsisting today shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021 -- If 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.

(Para 2 (i), (xii))

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Civil Suit – Extension of time for filing written statement -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – 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 30th of June, 2021 -- It is however will not preclude the parties from filing such written-statement or return before 30th June, 2021.

(Para 2 (iii))

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Execution of eviction, dispossession, demolition etc. -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Orders of eviction, dispossession, demolition, etc. passed by High 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 30th of June 2021.

(Para 2 (iv))

D. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Interim protection -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – 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 30^th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- However, any party aggrieved by the conduct of the accused on such interim protection, may move the Court 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.

(Para 2 (v))

E. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Interim bail -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – All the interim bails granted under Section 439, Cr.P.C. by the High Court or Courts of Sessions, limited by timeframe specifying an expiry date from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021, 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.

(Para 2 (vi))

F. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 3,6 -- Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3 – Parole – Extension of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – 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 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021, 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.

(Para 2 (vi), (vii))

G. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41A -- Cognizable offence – Arrest in -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Unless there is necessity of arrest for maintenance of law and order or any other emergent case, in a cognizable offence prescribing sentence up to seven years imprisonment, the police shall desist from arresting the accused up to 30th of June, 2021, without complying with the provision of Section 41A, Cr.P.C. -- This however may not be understood as an interdict on the power of the police to arrest, but should only be considered a mere advisory in the face of the ongoing crisis following second wave of Coronavirus.

(Para 2(viii))

H. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Eviction/ Demolition by government/ Corporation/ Council/ Board/ Panchayat etc. – Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – 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 30th June, 2021.

(Para 2(ix))

I. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Auction sale by Bank/ Financial Institution -- Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – 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 30th June, 2021.

(Para 2(x))

J. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued to Government bodies in suo motu PIL – 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 30th June, 2021, the time for compliance of such order shall stand extended up to 30th June, 2021, unless specifically directed otherwise by the Court concerned.

(Para 2(xi))

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Temporary injunction – Local Commissioner report showing the property measured 48'x74' and not 20'x80' and there was a dispute as such as to which portion of land the petitioner is in possession -- It would be a matter of evidence as to whether the petitioner is in possession of property measuring 20'x80' -- In absence of any material record having been produced before the Courts below the injunction has been declined -- No case as such is made out for interference, revision petition dismissed.

(Para 6-9)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 -- Appointment of Naib Tehsildar – Improvement in qualification marks before interview – Whether the same shall relate back to the date of acquiring the said qualification or not – Held, petitioner possessed the eligibility condition of Matric and Graduation as on the cut-off date -- Petitioner improved his score of 10th and 12th Examination before the date of interview and that the result was supplied at the time of interview – Commission is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner after taking into consideration the improved marks in Class 10 and Class 12 -- If the petitioner scores higher marks than the last selected candidate, he would be entitled to grant of appointment.

(Para 9-14)

Constitution of India, Article 217, 224 -- Memorandum of Procedure – Appointment of High Court judges -- In order to facilitate timely appointment, it would be advisable to follow the following timelines: i. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report/inputs within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of recommendation of the High Court Collegium, to the Central Government -- ii. It would be desirable that the Central Government forward the file(s)/recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of views from the State Government and the report/input from the IB -- iii. It would be for the Government to thereafter proceed to make the appointment immediately on the aforesaid consideration and undoubtedly if Government has any reservations on suitability or in public interest, within the same period of time it may be sent back to the Supreme Court Collegium with the specific reasons for reservation recorded -- If the Supreme Court Collegium after consideration of the aforesaid inputs still reiterates the recommendation(s) unanimously (Cl. 24.1), such appointment should be processed and appointment should be made within 3 to 4 weeks.

(Para 11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Tender matter – Acceptance of bid -- Writ jurisdiction -- Judicial review – Power of -- Authority concerned refer to the licence to be submitted by bidders -- It make clear that the staff would be employed by the agency as contract labour, the agency being responsible to make alternative arrangements in cases where their staff goes on strike -- Appellant was awarded the tender at the approved rate quashed by High Court -- Judicial review in these matters is equivalent to judicial restraint in these matters -- Writ court does not have the expertise to correct such decisions by substituting its own decision for the decision of the authority -- High Court guessing the authority’s requirement of a licence under the Contract Labour Act, has clearly overstepped the bounds of judicial review in such matters -- Except for an incantation of the expression mala fide, no mala fide has in fact been made out on the facts of this case -- High Court’s judgment is consequently set aside.

(Para 7, 10-17)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Ejectment from unauthorised occupation – Non-decisioning of -- Gram Panchayat made applications/ representations for ejectment of the private respondents -- No action has been taken till date – Writ petition disposed of by giving direction to respondent No. 2 to take appropriate steps within three months in accordance with law.

(Para 1-4)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Acquisition of land – Challenge to -- Major chunk of the land released -- Petitioners case is not different from those land owners whose land already stood released -- Purpose for which the land was acquired is already vitiated as the proposed plan for which the land was acquired cannot be fulfilled by retaining the land of the petitioners -- Hence, denying to the prayer of the petitioners in not releasing their land would be a travesty of justice -- Action of the State in declining their prayer for release of their respective acquired land is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India -- Petitions allowed.

(Para 13)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 19(1)(e), 21, 51(c) – Deport/ Detaining of Rohingya refugees – Release of -- Interlocutory application seeking release of the detained Rohingya refugees; and not to deport the Rohingya refugees who have been detained in the sub-jail in Jammu – Held, rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 are available to all persons who may or may not be citizens but the right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of the territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) – Two serious allegations relate to (i) the threat to internal security of the country; and (ii) the agents and touts providing a safe passage into India for illegal immigrants, due to the porous nature of the landed borders – It is not possible to grant the interim relief, however, Rohingyas in Jammu, on whose behalf the application is filed, shall not be deported unless the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed.

(Para 1, 13-15)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 7 -- Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 2(c) – Illegal colonies – Competent authority not taking any action – Writ petition -- Petitioner had been earlier approaching the respondents by way of representations followed by a subsequent notice through counsel which till date has not been responded to -- Competent authority seized of the matter, writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana to consider the legal notice and take a decision thereon positively within a period of two months.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 16 – Selection in reserve post – Availability of new posts -- Appointment in open category -- With the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-working exercise, if the candidates who were already selected against reserved posts were entitled to be considered against open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or invalid on any count -- These 3295 posts were part of the same selection process initiated in 2013 for filling up 41610 posts and as such the adjustment was rightly done by the State.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Interim order --Nature of modification which has been made by the High Court vide order impugned in the form of an ad-hoc interim arrangement, is exceeding its jurisdiction, and not within the realm of power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution -- It is well settled that by an interim order, even the final relief ordinarily should not be granted – Impugned order quashed and set aside.

(Para 3, 11, 12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 26 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 14 -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007) -- Live-in relationship – Deed of live-in relationship – Legality of -- Protection of life and liberty -- Since such type of deed is not permissible in law, no benefit can be claimed by the petitioners -- Even otherwise, under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, petitioner No.2 is not competent to perform marriage and as such he is not competent to have a live-in-relationship with petitioner No.1 as he has not attained the age of marriage – As the terms and conditions of live-in-relationship relied upon by the petitioners referred to above, especially stating that it is not a ‘Marital Relationship’ is nothing but the misuse of the process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 3, 12-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 200 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 – Multiple complaints -- Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings -- As such, he would be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police and the Courts, as and when required in each case -- Such an absurd and mischievous interpretation of the provisions of the CrPC will not stand the test of constitutional scrutiny, and therefore cannot be adopted.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 200 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Summons to accused -- Duty of Magistrate -- Powers bestowed on the Magistrate have grave repercussions on individual citizens’ life and liberty -- Thus, these powers also confer great responsibility on the shoulders of the Magistrate and must be exercised with great caution, and after suitable judicial application of mind -- Power to issue a summoning order is a matter of grave importance, and that the Magistrate must only allow criminal law to take its course after satisfying himself that there is a real case to be made.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 200 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which the truth is the quest -- Trial Judge has a duty under the Constitution and the CrPC, to identify and dispose of frivolous litigation at an early stage by exercising, substantially and to the fullest extent, the powers conferred on him.

(Para 15, 16)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 200 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing injustice -- They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant – Held, trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases -- This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution -- In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land.

(Para 18)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Constitution of India, Article 21, 142 -- Criminal complaint – Curbing injustice -- Magistrate was aware of the significant delay in the filing of private complaint and of the material improvements from the earlier -- It was incumbent on the Magistrate to examine any possibility of abuse of process of the court, make further enquiries, and dismiss the frivolous complaint at the outset after judicial application of mind -- However, this was not done -- Magistrate issued process against the Appellants – To bring peace between the parties, who are fighting various litigations since 2006, Court exercised powers under Article 142 to quash all the litigations between the parties arising out of this incident.

(Para 19-23)

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), Section 9 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Public premises – Eviction of -- Statutory appeal and stay application  pending – Non-decisioning of -- Statutory appeal accompanied with an application for stay within the period of limitation, the same ought to be decided on merits -- Bank occupying the premises facing an eviction also involves the interest of the public as also customers of the bank -- Writ petition disposed of in terms of accepting the statement as regards the statutory appeal u/s 9 of 1973 Act to be decided expeditiously and for the stay application in any event to be decided within a period of one week -- Keeping in view the interest of the customers/public who would be availing the banking services in the premises in question, Municipal Corporation directed to de-seal the premises forthwith.

(Para 10-12)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Non-allotment of Chamber -- Refund of amount -- Petitioner deposited Rs.3.5 lacs for allotment of chamber -- Draw of lots was held on 20.01.2019 but the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of eligible candidates -- Request was made to refund but the same has not been done – Direction given to refund the amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs to the petitioner along with interest @ 7% per annum from 01.02.2019 to be paid within a period of 2 months.

(Para 3, 4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 (a) – Custody of minor – Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Writ of habeas corpus would be maintainable to seek the custody of the minor child who is at the tender age of about 4 years -- Petitioner, a mother, entitled to maintain the writ of habeas corpus -- Detenue being a minor and under the age of 5 years should ordinarily be in the custody of the mother as stipulated u/s 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, unless the respondent is able to establish that she is unfit to do so – Writ allowed, custody given to the petitioner – Respondent no. 5 / Father is at liberty to approach the Guardian Court/Civil Judge for custody of the minor in accordance with law.

(Para 9-12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 200, 210, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Complaint as well as FIR – Legality of -- Merely because on the same set of facts with the same allegations and averments earlier the complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge the FIR with the police station with the same allegations and averments -- However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 200, 210, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Criminal proceedings – Quashing of – Inherent power of High Court -- Inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment -- When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.

(Para 6.1)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 200, 210, 482 – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of process of law -- Inherent power of High Court -- Complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act pending -- After a period of three months, an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR – Ld. Magistrate declined to order registration of FIR and decided to inquire into the matter by treating the same as complaint case -- Ld. Sessions Judge remanded back the matter to the learned Magistrate with directions to pass a speaking order – Thereafter, after a period of two years, impugned FIR against the appellants with police station with the similar contents and allegations which were levelled in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C – Complainant is not proceeding further with his application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending since last five years – In the FIR, no reference of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act – Held, impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass the appellants -- High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice – Appeal allowed, impugned criminal proceedings/FIR registered u/ss 420/406 IPC quashed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 142 – Power and jurisdiction of Single Judge under Article 142 of Constitution -- Provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution of India vests Supreme Court with the jurisdiction to pass any order or decree to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it -- A Judge sitting singly has the power and jurisdiction to issue orders or pass decrees as specified in the said Article.

(Para 7)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VI Rule (1) -- Constitution of India, Article 142, 145 -- Divorce petition – Transfer application – Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of --  While sitting singly Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to take a decision on that plea made in the joint application -- One of the preconditions for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, the cause or the matter must be pending before it -- Transfer petition arose out of matrimonial dispute between the parties, but the expression ‘cause or matter pending before it’ cannot be stretched to cover all disputes originating from such matrimonial problem that can be resolved by Supreme Court, sitting singly, while hearing a transfer petition.

(Para 8)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Transfer petition -- Divorce by mutual consent -- Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of -- Joint application ought to be dealt with by a Bench comprising of two or more Hon’ble Judges as the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may consider appropriate -- Since the parties have settled their dispute through the process of mediation, the transfer petition has lost its utility and stands disposed of -- File to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions for giving effect to the terms of settlement entered into by and between the parties and broadly reflected in the joint application.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship – Life and liberty -- Police protection -- Petitioner no.1/ Lady left the house of husband and living with petitioner no. 2 in live-in-relationship – Petition disposed of with a direction to Superintendent of Police to look into the matter and to dispose of the representation in accordance with law, in case there is a genuine threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners, then necessary steps warranted under law be taken thereupon at the earliest so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners.

(Para 2, 3)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Additional evidence – Delay tactics -- Revisional powers – In case, the affidavit was ready on 7.1.2020, there was no logical reason for the same not to be filed in the Court, although, the matter was listed on four different dates till 7.2.2020 -- Trial Court has noted that despite 17 opportunities having been granted, the defendant-petitioner has not examined himself as his own witness -- Tendency amongst litigants to delay the trials is on the rise and this tendency adds to the arrears of the Courts of law -- Time is now right to curtail such tendencies with a heavy hand unless the facts of the case disclose that either of the parties to the suit would be grossly prejudiced – Revision dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

A. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 9, 10A – Covid-19 situation -- Suspension of initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process – Enquiry – Requirement of -- Section 10A does not contain any requirement that the Adjudicating Authority must launch into an enquiry into whether, and if so to what extent, the financial health of the corporate debtor was affected by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.

(Para 25)

B. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7, 8,  9, 10-A – Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, Rule 5 -- Purposive construction -- Date of default is crystalized as 30 April 2020 in the demand notice issued by the appellant in Form 3 -- Date of institution of the application u/s 9 is 11 May 2020 -- Whether Section 10A would stand attracted to a situation such where the application u/s 9 was filed prior to 5 June 2020, when Section 10A was inserted, and in respect of a default which has taken place after 25 March 2020 – Held, provisions of Section 10A, which have been inserted by Act 17 of 2020 (the “Amending Act”) with retrospective effect from 5 June 2020, the application filed by the appellant as an operational creditor u/s 9 was not maintainable – Embargo contained in Section 10A must receive a purposive construction which will advance the object which was sought to be achieved by enacting the provision.

(Para 1, 8, 20-25)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Dental Council of India, Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, Regulation II (ii) -- National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination 2020 -- NEET (UG) Test – Reduction in minimum marks for BDS admission -- Decision dated 30.12.2020 to not reduce the minimum marks for admission to BDS course suffers from the vices of illegality and irrationality – Direction given that vacant seats in first year BDS course for the year 2020-2021 shall be filled up from the candidates who have participated in the NEET (UG) courses after lowering the percentile mark by 10 percentile – Candidates belonging to the general category who have secured 40 percentile, SC/ST/OBC categories if they have secured 30 percentile and General candidates with bench mark disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 would be eligible if they have secured 35 percentile -- Admissions shall be made strictly in accordance with merit and the admission process shall be completed by 18.02.2021 -- Any other student who has qualified in NEET (UG) - 2020 even without lowering the minimum marks and is willing to participate in the admission process shall also be considered for admission to BDS course.

(Para 14)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 32 -- Inter-caste love marriage – FIR for missing of petitioner/girl – Protection of Life and liberty -- I.O. insisting for visit to police station for recording statement – Requirement of -- Marriage certificate received by I.O. and the conversation already been held with petitioner/girl, where she clearly stated that she was married to petitioner/boy and that she was feeling threatened and apprehensive of coming to the police station – Intervention of Court would really not have been required if the I.O. had conducted himself more responsibly in closing the complaint and if he really wanted to record the statement of the petitioner/girl, should have informed that he would visit her and recorded the statement instead of putting her under threat of action against petitioner/boy to come to the police station -- Police authorities are expected to take action in this behalf in the next eight weeks to lay down some guidelines and training programmes how to handle such socially sensitive cases -- FIR quashed.

(Para 7-13)

A. Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Recuse of judge -- Applicant-petitioner in person submitted that one of Justice should recuse himself from hearing the application – Held, no valid and good ground for recusal -- Merely because the order might not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal -- A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by seeking a Bench of its choice -- Prayer rejected.

(Para 2)

B. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Second application for recalling of earlier order – Maintainability of -- Earlier recalling application was dismissed -- Thereafter, once again, the applicant-petitioner in person preferred application for the very relief, i.e., for recalling of order shall not be maintainable.

(Para 3)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Accommodation of additional candidates in recruitment -- Permissibility of -- It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.

(Para 15)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, Rule 3, 4, 5 -- Accommodation of additional candidates in recruitment – Interim direction in Writ jurisdiction – Permissibility of – 828 posts advertised -- 828 candidates recommended for promotion to the post of sub-inspector on the basis of result -- Policy decision to accommodate 636 additional candidates – Challenged before Tribunal, OA is pending – Tribunal passed interim order of status-quo with respect to additional candidates -- High Court in the Writ Petition has issued a direction to the State to send the additional list of 636 candidates for training of 9 months during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal – Held, such a direction ought not to have been passed in the Writ Petition filed by the present Petitioners, who are aggrieved by the impugned Government Resolution, which is the subject matter of challenge -- Civil Appeal allowed, Government resolution will remain stayed during the pendency of proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

(Para 5, 8-11, 18-20)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-B – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Writ of mandamus – Executive revision petition pending before Commissioner since 6.11.2020 – Direction given to Commissioner to make an effort to decide the revision petition on fixed date and in any case, to conclude the said proceedings by deciding it within a further period of three weeks thereof, if it is not possible to conclude on fixed date.

(Para 1, 2)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay of 532 days in SLP and 6616 days from the original order – Condonation of delay -- Petitioner approached the Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay -- In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record – Court categorized such kind of cases as “certificate cases” filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal -- Objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default – Looking to the gross negligence and the impunity with which the Union of India in a matter like this, Court considered it appropriate to impose special costs of Rs.1 lakh to be recovered from the concerned officer(s), to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 – Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (UP Act No. 1 of 1966), Section 95(1) -- Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Bhukhando Tatha Bhavano Ke Panjikaran Evam Pradeshan Sambandhi Viniyam, 1979, Rule 47, 48 --  Registration for plot – Rights for allotment -- Allotments were made by draw of lots of all eligible registered applicants – No draw of lot in favour of grandfather -- Mere registration in the name of Late grandfather, which registration also came to an end after issuance of the Government order there was no right left in the respondent to claim even registration but to say of allotment of a plot -- Mere statement of the counsel for the Board that 19 plots are vacant cannot be utilized for issuance of direction for plot to respondent who has otherwise no right for allotment -- High Court committed error in issuing the direction to allot a plot to the respondent -- Appeal allowed, order of the High Court set aside.

(Para 19-21)

A. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Criminal appeal against conviction – Scope and ambit of -- Argument are either a question of fact or an abortive attempt for re-appreciation of evidence on record -- Such discourse ordinarily does not fall within the scope and ambit of powers vested in this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(i) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Recovery of Ganja – Ground not taken in defence statement u/s 313 Cr.P.c. – Effect of -- Appellant apprehended at the spot of the incident but also was found in conscious possession of the ganja -- As regard to his co-accused, there is unfortunately no material on record to shed light on the circumstances in which charge sheet was not filed against him -- Appellant, however, did not rely upon this fact either in his defense statement u/s 313, CrPC or otherwise -- Aforementioned supplication therefore cannot be entertained at this belated stage.

(Para 8)

C. Constitution of India, Article 20(1), 136 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(i) -- Reduction of sentence -- Passionately urges that: (i) the appellant has suffered protracted trial for more than 23 years; (ii) he alone has been convicted while his co-accused are acquitted; (iii) the appellant was not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other Penal Laws; (iv) the appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 2 years 4 months and 16 days out of the total sentence of five years; (v) and that the appellant has not misused the concession of bail granted by this Court on 02.11.2012 – Court found some merit in the submission noticed above – Appellant committed the crime in the year 1997, i.e., much before the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 came into force -- Section 20(i) of NDPS Act (as it stood in 1997), that even though a maximum sentence of five years RI and a fine of upto Rs. 50,000/- was prescribed but there was no minimum mandatory sentence – Held, ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the extent of the period he has already undergone -- Appellant shall be liable to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

(Para 9-12)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5, 15(2)(f) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 5 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Exchange of shamilat deh/land – Satisfaction in resolution about benefit of inhabitants of village – No such satisfaction was recorded by it while passing the impugned resolutions -- Government has already approved the change of land use from agriculture to industrial in the land in question belonging to Gram Panchayat which is abutting road -- Development activities have already started in the said area -- So, it cannot be said that it is a case of exchange of two lands having equivalent values -- 200 feet road has divided the Panchayat land into two parts, same has increased the potential value of the said land which is now abutting both sides of the road leading to Mohali International Airport -- Writ petition allowed, the impugned Resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat set aside -- A writ in the nature of Certiorari is also issued for quashing the order passed by the Government permitting the exchange of land of the Gram Panchayat.

(Para 21-26)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5, 6, 15(2)(f) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 5 -- Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 199 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Exchange of shamilat deh/land – Challenged in writ – Alternative remedy – Effect of – Locus-standi of -- Anybody who has been prejudicially affected by the aforesaid acts or omissions committed by the Gram Panchayat could invoke writ jurisdiction, even though he may not have proprietary interest in the subject matter -- As the petitioner was not party to the impugned proceedings, he was having no right to challenge the same by filing statutory appeal -- Also the existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and is a rule of discretion and self-imposed limitation rather than that of law – Petitioner being vigilant citizen and inhabitant of the village was competent to challenge impugned actions of Gram Panchayat in the writ petition, even if he has not availed the alternative remedy (if any), available to him under the law – Gram Panchayat resolution and permission granted by Government set aside.

(Para 23-26)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Transfer order – Challenge in writ petition –Prayer confined only to the extent that petitioner be allowed to continue at the present place of posting till 30.04.2021 so that study of his children may not suffer -- Further submitted that w.e.f. 01.05.2021, petitioner will join at his place of transfer – Prayer justified, petitioner allowed to continue at the present place of posting.

(Para 1-4)

A. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Sections 16, 18, 18B, 19, 20, 43-D(5) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(H), 201, 202, 153A, 212, 307, 149 -- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Section 3 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- High Court granted bail owing to the long period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime in the near future without addressing the statutory embargo created by Section 43-D (5) of UAPA -- Respondent in jail for much more than five years, there are 276 witnesses left to be examined and charges have been framed only on 27.11.2020 -- Thirteen co-accused who have been convicted, none have been given a sentence of more than eight years’ rigorous imprisonment -- If found guilty, the respondent too would receive a sentence within the same ballpark -- Given that two-third of such incarceration is already complete, it appears that the respondent has already paid heavily for his acts of fleeing from justice -- High Court have been left with no other option except to grant bail.

(Para 11-15, 19)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Delay in trial in criminal cases – Bail to accused -- Liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial -- Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.

(Para 16)

C. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 43-D(5) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Statutory restrictions like Section 43-D (5) of UAPA per-se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution.

(Para 18)

D. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 43-D(5) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Section 43D-(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS -- Unlike the NDPS where the competent Court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such pre-condition under the UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D (5) of UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion etc.

(Para 20)

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 127, 135 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Electricity dues – Pilferage/ Theft of Electricity --  Dispute of – Writ jurisdiction --  Civil suit – Remedy of – Petitioner calls in question the calculation of electricity dues, for a period of one year, prepared by the respondent-power supply company -- Petitioner has already availed the remedy of civil suit, but the same was later on withdrawn as the interim order granted was subject to certain conditions, which apparently were not found convenient -- In other words, the petitioner is indulging in forum shopping – Writ petition involves disputed questions of fact, which can appropriately be adjudicated after permitting the parties to lead the evidence – Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for revival of the civil suit, if so advised -- If such an application is filed, the trial Court will consider the same sympathetically.

(Para 10, 11)