Criminal Procedure – Revisional Court Powers – Re-appreciation of Evidence – Petition challenging the revisional court's order which directed the trial court to reconsider the framing of charges. Held, the revisional court does not have the power to re-appreciate existing evidence but can only interfere if there is procedural irregularity or if material evidence was overlooked or misread by the subordinate court. The revisional court's decision to set aside the discharge order lacked such grounds. Discharge order upheld. [Para 22]

Second Complaint – Maintainability – Second complaint filed after the first was withdrawn without liberty to refile. Held, withdrawal of the first complaint is considered as acquittal under Section 257 Cr.P.C. and a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable under Section 300 Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. [Para 21]

Decision – Petition Allowed – The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 26.5.2017 by the revisional court is set aside. The trial court's order discharging the petitioners is upheld. [Para 25]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Imposition of Compensation – Retrospective Application – Petition challenging the imposition of compensation under Section 148 NI Act for a complaint filed before the amendment. Held, the amendment aimed at addressing undue delay in cheque dishonor cases applies retrospectively to appeals against convictions even if the complaint was filed prior to the amendment. The word "may" in the amended provision is to be construed as "shall." Petition lacks merit; impugned order upheld. [Paras 12-14]

Legal Precedent and Interpretation – The Supreme Court in Surender Singh Deswal held that the amended Section 148 applies to appeals filed before the amendment. The amendment does not affect the substantive right of appeal. The interpretation aligns with the Objects and Reasons of the amendment and Section 138. [Para 12]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The court finds no merit in the petition and upholds the order requiring the petitioner to deposit part of the compensation. The appellate court is encouraged to expedite the appeal. [Paras 14-17]

Constitutional Law - Powers under Article 226/227 - Judicial Review - Certiorari - Appeal against High Court order quashing termination of dealership - Inspection report recorded tampering of holographic seals - Court's jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence questioned - Held, the inspection report, duly signed by authorized representative, categorically noted tampered holographic seals - No challenge to inquiry proceedings - Not a fit case for judicial intervention under Article 226/227 - Order of Single Judge set aside - Appeal allowed. [Para 13]

Tampering of Evidence - Dealer's Responsibility - Analysis - Tampered holographic seals found during inspection - Clear evidence supported by inspection report - Seals found replaced during follow-up inspection - Arguments that seals were tampered by officials rejected - Single Judge erred in re-appreciating evidence and substituting own findings - Termination of dealership justified under dealership agreement and MDG-2012. [Paras 8, 13]

Judicial Review - Scope and Limitations - Held - High Court's powers under Article 226/227 limited to supervisory jurisdiction - Not to act as appellate court or re-appreciate evidence - Certiorari to correct errors of jurisdiction, not findings of fact unless no evidence supports them - Single Judge's order of quashing dealership termination found inappropriate. [Paras 6, 12]

Decision - Termination of Dealership Upheld - Court upheld the termination of dealership by IOCL - Found no procedural impropriety or violation of principles of natural justice - Single Judge's order set aside - Writ petition by respondent dismissed. [Para 14]

Retiral Benefits – Leave Encashment and Age of Superannuation – The appellants challenged the Single Judge's order extending leave encashment benefits for service beyond 60 years. The court held that there is no uniform rule that leave encashment forms part of salary, and it depends on specific statutes and regulations. The Panjab University regulations did not provide for leave encashment beyond the age of 60 years. Hence, the appellants were not liable for leave encashment for the extended period of service beyond 60 years. [Paras 19-20]

Judicial Precedent – Constructive Res Judicata – The respondents' earlier petitions seeking enhancement of superannuation age were dismissed. The court held that the principle of constructive res judicata did not apply as the earlier petitions did not adjudicate on the entitlement to salary and other benefits for the extended period of service. Thus, the present petition was maintainable. [Paras 17-18]

Delay and Laches – The court rejected the contention that the writ petition should be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, as the petitioners acted upon the Supreme Court's judgment in a related matter and filed their petition within a reasonable period. [Para 18]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The court allowed the appeals of the appellant-University, holding that the respondents were not entitled to leave encashment or other retiral benefits for the period of service beyond 60 years. The appeals of the writ petitioners were dismissed. [Paras 21]

Constitutional Law – Distance Education – Validation of Degrees – The appellant challenged the order of the Single Judge which quashed a public notice and subsequent examination results declared by the AICTE. The Single Judge had directed the AICTE to re-compute the results according to an earlier modality. Held, the AICTE must adhere to the strict guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the validity of degrees obtained through distance education. The Supreme Court's intent was to curb the commercialization of education and ensure that degrees obtained through improper channels are not validated post facto. The court upheld the order of the Single Judge, emphasizing the need for maintaining educational standards. [Paras 1-40]

Judicial Precedent – Adherence to Supreme Court Directives – The court noted that the Supreme Court had restricted benefits for degrees obtained through distance education and had mandated strict adherence to its guidelines to prevent dilution of educational standards. The AICTE's attempt to alter modalities post examination was found to be contrary to these directives. [Para 40]

Promotion and Seniority – Impact of Invalid Degrees – The court rejected the argument that promotions based on invalid degrees could be perpetuated. It held that maintaining the integrity of educational qualifications was paramount and that the AICTE must ensure compliance with Supreme Court rulings to uphold the sanctity of professional degrees. [Para 40]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Single Judge’s decision to quash the AICTE's notice and subsequent results, and directing re-computation according to the original modality. [Para 40]

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Bail – Conscious Possession – Recovery of narcotics from a polythene bag thrown on the ground by the petitioner when the police approached – Bail granted – Court found it debatable whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband – The petitioner was not involved in any other case, and all prosecution witnesses were officials, thus reducing the risk of tampering or influencing witnesses – Bail granted subject to compliance with conditions to ensure the petitioner does not commit any similar offence.

Section 37 of NDPS Act – Applicability of Bail Provisions – The court held that while Section 37 imposes strict conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities, the facts of this case, including the uncertainty surrounding the petitioner’s conscious possession, satisfy the requirements of Section 37(1)(b) by implication – The court referred to several precedents, including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, where similar circumstances led to the granting of bail.

Decision:

Regular bail granted to the petitioner with specific conditions imposed to meet the object of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Constitutional Law - Right to Life and Liberty - Live-in Relationship - Petitioners, both majors, seek protection from threats due to their live-in relationship - One petitioner not of marriageable age - Held, Constitution protects the liberty to pursue a way of life - Right to life and liberty includes the right to live with a partner of choice - Petitioners entitled to protection. [Paras 1, 15-16]

Live-in Relationships - Legal Recognition - Analysis - Live-in relationships recognized under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Adults have the right to live together even if not married - Protection of life and liberty is fundamental and stands at the highest pedestal. [Paras 8-10, 15]

Judicial Precedent - Supreme Court and High Court Judgments - Reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions affirming protection for individuals in live-in relationships - Courts emphasize the importance of individual liberty and right to make personal life choices. [Paras 8-14]

Decision - Protection Ordered - Petition allowed - Respondent directed to address representation and provide protection if threat perception found - Petitioners' fundamental rights upheld. [Paras 17-18]

Pre-emption Act – Mandatory Court Order for Deposit – Petition challenging dismissal of application for deposit of 'Zare-Panjim' amount. Held, sub-section (1) of Section 22 mandates that the trial court must order the plaintiff to deposit a sum not exceeding 1/5th of the probable value of the land or property, or to provide security. In the absence of such direction, consequences for non-deposit cannot be imposed on the plaintiff. Dismissal of application set aside. [Paras 1-8]

Litigant Not to Suffer for Court's Mistake – The trial court's failure to issue the required direction under Section 22(1) led to the petitioner’s non-deposit. The petitioner cannot be penalized for this court error. The principle “actus curiae neminemgravabit” (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) applies. [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Allowed – The impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to determine the amount of 'Zare Panjim' and require the petitioner to deposit it or provide security as per Section 22. [Para 9]

Administrative Law - Appointment Process - Selection Committee Recommendations - Validity of Appointment – Held, the State Government is bound to follow the recommendations of the Selection Committee under Rule 6(10) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. The appointment of a candidate lower in merit without assigning valid reasons constitutes a negation of the rule. The impugned appointment order and related memo were quashed. [Paras 1-20]

Role of the Selection Committee - Analysis – Held, the Selection Committee, after assessing the candidates based on suitability, record of past performance, integrity, and adjudicatory experience, recommended a merit-based panel for consideration by the State Government. Ignoring the higher-ranked candidate without valid reasons is incompatible with Rule 6(10) and (11) of the Rules of 2020, thus not legally sustainable. [Para 17]

Decision - Quashing of Appointment Order - The court quashed the appointment order and the related memo, directing the State Government to proceed strictly based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. [Para 20]