Constitutional Law - Writ Petition under Article 226 - Motor Vehicles Act - Cancellation of Permits - Due Process - Petitioners' stage carriage permits cancelled without notice due to non-payment of tax during Covid-19 lockdown - Petitioners admitted tax liability but were not given a chance to explain or pay in lump sum before permits were cancelled - Held, Section 86 of the MV Act requires opportunity for hearing before cancellation of permits - Non-compliance with procedural requirements cons`itutes arbitrary and illegal action - Petition allowed, permits ordered to be reinstated.[Paras 1-18]

Administrative Law - Opportunity for Hearing - Analysis - Held - Even in cases of admitted liability, procedural fairness requires that the affected party be given an opportunity to explain or rectify the default before punitive action is taken - The petitioners were denied this procedural right, rendering the cancellation of permits illegal and arbitrary.[Para 14]

Decision - Reinstatement of Permits - Respondents directed to release the buses and allow the petitioners to operate them subject to compliance with permit conditions - Liberty granted to respondents to proceed according to law for any other infractions.[Para 17-18]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Acquittal of Co-Accused - Petitioner absconding - Petitioner granted anticipatory bail with direction to surrender before the Magistrate - Held, other accused acquitted after proper trial, but petitioner fled to foreign land shortly after FIR was lodged - Statutory duty of Magistrate to ensure petitioner's presence through Indian Embassy at Qatar - Process improperly served through parents - Court directs invoking Section 299, Cr.P.C., against petitioner - Charges to be drawn and prosecution evidence to be opened.

[Paras 1-9]

Bail - Procedure for Absconding Accused - Analysis - Held - Magistrate should have issued process to ensure petitioner's presence through proper channels, including Indian Embassy - Issuance of proclamation notice upon petitioner without exhausting proper process resulted in failure of justice.

[Para 7]

Decision - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on condition of surrendering before the Magistrate within a week - Anticipatory bail to convert to regular bail upon surrender - Magistrate directed to proceed under Section 299, Cr.P.C., to draw charges and open prosecution evidence.

[Para 9]

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 - UGC Regulations - Denial of Benefits of Senior Scale/Selection Grade - Petitioners were Lecturers initially appointed on a temporary basis and later on a permanent basis - Temporary service period not considered for benefits of Senior Scale and Selection Grade - Held, service period during ad hoc/temporary appointment followed by regular service should be counted towards Senior Scale and Selection Grade benefits - Petitioners' services were never formally terminated, and artificial breaks during summer vacation do not constitute a break in service - Mere denial of salary during breaks cannot be considered a break in service - Once the break period is condoned, benefits must be granted - Petition allowed.

[Paras 1-10]

Service Law - Temporary Service Period and Benefits - Analysis - Held - Artificial breaks during temporary service do not constitute a real break - The service was continuous for all purposes - Respondents had previously condoned breaks for pay protection and increments, making them unjustified in denying Senior Scale and Selection Grade benefits - UGC regulations support the petitioners' claims.

[Para 7-9]

Decision - Benefits Granted - Respondents directed to count past service during temporary appointment towards Senior Scale and Selection Grade in accordance with UGC regulations - Petitioners entitled to arrears arising from re-fixation of pay.

[Para 10]

Criminal Law - Summoning of Additional Accused –Criminal Revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge allowing the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – FIR registered following a scuffle between Brahmin and Dalit youngsters – The final report found some accused innocent, but this was not conclusive – The court emphasized that the right to fair investigation and trial extends equally to the victim – Satisfaction required for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than at the time of framing charges – Petition dismissed as the summoning order did not suffer from any illegality. [Paras 1-13]

Right to Fair Trial – Equal Rights for Victims and Accused –Held – The court reiterated that the right to a fair trial is not confined to the accused but extends to the victim as well – Courts must ensure that no actual offender is let go scot-free – The findings in the final report regarding the innocence of some accused are not conclusive – Courts have the power to examine the evidence independently to ensure justice. [Para 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – court dismissed the criminal revision petition, affirming the summoning of additional accused as per Section 319 Cr.P.C. – The order did not exhibit any illegality, irregularity, infirmity, or perversity. [Paras 12-13]

Juvenile Justice – Bail Application –Criminal Revision against the order rejecting bail by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board – Petitioner a juvenile accused under Sections 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC and Sections 25(1B)(a), 27(1) Arms Act – Revision allowed – Gravity of the offense is not a criterion to reject bail for a juvenile – Impugned order passed without reference to social background report – No evidence suggesting petitioner would associate with criminals or face moral, physical, or psychological danger if released – Petition allowed and petitioner released on bail. [Paras 1-13]

Consideration of Social Background Report – Importance –Held – The impugned orders lacked reference to the Social Background Report – The court emphasized the necessity of considering such reports in bail decisions for juveniles – Absence of such consideration deemed a significant oversight, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders. [Para 13]

Decision –Criminal Revision allowed –The court allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge – The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. [Para 14]

Eligibility for Membership – Primary Society Chairmanship – Section 28 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 – Petitioner ceased to be the Chairman of the Primary Society on 15.08.2019 – Consequently, he ceased to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Union – Order of removal from the post of Chairman upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Statutory Interpretation – Board of Directors – Section 28(1) provides for election and tenure of the committee members of a co-operative society – Tenure of office bearers governed by Section 30 and the bye-laws of the society – Petitioner’s argument based on Section 28(4) dismissed as it does not apply to office bearers [Paras 12-17].

Administrative Fairness – Compliance with Bye-laws – Bye-law 16.1 requires the Chairman of the Union to be an elected Chairman of an affiliated primary society – Petitioner’s cessation as Chairman of the primary society led to automatic disqualification from the Board of Directors of the Union [Paras 13-17].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioner’s removal from the post of Chairman of Rohtak Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Rohtak upheld – Petitioner ceased to be eligible for membership on losing primary society chairmanship – No merit in the petition [Paras 20-21].

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Senior citizen mother filed a civil suit for eviction of her son from her property – Appeal questioned the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, citing exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the 2007 Act – Court held that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is plenary and not explicitly barred by the Act – No clear provision in the Act conferring eviction jurisdiction to Tribunals – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2-18].

Eviction of Family Members – Senior Citizens – Mother sought eviction of her son from her property, arguing he had no right, title, or interest – Lower courts found in favor of the mother, recognizing her ownership and right to evict – Court emphasized the welfare of senior citizens and interpreted the Act to advance substantive justice – Appeal against eviction dismissed [Paras 3, 10-12].

Jurisdiction and Exclusion – Tests from Supreme Court Precedent – Applied seven tests from the Supreme Court case of Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh to determine exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction – Found the suit maintainable and not barred by the Act – Emphasized that exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Lower court judgments upheld – Appeal dismissed, affirming the mother’s right to evict the son from her property – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 174-A IPC – Non-appearance in Court – FIR registered against the petitioner for non-appearance in trial proceedings – Petitioner later granted anticipatory bail and acquitted in the main case – High Court held that continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC after acquittal in the main case constitutes abuse of court process – FIR quashed [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Precedents – Quashing in Similar Circumstances – Court relied on precedents where FIRs under Section 174-A IPC were quashed when the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution or concluded in favor of the accused – Affirmed that acquittal in the main case warrants quashing of FIR for non-appearance [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR under Section 174-A IPC and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Continuation of such proceedings after acquittal deemed abuse of the process of the court [Paras 11].

Education Law – Admission and Eligibility – Fault of School – Petitioner took Class XII examination but was declared ineligible due to his Class X certificate being from a non-recognized school – Court held it was the responsibility of the admitting school to verify documents before granting admission to Class XI – Fault lies with the school, not the student – Writ petition allowed, directing CBSE to declare the petitioner’s result [Paras 1-12].

Misrepresentation – Responsibility of School – Allegation of misrepresentation by the petitioner was not acceptable as students and parents typically sign printed forms provided by the school – It was the school's duty to verify the eligibility criteria – Failure to scrutinize admission documents disqualified the CBSE from taking detrimental action against the petitioner [Para 11].

Judicial Precedents – Doctrine of Waiver and Acquiescence – Relied on precedent where the doctrine of waiver and acquiescence applied in similar circumstances – No concealment or misrepresentation by the student found – CBSE directed to declare the petitioner’s result [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Decision declaring petitioner ineligible quashed – CBSE directed to declare petitioner’s Class XII result within four weeks [Para 12].