Article 14, 226, 309 – Disturbance in seniority – Opportunity of hearing -- Petitioner was initially working as UDC in field cadre and thereafter adjusted in the head office – Impugned order passed after a representation had been received against the change of cadre of the petitioner to head office -- Petitioner had not been issued any notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside -- Respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order after issuance of notice along with furnishing a copy of representation and by affording an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2022

Article 226 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Title dispute -- Vacation of interim relief – Writ jurisdiction -- No reason recorded, which called for vacation of interim relief by ADC -- Writ petition disposed of with the direction that petition u/s 11 of the PVCL Act filed by the petitioners be finally decided by the ADC within a period of three months -- Till then, status quo with regard to possession maintained.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Article 226 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Collusive proclamation – Writ jurisdiction -- Merely because one of the applicants was the father of the petitioner collusion cannot be inferred -- Two other candidates had also applied and there is no evidence that either of them was closely related to the petitioner – Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, upset by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Writ allowed, impugned orders set quashed and appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2022

Article 226 -- Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 148 – Quashing of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Writ jurisdiction -- Where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writ court should not interfere at such a pre-mature stage -- Moreover it is not a case where from bare reading of notice it can be held that the authority has clutched upon the jurisdiction not vested in it -- By now it is well settled that there is vexed distinction between jurisdictional error and error of law/fact within jurisdiction -- For rectification of errors statutory remedy has been provided -- Writ petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Article 226, 227 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 121 -- Sanad Takseem – Revision/ Stay petition pending – Warrant possession – Writ jurisdiction – Sanad Takseem challenged before Financial Commissioner, the matter has not taken up even for preliminary hearing – Meanwhile warrants of possession have been issued – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition alongwith stay application – Till the decision of the stay application, dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2022

Article 226 -- Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – 100% permanent physical impairment – Keeping in view the principles laid down for awarding compensation in Naval Kumar’s case (2017) 3 SCC 115, Rs.95 lakhs awarded to the petitioner with interest payable @7% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition as compensation -- Amount enhanced considering the fact that 5 years have elapsed since the amount was awarded by the Supreme Court in almost similar circumstances and taking into account the cost of inflation, stated to be almost 15% as on date.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Article 226 -- Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – Liability of Electricity Supplier – Onus of proof – Strict liability -- In case of an incident involving electricity line, burden is essentially on the Electricity Board to plead and prove that it was not their fault and the snapping of the live wire can be described to be an act of negligence – When an incident of this nature is involved, inference can surely be drawn that there has been an element of carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining the supply line – Facts of the case lead to application of principle of “strict liability” -- Respondent-Nigam held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2021

Article 226 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 – Shamilat deh -- Encroachment over street – Removal/ Eviction of – Writ jurisdiction -- Street is included within the definition of “Shamlat Deh” -- Collector, on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat, is entitled to pass an order for putting the Gram Panchayat in possession of the Shamlat Deh land -- Since the petitioner can avail an efficacious alternative remedy available u/s 7 of the 1961 Act, therefore, there is no ground to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Petitioner relegated to the alternative remedy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.08.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2021

Article 227 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13-A (Haryana) – Eviction from Gram Panchayat land – Writ jurisdiction -- At the time when the decision was rendered on an application moved u/s 7 of the Act, 1961, the application/petition which was moved by the petitioners u/s 13-A of the Act for declaring them as owners of the land in question stood dismissed, the appeal against which was also dismissed by learned Commissioner and revision before financial Commissioner was also dismissed – Writ against those orders pending -- Mere pendency of an issue before a writ Court or a revisional Court where there is no stay granted with regard to possession, cannot be a ground for keeping the proceedings pending for all time to comes -- Pendency of the matter before the higher Court specially when a declaration sought for has been declined by the competent Court would not be an impediment for passing an order of eviction under Section 7 of Act, 1961.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.08.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.07.2021

Article 14, 226 -- Contractual employment – Removal without opportunity of hearing – Right of – Working as Data Entry Operator since 2013 and contract of his services had been extended from time to time -- Petitioner has been relieved from service, ostensibly in view of some complaints -- Submits that copy of said complaints was not even supplied to the petitioner so as to give him a chance to respond – Petitioner submitted a representation but the same has not been adverted by the respondents till date – Also requested to respondent-authorities to allow him to continue by taking him back in service -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner as per representation and also by keeping in view the contentions raised in the writ petition by treating the same as supplementary representation and pass an order, in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 21, 226 – Live-in relationship – Life and liberty -- Police protection – Right of -- Petitioners are over 18 years of age, are in a live-in-relationship and they have an apprehension that the private respondents might cause physical harm to them -- Petition disposed of with a direction to SSP to look into the representation and take steps, if necessary, in accordance with law to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Article 226 -- National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Acquisition of land – Award by Arbitrator – Writ jurisdiction -- Competent authority assessed the amount of compensation, matter referred to arbitrator for re-assessment -- As per sub-section 6 of Section 3G the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under the Act -- Objections to the award of the Arbitrator are maintainable before the District Court -- Court did not find it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2021

Article 226 – Service matter -- Minimum regular pay scale – Right of -- Representation filed by the petitioners for grant of said benefit, being the employees of the Government Medical College since they are working from various dates starting from the year 2012 on contract basis – Keeping in view the fact that since the decision making is still incomplete, petition disposed of with the directions to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation within a period of 3 months keeping in view the referred judgments.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.07.2021

Article 226 – Release of pensionary benefits – Writ jurisdiction – Petitioner superannuated as clerk on 29.02.2020 – Submitted that no enquiry or complaint is pending – Petitioner submits that requisite formalities have been completed and there is no justification, whatsoever, for withholding pension and retiral benefits of the petitioner – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months and necessary benefits found due towards the petitioner be released to him within four weeks thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.07.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.06.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.06.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.06.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.05.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.05.2021

Article 226 -- Custody of child – Writ of habeas corpus – Extra-marital relationship of mother -- Effect of – Extramarital relationship, the same by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that she would not be a good mother to deny her the custody of her child – Petitioner-mother and respondent-husband have divorced and a decree in this regard has been passed by a court in Australia -- These allegations against the petitioner being wholly unsubstantiated are not considered relevant to adjudicate the issue of custody of the minor child -- Child is under five years of age, she is an Australian citizen and the petitioner is fairly well settled in Australia – It would be in the best interest and welfare of the child if her custody is handed to the petitioner-mother.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Article 226 -- Custody of child – Writ of habeas corpus – Foreign judgment of divorce and custody – Effect of -- Parties had gone to Australia in furtherance of their career prospects -- Child was born in Australia and in initial years was brought up there – Petitioner-mother and respondent-father have divorced and a decree in this regard has been passed by a court in Australia – Order had been passed by the Federal court in Australia, directing the respondent-father to return the child to Australia -- Judgment of a foreign court would not be the only factor while considering the issue of custody of a child to a parent -- It would only be one of the factors for consideration and would be subservient to the paramount consideration of the interest and welfare of the child – When there is an order of the Australian Court, the child is under five years of age, she is an Australian citizen and the petitioner is fairly well settled in Australia – Court considered that it would be in the best interest and welfare of the child if her custody is handed to the petitioner-mother.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Article 226 -- Custody of child – Writ of habeas corpus – Paramount consideration – For issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the custody of a child as what is of paramount consideration is the interest and welfare of the child.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (i) – Recovery suit as mandatory injunction – Advalorem court fee – Rejection of plaint – Prayer of -- Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the court is entitled to carefully examine the contents of the plaint to arrive at a conclusion -- Plaintiff has claimed a definite amount of Rs.6,35,00,000/- -- Suit is for recovery although, styled as suit for mandatory injunction -- Ad valorem court fee is payable according to the amount claimed – Order of lower court, directing to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the amount claimed -- No ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2021

Article 226 – Auction sale by Bank/ Financial Institution -- Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Any Bank or Financial Institution shall not take action for auction in respect of any property of any citizen or person or party or any Body corporate till 30th June, 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Civil Suit – Extension of time for filing written statement -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Time for filing of written-statement or return in any Suit or proceeding pending before any Civil Court or any other forum, unless specifically directed, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- It is however will not preclude the parties from filing such written-statement or return before 30th June, 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Interim protection -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim protection given in the anticipatory bail applications by the High Court or Court of Sessions for a limited period, which is likely to expire from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- However, any party aggrieved by the conduct of the accused on such interim protection, may move the Court over the matter for discontinuation of such interim protection, if any prejudice is caused to him/her, in which event, the Court concerned shall be entitled to take independent view of the matter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Interim bail -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – All the interim bails granted under Section 439, Cr.P.C. by the High Court or Courts of Sessions, limited by timeframe specifying an expiry date from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021, subject to the accused not abusing such liberty or else it may be cancelled at the instance of the State or the complainant, on application with adequate proof of the abuse of the liberty so granted by the Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim orders/directions/ protection – Extension of -- All the interim orders/directions issued or protection granted including any order requiring any compliance by the parties to such proceedings, passed by High Court or any other Court subordinate to it or any Family Court or Labour Court or any Tribunal or any other Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, over which High Court has power of superintendence, which are subsisting today shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021 -- If undue hardship and prejudice of any extreme nature, to any of the parties to such proceeding(s), such parties would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief by moving appropriate application(s) before the Competent Court(s), Tribunal, Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Forum.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 – Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued to Government bodies in suo motu PIL – If the Government of Punjab, Haryana, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and/or any of its Departments and/or functionaries, Central Government and/or its departments or functionaries or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Public or Private Companies or any Firm or any individual or person is/are, by the order of this Court or any Court subordinate to it or the Tribunals, required to do a particular thing or carry out certain direction in a particular manner, in a time frame, which is going to expire at any time from now up to 30th June, 2021, the time for compliance of such order shall stand extended up to 30th June, 2021, unless specifically directed otherwise by the Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 – Eviction/ Demolition by government/ Corporation/ Council/ Board/ Panchayat etc. – Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – State Governments, Union Territory, Chandigarh, or any of its Departments or any Municipal Corporation / Council / Board or any Gram Panchayat or any other local body or any other agency and instrumentality of the State shall not take any action for eviction and demolition in respect of any property, over which any citizen or person or party or any Body Corporate, has physical or symbolic possession as on today till 30th June, 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Execution of eviction, dispossession, demolition etc. -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Orders of eviction, dispossession, demolition, etc. passed by High Court or any Court subordinate to it or any Tribunal or Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, which have so far remained unexecuted, shall remain in abeyance till 30th of June 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 3,6 -- Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3 – Parole – Extension of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Parole granted to a person by order passed by a Court exercising the criminal jurisdiction and limited by time-frame specifying an expiry date from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021, subject to the accused not abusing such liberty or else it may be cancelled at the instance of the State or the complainant, on application with adequate proof of the abuse of the liberty so granted by the Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Article 227 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B -- Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six months – Denial of -- Revisional against -- Marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken and now they have decided to part their ways, so that they both have an opportunity to live their lives in the manner they like and in the given situation -- Insistence of the Court below to wait to another six months would result in adding to their woes -- Revision petition allowed, Family Court, shall entertain the joint petition by waiving off six months period.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.04.2021

Article 14 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – 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.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 17.03.2021 Decided on: 09.04.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Objection to proper court fee – Dismissal of application – Appeal/Revision against – Maintainability of -- No further appeal or revision at the hands of the defendants is maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Article 227 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Execution of order -- Revisional Court’s power -- Enhancement of compensation by High Court in Appeal was ordered to be invested in a FDR and the interest accruing thereon be paid to the petitioner/ claimant – Ordering any deviation in the mode of investment would tantamount to modification of the judgement – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify the judgement and that too in proceedings arising out of execution of that very judgement.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Execution petition pending since 2016 – Revision against -- Warrants of possession have been issued on numerous dates but either the same have not been received back or have been returned back unexecuted – Direction given to Executing Court to finally decide the execution petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Application for amendment of written statement – Dismissal by Trial Court – Revision petition -- It is trite that the Courts are more liberal while allowing the amendment of a written statement viz-a-viz that of a plaint -- However, in the case not only the trial has commenced but the amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner would change the entire defence as raised by the him in his written statement -- Not only is the date of payment, but also the name of the person to whom the payment is stated to have been paid, is sought to be changed -- Amendment sought would not only cause prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent but would also necessarily entail a de novo trial, which is at the fag end -- Revision petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1909), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Order 43 Rule 1(r), Section 151 -- Dismissal of application u/o 39 R 1 & 2 by trial court -- Revisional jurisdiction – Petitioners have an alternate remedy available to them under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC of filing an appeal against the impugned order -- Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.03.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Respondent has unambiguously averred that after sale of the property in his favour he has become landlord and owner and that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties -- Grounds on which the petitioner is seeking rejection of the ejectment petition are a matter of evidence and are not germane for deciding the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC -- Though the property in the sale deed has been described as a house, however, the petitioner is not able to deny the fact that the description of the property is identical in both the sale deed as well as the ejectment petition – Rejection of the plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences -- This power has to be used in exceptional circumstances and should be used only when the Court is absolutely sure that the plaintiff does not have an arguable case at all -- Application filed by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application dismissed by Trial court – Revision against dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Article 15(3), 51-A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Restitution of conjugal rights – Transfer of case -- Complaint is already pending before the crime against women cell, Gurugram, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if the same are tried and decided at one place -- Ethos as manifested under Article 51-A of Constitution of India envisage that it shall be fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman -- In addition, per Article 15 (3), power has also been conferred on the State to make special provisions for women and children – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was amended w.e.f. 23.12.2003 that in case of a wife being the petitioner, jurisdiction was conferred to the Court within local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is residing on the date of presentation of the petition -- Without going into the allegations/counter allegations, the transfer application allowed -- Petition transferred to the District Judge, Gurugram.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226 -- Parole – Marriage of relative – Conviction in NDPS case – Relative whose marriage is statedly fixed is not very closely related to the petitioner, Court not inclined to pass any order to allow emergency parole -- However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner ordered to be sent to the venue of the marriage in custody.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – Appeal and stay application before FC – Non-decision upon – Writ petition -- Appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 02.02.2021 but was adjourned to 20.04.2021 as the said officer did not hold the Court on that day – Application for preponement was listed on 23.02.2021, but has again been adjourned to 20.04.2021 -- Petition disposed of with directions that the stay application be heard and decided on 20.04.2021 by the learned Financial Commissioner -- In case there is any exigency in holding the Court on 20.04.2021, then the order be passed on the said application within a period of one week thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226 -- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), Section 9 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.03.2021

Article 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) – Possession notice – Challenge to -- After the deposit of Rs.20 lacs on conditional stay, the account of the petitioners was regularized on the direction of the court -- After regularization, the account again declared NPA on account of defaults – After the declaration of NPA afresh, fresh proceedings are to be initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the previous action, which is under challenge before Court, would need no adjudication -- A fresh cause of action would arise in favour of the petitioners after the initiation of fresh proceedings under the SARFAESI Act -- Petition rendered infructuous.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.03.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.02.2021

Article 226, 227 – Parole – Sickness of mother -- Habitual offender – Petitioner involved in other cases -- Medical history of the mother of the petitioner indicates that she is a chronic patient of liver disease and jaundice and was also diagnosed as case of severe urinary track infection -- Taking into account seriousness of disease, the Doctor has suggested good family care and treatment to save her life -- Petitioner granted eight weeks parole.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.02.2021

Article 21 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 374 – Cheque bounce case – Appeal against conviction – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of amount of fine or compensation – Interpretation of -- Section 374 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any condition for admission of an appeal – Deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under no circumstances can be interpreted to be a condition pre-requisite for availing the right of appeal -- Imposition of any condition at the time of suspending of sentence may be a different matter failing which the order suspending sentence may be vacated -- While giving a wider connotation to Article 21 of Constitution of India, it can even be said that depriving a convict of his right to appeal by imposing any pre-requisite for availing his statutory right to challenge conviction in a higher Court would amount to depriving his liberty without adhering to the established procedure of law

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Article 21 -- Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Compromise between parties – Withdrawal of suit – Maintainability of Execution proceedings – Void ib initio – Delayed revision – Acceptance of -- Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with the execution of the decree and order -- There exists neither any judgment nor a decree on the basis of the compromise -- There is merely an order, whereby the suit was dismissed as withdrawn -- In the absence of a decree or executable order, it is not understandable as to how the execution proceedings could have been initiated and further entertained by the Court below – Though, the revision petition has been filed after a delay of four years, yet to permit an illegal proceeding and an order, which is void ab initio, to stand would be travesty of justice -- Execution proceedings and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of the said execution proceedings are held illegal, null, and void.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.02.2020

Article 20(2) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 -- Second Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Double jeopardy -- Trial court convicted the accused – Appellate Court acquitted the accused solely based upon Yogendra Pratap Singh’s case, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 550 -- Hon’ble Apex Court held in that case, where the complaint was filed before the expiry of the period 15 days stipulated in the notice, the Court cannot take the cognizance thereof, however, the second complaint on the same cause of action has been held to be maintainable and the delay in filing such complaint shall be deemed to have been condoned -- Held, it cannot be said that the filing of the second complaint and passing of the summoning order therein, amounts to double jeopardy to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.01.2020

Article 141 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 145 – Cheque bounce case – Stare Decisis -- Accused’s evidence by way of affidavit – Permissibility of – Accused, while appearing as his own witness in defence does not have any right to lead the evidence by way of affidavit – Held, even if the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Indian Bank Association 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 598 is taken to be suggesting contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd., 2010(1) JT 259, then also, it is the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd., which shall hold the field, being earlier in point of time and having been delivered by a Bench of equal strength.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.02.2019