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)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Revisional Jurisdiction – Mentioning of brief facts in judgment – Requirement of -- High Court records that the parties advanced contentions at length, there is no reflection of these so called submissions which are stated to have been advanced at length -- It is not necessary, in the matter like this to record elaborate reasons but since these matters are carried forward to this Court, the reasons, albeit brief, have to be recorded to facilitate Supreme Court to understand what weighed with the learned Judge while dismissing the petition -- Impugned order set aside and matter remitted back for reconsideration so that the order to be passed one way or the other records reasons for the same, albeit even if they are brief -- It would be in the fitness of things that the matter is placed before another learned Judge.

(Para 4)

King George Medical University Act, Uttar Pradesh Act, 2002 (U.P. Act No. 2 of 2019), Section 53 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturers – Challenge to -- Act which Governs the appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturers in the University itself provides a mechanism for questioning an appointment, i.e., by representation to the Chancellor that too within a period of three months -- Any challenge to appointment after more than three years cannot be entertained -- Respondent No.4 in his representation before the Chancellor never challenged the appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor and had filed representation only claiming seniority over appellant after he got promoted as Assistant Professor himself in the year 2007 – Held, High Court ought not to have entertained the challenge to the appointment of appellant in the writ petition and ought to have confined the consideration of claim of respondent No.4 for seniority over the appellant -- When the appointment of appellant was not challenged in reasonable time as per the provisions of the Act, 2002, it is not in the ends of justice to permit the respondent No.4 to challenge such appointment in the High Court in the writ petition for the first time, after more than four years of the appointment -- Judgment of the High Court set aside.

(Para 26-28)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 32 – LARSGESS scheme adopted by Railways – Backdoor entry in service – Appointment sought for certain wards of serving employees without undergoing a competitive selection -- Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways -- This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution -- Union government has with justification discontinued the scheme -- Petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme -- Grant of reliefs to the petitioners would only enable them to seek a back door entry -- Petition under Article 32, dismissed.

(Para 6, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 4, 13-B -- Panchayati Divorce – Re-marriage with another girl – Police protection petition – Maintainability of -- In view of Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 all customs and usages ceased to have effect -- Alleged marriage would be illegal and against the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 inasmuch as this marriage has been contracted without the petitioner No.1 being legally divorced – Petition is held to be not maintainable at the behest of the petitioners – However as an individual either of the petitioners, if they apprehend any threat to their life or liberty, would be entitled to approach the Police for redressal of their apprehensions regarding threats to their life and liberty.

(Para 5-8)

A. Muslim law – Marriage of 17 years old girl – Validity of -- Marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by the Muslim Personal Law -- Petitioner No.2 being over 17 years of age was competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice -- Petitioner No.1 is stated to be more than 36 years of age -- Thus, both the petitioners held to be of marriageable age as envisaged by Muslim Personal Law.

(Para 10)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Muslim law – Run-away marriage -- Girl aged 17 years and boy aged 36 years  -- Life and liberty – Police protection – Right of -- Merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of the fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India -- Petition disposed off with a direction to the SSP to decide the representation of the petitioners and take necessary action as per law.

(Para 11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in release of retiral benefits – Interest thereupon -- Petitioner retired on 29.02.2016, contention that after serving of the legal notice dated 6.2.2018, the retiral benefits of the petitioner have been released in the year 2019-2020 and as per the principles of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab, 1997(3) SCT 468, the petitioner is entitled for interest – Petition disposed of with the direction to respondent to decide the legal notice qua the aspect of interest by passing a speaking order within a period of three months -- In case, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the monetary benefits after the decision of the legal notice, the same should also be paid to the petitioner within three months thereafter.

(Para 1-6)

Constitution of India, Section 136 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay of 502 days in filing SLP – Condonation of -- Leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of Supreme Court -- This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563 – Such kind of cases as “certificate cases” filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court -- Objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately -- Rs.25,000/- cost imposed for wastage of judicial time -- Amount ordered to be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition – SLP dismissed as time barred.

(Para 2-6)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357-A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Writ jurisdiction -- Rape victim – Rights of -- Held, petitioner being a rape victim deserves treatment as rape victim by all the authorities – A rape victim suffers not only a mental trauma but also discrimination from the society – Petitioner has two sons and one daughter – One son major, two children of the petitioner are still minor – Section 357A of the Cr.P.C provides procedure for grant of compensation, the petitioner had already made application to seek compensation under the above Scheme and payment of compensation has already been made. Directions given :

-- The Deputy Commissioner, to take measure to ensure that minor children of the petitioner are provided free education in any of the Government Institutions in District where the petitioner is residing till they attain the age of 14 years.

-- The Deputy Commissioner may also consider the case of the petitioner for providing house under Prime Minister Awas Yojna or any other Central or State Scheme in which petitioner could be provided accommodation.

-- The Senior Superintendent of Police, and other competent authority shall review the Police security provided to the petitioner from time to time and take such measures as deem fit and proper.

-- The District Legal Services Authority on representation made by the petitioner shall render legal services to the petitioner as may be deemed fit to safeguard the interest of the petitioner.

(Para 16-19, 25-27)

A. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), Sections 3, 6, 25 -- Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, Rule 5 -- Interpretation of Notification dated 14.09.2006/ 22.08.2013, Item 7 (f) – National Highway – Expansion of – Environment clearance – Requirement of -- Item 7 (f) to the Notification dated 22.08.2013 would make it clear that expansion of a National Highway project needs prior environmental clearance in case (a) expansion of the National Highway project is greater than 100 km. and (b) it involves additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or bypasses -- In the current case, there is no ambiguity or scope for two interpretations -- Golden rule of interpretation adopted to hold that there is no requirement of prior environmental clearance for expansion of a National Highway project merely because the distance is greater than 100 km -- Obligated to obtain prior environmental clearance only the additional right of way or land acquisition is greater than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or by passes for a National Highway project which is greater than 100 km.

(Para 7-10, 15)

B. Right to way – Toll Plaza -- Toll plazas are included in the “right of way” – Contention that amenities such as toll plazas and rest houses cannot be part of the right of way, in other words, that toll plazas and rest houses can be set up beyond the limit specified in the Notification dated 22.08.2013, court did not agree as Para 2.3 of the Manual makes it clear that right of way is the total land width required for the project Highway to accommodate right of way, side drains, service roads, tree plantations, utilities etc., toll plazas and rest houses should be included in the “right of way” -- Held, “right of way” includes the existing National Highway and the additional right of way -- If the existing National Highway is 20 meters then the right of way will be that 20 meters and the land acquired for the additional right of way.

(Para 23, 24)

C. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), Sections 3, 6, 25 -- Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, Rule 5 -- Segmentation of National Highway – Permissibility of -- Segmentation as a strategy is not permissible for evading environmental clearance as per Notifications dated 14.09.2006 and 22.08.2013 -- Whether segmentation of a National Highway project beyond a distance of 100 kms is permissible -- If it is permissible, the circumstances under which segmentation can be done also requires to be examined by the expert committee. Directions given;

-- The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India shall constitute an Expert Committee to examine whether segmentation is permissible for National Highway projects beyond a distance of 100 kms and, if permissible, under what circumstances.

-- The Appellant is directed to fulfil the requirement of reafforestation in accordance with the existing legal regime.

(Para 20, 24-26)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 15 – Run-away marriage – Police protection for life and liberty -- Aadhar card as a proof of age -- Since protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without making any comment whatsoever on the validity of the marriage, or otherwise, petition disposed of with a direction to respondents to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners -- No firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhar Cards, which is actually not a firm proof of age – Held, if any of the petitioners are found to be below the marriageable age, the order shall not be construed to be a bar on any proceedings.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointed earlier, however regularised after 2004 -- Old Pension scheme – Applicability of -- Argues that as per Harbans Lal's case, (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15829 though the services of the employees might have been regularized after 01.01.2004 but in case, the said employees were in service prior to the said date, they will be governed by the old Pension Scheme -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of four months, in case, after the decision, the petitioner is found entitled for the relief, the same be also extended to them expeditiously but not later than two months from the said decision.

(Para 2, 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 111 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Partition proceedings – Admission of ROR, declining of stay – Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioners refrains from challenging the order declining stay and sought direction to decide the pending ROR on date fixed and till then the AC 1^st Grade be restrained from passing any order – Held, prayer is reasonable, FCR directed to decide the ROR on the next date, till then, AC1st Grade restrained from passing any order in the pending partition proceedings.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Banking default case -- One time settlement (OTS) – Delay in deposit – Extension of – Writ petition disposed of with permission to the petitioner to pay the balance amount with interest at the rate of 9%. Anu Bhalla’s case (P&H DB) (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15836 relied.

(Para 2, 3)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 16, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Writ jurisdiction -- Appointment of Sole Arbitrator – Jurisdiction of – challenge to -- Respondent No. 1 did not take legal recourse against the appointment of the sole arbitrator, and rather submitted themselves before the tribunal to adjudicate on the jurisdiction issue as well as on the merits -- In this situation, he has to endure the natural consequences of submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the sole arbitrator, which can be challenged, through an application u/s 34 -- Award has already been passed during the pendency of this appeal, and the Respondent No. 1 challenge u/s 34 to the same -- Held, High Court erred in utilizing its discretionary power available under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution -- Order of the High Court set aside -- Respondent No. 1 is at liberty to raise any legally permissible objections regarding the jurisdictional question in the pending Section 34 proceedings.

(Para 22-26)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 16, 34 – Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (4 of 1992),  Section 2(k) -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Writ jurisdiction -- Contract – Interpretation of -- Contract between the parties indicates that it was for both manufacturing as well as supply of bricks -- Pertinent question therefore is whether the present contract, which is composite in nature, falls within the ambit of a works contract under Section 2(k) of the Gujarat Act -- Question requires contractual interpretation, and is a matter of evidence, especially when both parties have taken contradictory stands regarding this issue -- It is a settled law that the interpretation of contracts in such cases shall generally not be done in the writ jurisdiction -- Mere fact that the Gujarat Act might apply may not be sufficient for the writ courts to entertain the plea to challenge the ruling of the arbitrator u/s 16 of the Arbitration Act.

(Para 24)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Sale notice by Bank – Challenged in writ petition -- One Time Settlement/ OTS offered – Petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the sum of Rs.2.50 crores within the stipulated period – Stated that sum of Rs.50 lakhs shall be deposited by 28.12.2020, before 11:00 A.M. and rest of the amount of Rs.2 crores by 31.03.2021 – Writ petition disposed of, in case amount of Rs.50 lakhs is deposited by the petitioners by 11:00 A.M. on 28.12.2020, auction of the property scheduled for 28.12.2020 be deferred -- Sale notice dated 27.11.2020 shall stand set aside -- On failure of the petitioners to deposit the said amount, respondent is at liberty to proceed with the auction.

(Para 4-6)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 – Live-in-relationship with major boy of not marriageable age – Life and liberty – Protection petition -- Petitioners cannot possibly be denied enforcement of their fundamental rights as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Petitioners, both being major, have decided to live together in a live-in relationship and there possibly may not be any legally justifiable reason for the respondents to object to the same -- SSP directed to decide the representation and take necessary action as per law.

(Para 9, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Auction purchaser – Non-deposit of money -- Forfeiture of earnest money –  Settlement of issue – Refund of GST on earnest money – Petitioner ready to deposit full amount with interest – Direction given that in case the petitioner deposit the entire amount along with applicable interest i.e. 9% and the GST (already deposited by the bank to the Government on or before 28.12.2020), the Bank will transfer the property in the name of the petitioner and shall issue sale certificate forthwith -- Bank is also directed to apply for refund of the GST from the Government which has been deposited by it and in case the same is refunded, transfer the same to the petitioner forthwith.

(Para 2, 5-7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 9 -- Run-away marriage – Boy aged 18 years and girl aged 16-1/2 are not competent to perform marriage -- FIR against Granthi of Gurudwara Sahib registered, where marriage solemnised – It will open for the I.O. to investigate the case registered u/s 363 and 366-A IPC in accordance with law -- Petition for protection of life and liberty dismissed – Custody of girl handed over to Gandhi Vanita Ashram, who will take care of the studies of girl and will also abide by the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, till she attains the age of majority.

(Para 9-12)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Contractual employee – Termination of -- It is the duty of Courts to ensure that employees are fairly treated -- A contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee as it would permit the employer to keep a sanctioned post vacant and make a person work on reduced remuneration against the said post.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment through intermediary – Status of -- Termination of -- Right of -- Petitioner was not directly appointed by the Government -- Fact that respondent No.2/ Director General, Department of Horticulture, Haryana was issuing direct orders for allocating work to the petitioner does not in any way lead to the conclusion that he was directly appointed by the said respondent -- Overall control however, remains with respondent No.4/ Contractor who would be the employer of the petitioner -- If the manpower supplied is replaced by the contractor, he continues to be the employee of the contractor and can be deployed elsewhere -- He does not become jobless and in case wages are not being paid to him, he can invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Adjudicator -- Industrial Adjudicator can also pierce the veil and return a finding that the contract in the present case is a sham but to return such a finding evidence would need to be led – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

A. Constitution of India, Section 191, 193 – Vote for election of Rajya Sabha in forenoon – Conviction on same day afternoon – Effect of -- “Whether the vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly in an election to the Rajya Sabha, in the forenoon on the date of election, would become invalid, consequent upon his disqualification, arising out of a conviction and sentence imposed by a Criminal Court, in the afternoon on the very same day?” -- It is not possible to hold that the vote casted at 9:15 a.m. should be treated as invalid on account of the conviction and sentence passed by the criminal Court at 2:30 p.m. on the same day – Held, vote cast at 9:15 a.m. was rightly treated as a valid vote.

(Para 1, 58-61)

B. Constitution of India, Article 191, 193 -- Conviction of M.L.A. by Court -- Disqualification to continue – Effect of -- A disqualification for which penalty is prescribed under Article 193, also invites civil consequences such as the denial of privileges that go with the membership, other than the penalty stipulated in Article 193 – Held, once a person is disqualified, he ceases to be a member and his right to vote also ceases alongwith his membership -- This is a natural consequence of a person ceasing to be a member and this consequence is automatic and not dependent upon Article 193 -- Therefore, Court cannot stretch Article 193 to such an extent that even the natural consequences of disqualification of a member will not get attracted because of the prescription of a penalty.

(Para 48)

A. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 – Custody of minor child – Natural guardian – Right of -- No doubt, u/s 6 the father is a natural guardian of a minor child has a preferential right to claim its custody but Section 6 cannot supersede the dominant consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor child -- Whenever a question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of a minor child, the matter is to be decided not on considerations of the legal rights of parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the minor.

(Para 12)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of minor child – Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Writ of habeas corpus can be issued for restoration of custody of a minor to the guardian wrongfully deprived of it -- However, exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to issue writ of habeas corpus in such cases is not solely dependent on and does not necessarily follow merely determination of illegality of detention and is based on the paramount consideration of welfare of the minor child irrespective of legal rights of the parents -- Welfare of the child is not to be measured by money only nor merely physical comfort -- The word 'welfare' must be taken in its widest sense -- Moral or religious welfare of the child must be considered as well as its physical wellbeing.

(Para 13-18)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custody of minor child – Writ of habeas corpus by mother – Minor girl child removed from Canada and brought to India – Whether paramount consideration of the welfare and best interest of the minor girl child lies in return to Canada or continued stay in India -- Both the parents are permanent residents of Canada, are gainfully employed in Canada and have purchased house in Canada and father has not wound up and left employment in Canada and permanently settled in India -- Child has spent major part of more than five years of her life of six years in Canada resulting in her integration with the social, physical, psychological, cultural and academic environment of Canada – On the basis of the summary inquiry, for the welfare and in best of interest of the minor girl child direction given to father to return to Canada alongwith minor daughter on or before 01.01.2021; fails to comply with direction, father shall hand over custody of the minor girl child and her passport to the petitioner on 02.01.2021 or such other date as may be agreed to by the petitioner -- On such return of the minor girl child to Canada, either of the parties shall be at liberty to file appropriate application/petition for appointment of guardian, grant of custody of the minor girl child before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

(Para 29-32)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156, 173 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Closure report – Fair Investigaiton -- Investigation and closure report do not contain any material with regard to the nature of investigation for insufficiency of evidence against them -- Closure report is based on the ipse dixit of the Investigating Officer -- Investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate -- Police has the primary duty to investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable offence -- This is a statutory duty under the Cr.P.C. apart from being a constitutional obligation to ensure that peace is maintained in the society and the rule of law is upheld and applied -- To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate is a preposterous statement, coming from the police – Trial of other accused stayed, closure reports partly set aside insofar as the non-charged sheeted accused are concerned -- I.P.S. appointed to carry out further investigation through a team of competent officers.

(Para 6, 7, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Investigaiton by police – Interference in – Power of -- Police has a statutory duty to investigate into any crime in accordance with law as provided in the Cr. P.C. -- Investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with -- But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police -- Once the conscience of the court is satisfied, from the materials on record, that the police has not investigated properly or apparently is remiss in the investigation, the court has a bounden constitutional obligation to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law -- If the court gives any directions for that purpose within the contours of the law, it cannot amount to interference with investigation -- A fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court has the bounden obligation to ensure adherence by the police.

(Para 8)