Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, Order 23 Rule 1, Order 41 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Appeal dismissed as withdrawn – Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner remained unsuccessful in the civil suit and withdrew the appeal by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC by stating that there was a technical defect in the suit and the appeal -- Even no liberty was sought by the petitioner for filing afresh appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court and she has filed the writ petition, seeking same relief which cannot be entertained and adjudicated upon -- Writ petition suffers from the principles of res judicata – Writ petition dismissed

(Para 11, 12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Minimum criteria for appointment -- Relaxation at the time of appointment -- Once relaxation in eligibility criteria is granted to an employee at the time of his/her appointment, he/she is deemed to have satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria and thereafter, he/she cannot be asked to seek relaxation in qualification at each stage of his/her career progression, unless the higher post prescribes a different qualification/criteria -- It is not open to the respondent-University to deny to the petitioner consideration to higher scales of pay on the ground that the petitioner had not obtained 55% marks in her Master’s Degree at the time of her appointment as Assistant Administrative Officer.

(Para 18)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ jurisdiction – Service matter -- Interference in finding in Enquiry report -- In writ jurisdiction, Court cannot go into the sufficiency of evidence on the basis of which the Inquiry Officer has given his findings, yet, it is open to the Court to interfere in the findings of the Inquiry Officer if the same are based upon no evidence or if the said findings are based upon irrelevant material.

(Para 14)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Criminal case against employee – Termination of services -- Acquittal in criminal case – Mere acquittal will not confer on an employee a right to claim any benefit including reinstatement -- However, if the charges in the departmental inquiry and the criminal Court are identical or similar, then the matter acquires a different dimension -- Acquittal in the criminal proceedings was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, it would be open to the Court to exercise its power of judicial review and interfere in the findings of the disciplinary inquiry.

(Para 19)

C. Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, Rule 27 (2) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Criminal case against employee – Termination of services – “tried and acquitted” -- Discharge by Criminal Court – Charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are similar in nature -- Sanction from Inspector General not sought -- Petitioner may not have been tried by the criminal Court, but he has been discharged and exonerated of criminal charges so his case stands at the higher pedestal than acquittal, particularly when the petitioner has been discharged on merits and not on technicalities -- Dismissal of petitioner from service becomes unsustainable in law -- Termination order set aside, with back wages of 50%.

(Para 20-29)

D. Termination form service -- Re-instatement – Backwages – Even if an employee has succeeded in establishing that his dismissal from service is illegal, he may be entitled to reinstatement, but it is not necessary that he should be given full back wages.

(Para 27)

A. Constitution of India, Article 233, 234 -- Judicial Officer – Code of Conduct -- Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary -- Judge’s official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of the propriety and probity -- The standard of conduct is higher than expected from a layman and also higher than expected of an advocate -- Even his private life must adhere to high standard of propriety and probity, higher than those deemed acceptable for others.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Judicial Officer – Involvement/ Becoming party in litigation/ FIR – A Judge who himself wants to become a party in a proceeding then he must quit his office first, to maintain the standard of purity and unblemished character -- It is not possible that he remain as a sitting Judge on one hand and after using his power prevail upon his subordinate officer to affect arrest his adversary.

(Para 23)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of FIR -- F.I.R. does not disclose any offence -- Same has been procured by the C.J.M. after exerting threats upon the concerned S.I. – Taking into account the prima facie findings and the material collected by the S.I.T., F.I.R. is driven by malafides and in the colourable exercise of power -- F.I.R. quashed exercising the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 26, 28)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- FIR -- Judicial Officer as first informant – Instructions given -- Except in the matter of grave and severe nature like murder, suicide, rape or other sexual offences, dowry death, dacoity and in rest of the remaining cases, if any, judicial officer or Judge wants to become the first informant in his personal capacity in any F.I.R., he must take his concerned District Judge into confidence and after having the assent from the District Judge, he can become an informant of any F.I.R.

(Para 27)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 2(1)(p), 3 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Proceeds of crime – Direction to register a case and arrest of  accused -- Enforcement Directorate is not an investigating agency stricto  sensu -- The command and mandate of the Enforcement Directorate under the 2002 Act is to ensure that no person benefits from the proceeds of crime derived out of the commission of a scheduled offence and to see that such property is confiscated to the State -- There cannot be any direction issued to consider representation which has been filed with a prayer to register a case and arrest certain individuals for that is not the mandate of the Enforcement Directorate.

(Para 1, 19)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 2(12), 94 -- Runaway marriage – Police protection – Minor girl -- School certificate – Birth certificate – Reliance upon -- Birth certificate relied upon by the father of petitioner would reveal that date of birth is 26.05.2007 as recorded in the birth register on 01.06.2007 -- Birth certificate was got issued, when there was no dispute -- Birth certificate relied, in order to form a prima facie opinion that petitioner is a child – No reliance can be placed upon abstract of the school register or a certificate issued by the Head Master of Government Primary School as it is not clarified as to on what basis and when this entry of date of birth was made – Petitioner is directed to be kept in the place of safety till she attains the age of majority, parental family disallowed to accompany her.

 (Para 12)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5) -- Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 – Preventive detention of accused – Non-mentioning about bail in detention order – Non-decisioning on representation -- Effect of -- Non-mention about the grant of bail in the detention is serious lapse which in turn gives rise to the inference that there is non-application of mind – Right of detenue to prefer representation on his detention is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India -- Non-consideration of the representation goes to core of the case -- Detention order quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dis-membership from Bar association – Writ jurisdiction -- There is no public law element involved in the dispute between a member of the HP High Court Bar Association such as the petitioner and the said Association, and since the said Association is unregistered society, merely because its members are Advocates who appear in the High Court and assist in the administration of justice, it cannot be said that the writ petition against its office bearers in their personal capacity is maintainable.

(Para 4, 24)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee – Right of employee -- Transfer is an incidence of service and any employee can be transferred on administrative reasons and there is no vested right of an employee to seek posting of his own choice -- However, the aforesaid is not an absolute Rule and is subjected to various exceptions which cannot be put in any straight jacket formula -- Every case has to be seen according to its own facts and circumstances -- Petitioner is 70% handicapped and his wife is suffering from last stage of Lung Cancer -- Impugned order set aside, respondent-Nigam is at liberty to pass a fresh order after considering posting the petitioner near his house at Kaithal which may be a Non-Public Dealing Office.

(Para 7-9)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Deemed retirement – Rule of natural justice -- Petitioner’s date of birth ordered to be changed by Corrigendum dated 23.08.2014 as (1.6.1968) instead of (1.3.1965) in the tentative seniority list – Retirement date would be 31.05.2026, whereas petitioner retired on 28.02.2023 – No show cause was issued to the petitioner and she was not called upon to state or submit her response as to why she be not retired deeming her to superannuate w.e.f. 28.02.2023 -- Impugned notification is bad as it has been passed by the department without adhering to the principles of natural justice, quashed and set aside.

(Para 2, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer on recommendation of MLA – Challenge to – No malafide against the Member of Legislative Assembly alleged -- Fact that the petitioner has remained posted District Mandi for nine years, he cannot have any ground to raise grievance against the impugned transfer order.

(Para 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Censure to employee -- Delay in retiral benefits – Interest thereupon – Promotion – Right of -- Since in the said disciplinary proceedings, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet have not been proved and the petitioner has only been ordered to be censure, therefore, the petitioner is held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed payment of retiral dues and his case is liable to be considered by the respondents for grant of promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service and also for promotion from the date, when persons junior to him were promoted with all consequential benefits.

(Para 7)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 141, Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of writ petition – Even though the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in the writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141 CPC, but the principle enshrined therein are applicable.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of writ petition – Amendment sought for almost 12 years after the date of the institution of the petition -- It is not the case of the petitioner that facts now sought to be pleaded by way of amendment could not be pleaded despite due diligence – No plausible grounds have been mentioned in the application as to why the amendments, which are being sought to be incorporated at this highly belated stage and why these facts could not be pleaded earlier, especially when there have been no subsequent developments -- Amendment cannot be said to be bonafide -- On the ground of delay itself, the application is required to be dismissed – Application for amendment dismissed.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in retiral benefits -- Interest thereupon -- Either before or after the retirement of the petitioner, no departmental/ criminal proceedings were pending against him, therefore, his retiral benefits were required to be released within a reasonable time after his retirement --  Interest @ 6% per annum allowed, on the delayed payment of retiral dues w.e.f. 01.01.2023 (after two months of his retirement) till the actual date of payment.

(Para 8-10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 23.8, 23.9 -- History sheet – Name of minor child -- Extra care and precaution, to be observed by a police officer while ensuring that the identity of a minor child is not disclosed -- It will prevent the undesirable exposure to the minor children.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 23.8, 23.9 -- History sheet – Scope of -- Police authorities of States and Union Territories may consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes.

(Para 14)

C. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 23.8, 23.9 -- Life – Scope -- Expression ‘life’ unequivocally includes the right to live a life worthy of human honour and all that goes along with it –  Self-regard, social image and an honest space for oneself in one’s surrounding society, are just as significant to a dignified life as are adequate food, clothing and shelter.

(Para 15)

A. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- SARFAESI proceedings – Writ jurisdiction – Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be minimal and it is only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that intervention should be there.

(Para 5)

B. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- SARFAESI proceedings – One time Settlement/ OTS -- Writ jurisdiction – A Borrower/ guarantor does not have a vested right to seek OTS -- There can be no positive direction to the Bank/ financial institutions for sanctioning OTS.

(Para 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of child -- Writ of Habeas Corpus – Maintainability of -- Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy -- Recourse to such a remedy should not be permitted unless the ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective -- In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody -- In child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law -- There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is summary in nature -- What is important is the welfare of the child -- Where the court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is required, the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach the civil court -- No hard and fast rule can be laid down insofar as the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition in the matters of custody of a minor child – It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(Para 16)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of child -- Writ of Habeas Corpus – It is not a case that the appellant-grandmother had illegally kept the custody of the minor child -- It is the respondent-father who had placed the custody of the minor child with the appellant-grandmother -- High Court ought not to have entertained the habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Compelling a minor child at the tender age of 7 years to withdraw from the custody of his grandparents with whom he has been living for the last about 5 years may cause psychological disturbances – Paramount interest of the welfare of the minor child would be required to be done -- Such an exercise would not be permissible in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Order of High Court set aside.

(Para 18-23)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29, 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Regular  bail -- Petitioner in custody since 21.05.2022 and only 03 out of 17 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far -- He is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against him -- In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Parole for own engagement and marriage ceremony -- Petition allowed, petitioner granted parole for a period of two weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Removal from service – Leave encashment – Right of -- Leave encashment is admissible only at the time of retirement and not at any time before attaining the age of superannuation -- An employee, who has been removed from service, is not entitled for the grant of leave encashment – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7-11)

Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, Rule 9, 14(c) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Permanent parole – Overstay in earlier parole – Effect of – Conviction for life in offence u/s 148, 342, 458, 396, 397, 398 of IPC -- Jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory -- Petitioner has served the actual sentence for a period of more than 15 years, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for permanent parole as per Rule 9 -- Overstaying of the petitioner after being released on parole would not fall under Rule 14(c) -- Writ petition (parole) allowed -- Respondents directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole

(Para 2, 10, 11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Delay defeats equity -- Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.

(Para 9, 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Allotment of distributorship – Writ jurisdiction – Delay and laches -- Writ petitioner was a rival applicant for grant of LPG distributorship – Appellant was held to be successful by and allotted distributorship by virtue of draw of lots in 2014 – Same was challenged in the year 2017 and thereby the writ petitioner had allowed his right if at all if any to be drifted away -- Being no stiff opposition or strong resistance to the alternate land offered by the appellant not being as per the specifications indicated in the advertisement, no reason to substitute the court’s view to that of the experts/ Corporation which has in its wisdom has exercised its discretion – Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, LPA Bench allowed the writ – Order of the Learned Division Bench set aside and order of Ld. Single Judge restored.

(Para 6, 11-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- FIR against petitioner -- Right to go abroad -- Mere involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be made the basis to reject his prayer to travel abroad, more so, when the petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the conditions to be imposed by the Court -- Right to travel is a fundamental right and there is no law depriving a person of such right -- Investigation at initial stage -- Petition allowed, petitioner permitted to travel abroad subject to the conditions.

(Para 12)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Black listing/ Debarment of Contractor – Deemed debarring on termination of contract – Show cause notice -- As per the circular, issuing of a notice is mandatory in nature in cases of non-performance or debarring/ penalizing a contractor/ concessionaire -- A notice pertaining to non-performance and termination does not inherently imply association with the prospect of debarment -- There should have been a separate Show Cause Notice issued to the concerned entity/ person with respect to debarment.

(Para 28)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Cheque bounce complaint / FIR -- Compounding of offence – No consent of complainant – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Initially, both sides agreed to compound at the appellate stage but the appellant could not pay the amount within the time – Now appellant has paid the entire amount with interest – Appellant in jail for more than 1 year before being released on bail – Now no purpose to keep the proceedings pending – Transaction between the parties was purely civil in nature which does not attract criminal law -- Even though complainant is unwilling to compound, proceedings must come to an end – While exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, criminal proceedings in FIR and criminal appeals against conviction u/s 138 of the NI Act quashed and sentence awarded by the trial court set aside.

(Para 13-15)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship -- Life and liberty – Police protection -- Every person, more so, a major, has the right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice -- Petitioner no.1 is not legally divorced from her spouse -- Without commenting upon the legality of the relationship, respondent no.2 directed to consider the representation and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, respondent no.2 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 9-13)

Constitution of India, Article 16 – SC-Ex-serviceman – Appointment in SC category – Later deemed appointment in SC-Ex-serviceman category – Permissibility of -- Respondent had accepted his appointment as M.O. (Dental) against the post that was advertised only for SC category and appointed as such on 31.05.1993 -- Respondent’s claim for his deemed appointment as an ex-serviceman (SC) against the post advertised by the State on 31.10.1996 is not tenable.

(Para 3)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Medical reimbursement – Treatment at unapproved hospital – After an accident, the petitioner went to Government Hospital from where he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak being in critical condition – Petitioner got shifted from PGIMS Rohtak to a private hospital because of want of ventilator, which was a lifesaving device – Petitioner was put on ventilator and his life was saved -- Legitimate rights of reimbursement cannot be defeated -- Respondent-Nigam directed to pay the balance of the medical reimbursement to the petitioner within a period of two months.

(Para 6-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Service matter -- Show cause notice – Writ jurisdiction -- Charge-sheet or the inquiry proceedings cannot be challenged unless there is some adverse order passed in pursuance to the said inquiry proceedings -- Ordinarily no writ lies against the show-cause notice and the writ petition cannot be entertained as a matter of routine.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Maintainability of revision -- No revision would be maintainable against an order dismissing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner -- It is trite that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Demarcation of land -- Prima facie there does not appear to be any dispute regarding demarcation of the land inasmuch as the suit simpliciter is for possession and mandatory injunction -- It is for the plaintiff-petitioner to prove her case and she cannot take the aid of the Court agency for creating evidence for her – Application for appointment of Local Commissioner dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Acquisition of land – Right of subsequent purchaser – Adverse possession – Plea of -- Award was announced on 22.01.1992 -- Possession of the acquired land including the disputed land was taken over by HSVP vide Rapat dated 26.01.1992 -- Petitioner purchased the disputed land vide sale deed dated 15.04.1997 -- Sale transaction after finalization of the acquisition proceedings would not confer any right or benefit on the petitioner -- Any transaction thereafter would be void ab initio – Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the plea of adverse possession once he claims ownership/ title on the basis of sale deed -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 5-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Recovery of excess pensionary benefits – Undertaking by employee -- Rs.10,40,830/- was paid to the petitioner beyond her entitlement – Where there is an undertaking given allowing the authorities to recover the excess payment, the recovery of the excess amount paid can be done -- Where the pension has been rectified, the recovery is also permissible -- No ground for any interference qua the recovery of the amount – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 11, 15)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Revision with stay application – Non-decisioning of – Writ petition -- Mutation in the year 2005 by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade -- Divisional Commissioner set aside the  order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade – Petitioner assailed the same by way of filing revision alongwith the stay application before the learned Financial Commissioner -- Despite number of adjournments, the stay application has not been decided till date by the learned Financial Commissioner – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Financial Commissioner to take up the revision petition alongwith the stay application on the date fixed i.e. 07.03.2024 and decide the stay application expeditiously after hearing the parties in accordance with law – Till then status quo ordered.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Companies Act, 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Section 241, 242 -- Oppression and mismanagement -- Company Petition – Maintainability of -- Objections were heard by the NCLT and the judgment was reserved -- At this stage, the first respondent moved the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution – Held, High Court was not justified in entertaining a writ petition at the stage -- High Court ought not to have impeded the process of the NCLT pronouncing the judgment -- Thereafter, if any of the parties was aggrieved by the order of the NCLT, it was open to them to pursue their rights and remedies in accordance with law -- Invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution was not warranted.

(Para 1-7)

A. Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 22(5) – Preventive detention – Bail -- If detaining authority is apprehensive that in case detenu is released on bail he may again carry on his criminal activities, then in such situation, the authority should oppose the bail application and, in the event, bail is granted, the authority should challenge such a bail order in the higher forum and that merely on the ground that an accused in detention is likely to get bail, an order of preventive detention should not ordinarily be passed.

(Para 12)

B. Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 22(5) – There is no live link between the last activity and impugned detention order because FIR has been taken into account by detaining authority while passing order impugned, unmindful of the fact that detenu has been bailed out in the said FIR and there have been no further activities alleged against detenu -- Impugned order of detention quashed, respondents directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.

(Para 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating – Protracted trial – Sentence reduced to already undergone -- Criminal complaint filed in the year 1998, the petitioner is facing agony of a protracted trial, which has lasted for approximately 25 years -- Out of the total sentence of 3 years u/s 420 IPC, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 6 months and 7 days -- In the interest of justice sentence reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner -- Fine increased to Rs.10,000/- in default of fine rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(Para 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 362, 201, 392, 411, 414 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 8.10.2018 but only 02 of the 33 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for a right to speedy Trial which prima facie seems to have been violated in the instant case -- Further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 13-B -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Divorce – Transfer petition -- Settlement arrived between parties – Pending cases quashed -- Joint Application filed by the parties under Article 142 of the Constitution -- Terms of the settlement are lawful and there is no legal impediment in accepting the same -- Consequently, invoking jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the marriage between the parties dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent -- Transfer Petition disposed of.

(Para 8-16)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Parties are residing separately since February, 2011 -- No contact between them during long period of almost 13 years -- Respondent-wife is not even responding to the summons issued by the courts -- It seems she is no longer interested in continuing the marital relations with the appellant – Appeal allowed, marriage between the parties dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown in exercise of powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.

(Para 15)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13B -- Constitution of India, Article 142 – Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of period – Quashing of all pending proceedings-- Parties have recorded their statements before the Registrar(Judicial) on oath as regards compliance of conditions stipulated in Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act -- Order waiving the timeframe stipulated in Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 passed considering the fact that they have been living separately for more than two years -- Direction given that a decree be passed dissolving their marriage on mutual consent -- Cases involving the parties mainly arising out of their matrimonial dispute, quashed.

(Para 1, 2)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Challenge to illegality in selection – Participation in selection process – Effect of -- By participating in the process petitioner accepted the procedure for selection, and not the illegality in it that arises on account of wrong implementation of the rule of reservation – Held, petitioner cannot be precluded from the challenging the stated illegality in the selection process by filing the petition.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Challenge to illegality in selection – Non impleading the cleared candidates – Ground of -- No right has been conferred upon such candidates pursuant to clearing the screening test in their respective categories -- Outcome of the petition will only determine as to whether the rule of reservation is being correctly followed for the selection in question -- It will not adversely affect rights of the candidates in any manner as they are still to participate in the process of selection -- Therefore, they need not be impleaded as parties to the petition.

(Para 7)

C. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 226 – Rule of migration in reservation -- Meritorius candidate -- Reserved to unreserved category -- Merit of a reserved category candidate will have to be recognised and in case he/ she is entitled to an un-reserved post, it cannot be denied -- If a candidate is categorised resulting in his/ her ouster from the process of selection before the final merit list is drawn, it will deprive such a candidate from being considered against open/ un-reserved posts on merit -- This flies in the face of the rule of reservation, and cannot be permitted -- There is no justification to categorise the candidates for shortlisting and during the process of selection as, firstly, it compromises merit and, secondly, militates against the rule of migration in reservation.

(Para 8.4-8.6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner behind the bars since 02.11.2022 – Final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. submitted on 11.01.2023 -- Out of 29 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far –  Culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of the trial – Keeping the petitioner in further detention, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal dismissed   -- Matter was thereafter settled between the parties -- High Court rejected the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Held, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and since the original complainant himself is not interested in prosecuting the proceedings, it is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to give an end to the litigation between the parties -- Order of sentence and conviction set aside.

(Para 3-8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Compensation in writ -- Injuries by electrocution – Amputation of fingers of right hand -- Electric shock with LT line passing near the roof of residential house – Though there is no Police report in respect of the incident, but in view of the medical record placed on record by the petitioner and the same not being disputed by the respondents, it is evident that the petitioner suffered electric burns – Injuries due to electrocution because of the negligence on part of the officials of the respondents -- Principles applicable in the assessment of compensation in motor vehicle accident case applied.

(Para 8, 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Compensation in writ -- Amputation of fingers of right hand by electrocution -- Petitioner was 21 years of age and was working as a labourer -- Minimum wages of un-skilled workers are Rs. 225/- per day as per the notification dated 26.10.2017 -- Monthly income would come around to Rs. 6750/- -- Future prospects 40 percent applied --  Multiplier applicable would be 18 -- Petitioner has suffered 60 percent disability, as such, he is required to be paid Rs. 12,24,720/- as compensation on account of loss of his future earnings -- Rs. 1.00 lac in lump sum awarded for loss of amenities, pain and suffering – Total compensation of Rs. 13,24,720/- awarded.

(Para 9-13)

Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 8 – Constitution of India, Article 22(5) – Preventive detention – Dossier of detention – Non-supply of – Representation – Right of – Detenue has not been provided the Dossier and precluded from making an effective representation -- Failure on the part of detaining authority to supply the material to the detenu renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable -- Non-consideration of the representation amounts to non-compliance of Article 22(5) of the Constitution -- Petition allowed, impugned detention order quashed -- Respondents directed to release the detenu, if he is not required in any other case.

(Para 5-7)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, Section 306, 498A – Abetment of suicide – Cruelty against wife – Appeal against acquittal -- SHO without conducting proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C registered the FIR – Statement of the mother of the deceased was recorded u/s 164-A Cr.P.C. after 55 days of the occurrence, whereas the statements of other witnesses were recorded after more than 10 days of the occurrence -- From the evidence, it is clear that some witnesses have made improvements in their statements from their statements recorded during the course of investigation -- Some witnesses have categorically stated that the accused never demanded any dowry in their presence -- Benefit is required to be given to the accused/respondents – In the acquittal appeal, simply because the other view is also possible on the same set of evidence, the judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed -- Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 17-23)

A. Constitution of India, Article 300A -- Land acquisition case – Compensation – Limitation -- Whether taking over of possession of the land way back in the year 1969 disentitles the petitioners from claiming compensation – Held, no amount of delay can come in the way of the petitioners to approach this Court for enforcement of their constitutional right to property – Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the award already passed by the Collector – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 14-23)

B. Constitution of India, Article 31, 300A, 370 – Right to property – Delay in claiming compensation -- Right to property was a fundamental right in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir prior to abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, as such, it cannot be stated that the petitioners have waived their right to property – At present, the right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is certainly a Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law -- Even if the right to property has ceased to be a fundamental right, still then it continues to be a legal and constitutional right and no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law -- Denial of this right to a person constitutes a continuing cause of action and, therefore, no amount of delay and laches would extinguish the right to property of a person.

(Para 18)

C. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession by State – Permissibility of -- State cannot claim adverse possession in respect of the property belonging to private persons -- Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the property in question has vested in them because of their long possession over the same.

(Para 19)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in salary – Interest thereupon -- Petitioner was not paid his salary for the period from July, 1992 to August, 1999 and the said salary released only vide cheque dated 05.04.2001 – Held, a person who is performing his duties has a right to receive his salary as and when it is due -- Withholding such salary would be unjustified and interest thereto is required to be paid to the petitioner -- Respondents directed to release the interest on the due salary @12% p.a. as it existed in the year 2001.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in gratuity – Interest thereupon -- Gratuity payment, which was required to be paid in the year 1999, has been paid to the petitioner in February, 2020 -- Interest thereto @ 9% p.a. will have to be paid, as the amount has been wrongfully kept by the respondents with them to which the petitioner was entitled at the relevant time.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366A -- Writ of habeas corpus -- Muslim law -- Marriage of minor girl – Validity of – Allegation of kidnapping/ procuration of minor girl -- Police protection -- Since the marriage is prima facie valid as per the Mohammedan Personal Law, petitioner/ girl being above the age of 15 years i.e., age of puberty and petitioner/ boy also being of marriageable age, and they having performed Nikaah as per their wish, so the custody of petitioner/ girl is directed to be handed over to petitioner/ boy -- Police will be at liberty to investigate the FIR u/s 363, 366A IPC in accordance with law -- Official respondents directed to keep on providing necessary protection to the petitioners as and when required, after assessing threat perception to their life and liberty.

(Para 16, 18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Punjab Samitis and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1965, Rule 8 – Challenge to recruitment process – Participation in selection – Effect of -- Maintainability of writ -- Petitioner’s challenge to the selection conducted by the respondents in the year 1997 on the basis of interview alone and the petitioner having participated therein and remained unsuccessful cannot be held to be maintained -- A person cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time -- Writ Petition dismissed.

(Para 11, 12)