Contempt of Court – Allegation of willful disobedience of an order granting anticipatory bail – Addition of further offenses during investigation – Arrest of the petitioner – Violation of a previous judgment – Petitioner’s bail applications subsequently dismissed – Respondents contending proper procedure was followed – Petitioner’s counsel arguing arrest in violation of a previous judgment – Court examining the sequence of events – Petitioner initially filing bail applications later withdrawn or rendered infructuous – Court finding no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents – Court opining arrest made for completing the investigation – Court concluding no intentional or willful disobedience – Petition dismissed.

Passport Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 3, Section 14(5)(d) and (e), Section 15(2) – Proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board – Whether constitutes ‘Criminal Court’ – Petitioner falsely implicated in criminal case – Juvenile at the time of occurrence – Applied for re-issue of passport – Passport withheld by authorities – Challenge to the action of respondents No.2 and 3 – Prayer for re-issuance of passport – Inquiry proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board stayed by Court – Whether proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board qualify as proceedings before Criminal Court – Whether Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act applicable – Observations of Court – Juvenile Justice Board has trappings of Criminal Court – Proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board attract Section 6(2)(f) – Office Memorandum exempting citizens with pending criminal proceedings from Passport Act’s provisions – Petitioner entitled to issuance of passport subject to appropriate orders from Juvenile Justice Board – Petition disposed of accordingly. (Para No.1- 16)

Passport Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 3, Section 14(5)(d) and (e), Section 15(2) – Proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board – Whether constitutes ‘Criminal Court’ – Petitioner falsely implicated in criminal case – Juvenile at the time of occurrence – Applied for re-issue of passport – Passport withheld by authorities – Challenge to the action of respondents No.2 and 3 – Prayer for re-issuance of passport – Inquiry proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board stayed by Court – Whether proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board qualify as proceedings before Criminal Court – Whether Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act applicable – Observations of Court – Juvenile Justice Board has trappings of Criminal Court – Proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board attract Section 6(2)(f) – Office Memorandum exempting citizens with pending criminal proceedings from Passport Act’s provisions – Petitioner entitled to issuance of passport subject to appropriate orders from Juvenile Justice Board – Petition disposed of accordingly. (Para No.1- 16)

Compensation awarded for erroneous examination result: In this Civil Writ Jurisdiction case, the Court granted compensation to petitioner no. 2 for the erroneous publication of her Secondary School Examination result, causing adverse effects on her career and future prospects. The Court held the Board liable for the inordinate delay in responding to the scrutiny request and condemned its irresponsible conduct. (Para 2, 10, 11)

Impact of delay and incorrect result on petitioner’s life: Due to the delay and incorrect result, petitioner no. 2 suffered mental agony, humiliation, and loss of valuable study time. This act of the Board significantly affected her life, leading to discontinuation of further studies and loss of two academic years. (Para 5, 6, 10)

Compensation amount: Taking into account the sufferance caused to the petitioner, the Court directed the Board to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost. (Para 12)

Inquiry and accountability: The Court granted the Board liberty to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility upon the officials at fault. The Board was given the authority to recover the compensation amount from the responsible officials. (Para 14, 15)

Bail Application – Accused involved in a case of alleged assault resulting in the death of the complainant – Bail sought under Section 439 Cr.PC – Charges under Sections 504, 448, 323, 324, 354 read with Section 34 IPC initially registered, later Section 302 IPC added – Case and counter-case registered in relation to the same incident. (Para 1)

Incident Details – Allegation of the complainant being physically assaulted and verbally abused by the accused in a sudden quarrel – Counter-complaint lodged by one of the accused, alleging aggression from the complainant’s side – Serious injuries sustained by both parties during the altercation. (Para 3)

Medical Findings – Post-mortem report indicates the cause of death as pulmonary embolism resulting from multiple injuries – Initial medical treatment sought by the complainant – Incident occurred on 02.04.2023, and the complainant succumbed to injuries on 05.04.2023. (Para 9)

Court’s Observations – No determination of intention to cause fatal injuries leading to death at this stage – Charge-sheet indicating involvement of both parties in causing injuries to each other – Prima facie material suggests a sudden quarrel. (Para 10)

Bail Grant – Petitioners’ detention not required – No criminal antecedents against the petitioners – Fear of tampering with witnesses and absconding addressed through imposing suitable conditions. (Para 11)

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Orders - Superdari Application - Violation of Haryana Mineral Concession Rules - Petitioner seeks quashing of orders passed by lower courts - Allegations of illegal mining and vehicle seizure - Superdari application dismissed by trial court - Petitioner files revision petition - Court partially allows revision with direction to deposit a substantial amount - Petitioner approaches High Court seeking quashing of orders.

Natural Justice - Right of Property - Article 300A of the Constitution of India - Principle of Audi Alteram Partem - Deprivation of property requires fair procedure - Respondent authorities failed to comply with provisions in Haryana Mining Rules - Infringement of petitioner's right of property.

Enforcement of Environmental Laws - Balance of Interests - Protecting environment while ensuring fair proceedings - Rules provide penalties for violations - Respondent authorities should follow prescribed procedures - Confiscation proceedings initiated without compliance.

Unjust Presumptions - Lack of Evidence - Lower courts' orders based on presumption of petitioner's involvement in illegal mining - Contrary to facts and evidence - Orders lacking justification.

Relief Granted - Petition Allowed - Lower court orders set aside - Vehicle released on superdari until conclusion of trial - Upholding principles of natural justice and property rights.

Rejection of Leave under Section 80(2) C.P.C. – Trial court’s rejection of leave under Section 80(2) C.P.C., finding no necessity for urgent relief in the suit matter, held untenable. High Court emphasizes understanding the real spirit behind Section 80 C.P.C. and its sub-sections.

Purpose of Section 80 C.P.C. – Section 80 C.P.C. mandates a two-month notice in writing before suing the Government or a public officer for acts in their official capacity. Sub-section (2) allows suits without prior notice if “urgent and immediate relief” is necessary.

Protecting the Plaintiff’s Interest – Sub-section (2) protects the plaintiff’s interests from emergent dangers or invasions of valuable rights. Court to consider the need for urgent relief over rigid compliance with two-month prior notice.

Subjective Satisfaction and Probability of Irreparable Injury – Court should assess the need for urgent relief based on subjective satisfaction and the probability of irreparable injury at the initial stage.

Section 80(2) C.P.C. as a Precautionary Measure – Section 80(2) C.P.C. is a precautionary measure to resolve grievances without litigation. Not an absolute condition precedent in all cases.

Overlooking the Cardinal Principle – Trial court overlooks the cardinal principle behind Section 80 C.P.C., returns suit without considering the application for urgent remedy. High Court sets aside the decision and restores the suit.

Restoration of the Suit – High Court restores the suit to the trial court for further consideration. Parties to appear before the trial court on 25/07/2023. Trial court to reconsider grant of leave and pass necessary orders.

Anticipatory Bail Application – Seizure of prohibited substances from a co-accused – Allegations of involvement in the supply of banned substances – Detailed investigation required to uncover potential substance-related racket – Identity of purchasers to be ascertained – Criminal antecedents of the applicant – Previous cases denying similar relief to applicants facing comparable charges – Prohibition under Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 – Refusal to grant pre-arrest protection. (Para No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10)

Service Law - Personnel - Adverse remarks in APAR - Justification based on unserved memos - Allegations of bias - Expungement of adverse remarks - Review DPC for promotion - Warning against biased actions - Compliance with natural justice - Judgment allowing the petition, directing expungement of adverse remarks, conducting a review DPC, and warning against biased actions. [Para 78-81]

Importance of objective assessment - Relevance of specific instances - Need for communication and opportunity to explain - Observance of natural justice principles - Adverse remarks not supported by record - Bias of reporting officer - Prejudice in recording APAR - Denial of promotion based on unjustified adverse remarks. [Para 67, 70-71]

Service of memos - Lack of communication to the officer - Absence of warning or explanation sought - Inadequate justification for adverse remarks - Subsequent creation of memos to support adverse report - Clandestine preparation of record by biased reporting officer. [Para 45-46, 51-53, 55-56, 59-60, 62-65, 78]

Significance of APAR in career progression - Seriousness of writing appraisal reports - Career prospects dependent on accurate and fair assessment - Requirement of prior opportunity to improve and correct alleged misconduct - Adverse remarks based on vague and unexplained grounds not consistent with law. [Para 48-50, 67, 70-71]

Prejudice and animosity affecting objectivity - Over-exaggeration of petitioner's actions due to personal animosity - Unjust downgrading of APAR without valid grounds - Previous and subsequent outstanding gradings contradicting adverse remarks - Bias and vindictiveness of reporting officer detrimental to entire force. [Para 40-44, 51-53, 57-58, 61, 66, 69, 74]

Court's duty to ensure proper assessment - Intervention when adverse remarks lack justification - Review DPC to exclude expunged APAR - Consideration of suitability for promotion - Consequential benefits of seniority and pay fixation. [Para 75-76, 80]

Warning against biased actions - Reminder that no one is above the law - Court's readiness to take action against erring officers - Importance of fair and unbiased evaluations in disciplined forces - Leadership responsibility to guide and mentor subordinate officers. [Para 79]