Civil Writ - Stone Crusher Licence – Safer Zone Declaration – Validity of Licence – Cancellation Order Set Aside - Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their stone crusher licence on the grounds that the unit was allegedly within 100 meters of a Major District Road – It was held that the area had already been declared a safer zone in 2017 after proper inspection and grant of Form-C licence in 2019 – The subsequent conflicting reports on distance were deemed unreliable – Held: The cancellation order dated 31.03.2022 was quashed as being factually and legally unsustainable [Paras 3.1–5.4].

Statutory Interpretation – Deemed Licence Extension – Section 5(2) of Amended Act – Extension Granted - Petitioner sought a declaration that the Form-C licence be deemed extended for 20 years as per the amendment – The Court upheld that since the licence was valid on the date of the amendment, it attracted the benefit of the deeming provision – Held: Licence deemed extended for 20 years from 02.02.2019 [Paras 5.5–6.1].

Contempt of Court – Interim Order Compliance – Contempt Petition Not Surviving - Since the licence cancellation was stayed via interim order dated 28.04.2022 and ultimately quashed, the contempt petition for non-compliance lost relevance – Held: Contempt petition does not survive in light of the judgment in writ petitions [Paras 3.3.1, 7].

Final Decision – Both writ petitions allowed – Licence cancellation set aside and deemed extension of 20 years granted – Contempt petition dismissed as infructuous [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Commencement Date under BOT Contract – Construction Start on Partial Possession Does Not Alter Commencement Date – Arbitrator Validly Held Date as 23.03.2006 – Court upheld arbitrator’s interpretation that full physical possession was a precondition under the agreement – Partial possession and early start by concessionaire irrelevant – Held: Interpretation plausible and within bounds of agreement [Paras 5-15].

Limitation – Objections to Arbitral Award – Commencement from Date of Final Denial of Claim – Claim Held Within Time – Communication from State denying full concession period triggered cause of action – Respondent promptly invoked arbitration – Held: Arbitral proceedings within limitation under Section 21 of the Act [Paras 6-11].

Damages and Compensation – Absence of Contractual Clause – Arbitrator’s Award of Compensation for Non-Closure of Railway Crossing Set Aside – No Clause Permitting Monetary Damages – Held: BOT model compensates via toll collection, not cash – Award of Rs.14.12 crore with interest patently illegal and beyond contract terms – Entitlement to compensation quashed [Paras 16-20, 28-31].

Compound Interest – Absence of Contractual Provision – Award of Interest on Interest Unsustainable – Arbitrator granted interest compounded quarterly despite no enabling clause – Court quashed total interest of Rs.30.85 crore on this ground – Held: Interest claim non-maintainable without contractual basis [Paras 26-27, 34].

Severability of Award – Valid and Invalid Portions Legally Distinct – Court Partially Set Aside Award – Claim for toll collection till 22.01.2012 upheld – Other heads including damages and interest struck down – Held: Claims severable as per Supreme Court ruling in Gayatri Balasamy – Partial modification permissible under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award upheld to extent of toll collection retention by respondent – Award of compensation for delay, non-closure of LRC, and interest thereon set aside – Award modified by quashing illegal components [Paras 39-40].

Civil Writ - Society Membership – Balija Community – Eligible Applicants Denied Consideration – Appeals Allowed - Petitioners seeking membership in a community society were denied consideration despite eligibility – District Registrar directed the society to consider requests, but the society failed to act – Held: Petition maintainable, registrar’s directive valid, and existing Governing Council is legally functional and bound to consider applications – Learned Single Judge's dismissal on ground of expired term of council set aside [Paras 1–6, 13–26].

Maintainability – Article 226 – Statutory Public Duty – Writ Lies Against Society - Though respondent No.3 is a registered society, its activities are governed by the Act and overseen by state authorities – Held: Writ petition maintainable under Article 226 as petitioners sought enforcement of a statutory public duty – Court relied on Supreme Court precedent in U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey [(1999) 1 SCC 741] [Paras 10–13].

Governance – Continuation of Governing Council – Powers Not Suspended – Membership Duty Remains - Society’s governing body, though past its term, continued under bye-laws and was not under suppression or restricted – Held: Governing Council retains authority to act and must consider membership applications – Single Judge erred in holding otherwise [Paras 14–18, 22–25].

Final Decision – Writ Appeals Allowed – Directions to Admit Members and Hold Elections - Appeals allowed and writ petition restored – Society directed to consider membership applications within 4 weeks and conduct elections within 3 months thereafter [Paras 27–28].

Service Law – Gratuity – University Mess Workers – Employer-Employee Relationship Established – Petitioner University challenged orders directing payment of gratuity to mess workers engaged through mess committees – University contended workers were engaged by student bodies and paid from mess funds – Held: As per Hostel Rules and University Statutes, appointments and disciplinary control vested with Warden/Assistant Warden – Students’ mess committees had only recommendatory role – Workers were employed in connection with the work of the University and under its ultimate control – University deemed to be employer for purposes of the Gratuity Act [Paras 1–3, 16–21, 23].

Statutory Interpretation – Payment of Gratuity Act – Broad Interpretation Favoured – Sections 2(e) and 2(f) define 'employee' and 'employer' expansively to include persons indirectly engaged in work of establishment and authorities with ultimate control – Held: Gratuity Act being a beneficial legislation must be liberally construed – University, having control over hostel administration and employment terms, is liable to pay gratuity to mess workers [Paras 19–20].

Hostel Rules – Legal Effect – Administrative Guidelines with Statutory Backing – Hostel Rules issued under Kerala Agricultural University Act and First Statute showed comprehensive control of University over hostels and messes – Held: Whether or not rules have statutory flavour is immaterial – Practical control and managerial supervision establish employer status [Paras 17–18, 22].

Case Law Distinguished – Prior Judgments Not in Conflict – Decisions in Sathikumar P. v. Vice Chancellor and Warden, College of Horticulture v. RPFC dealt with different statutory contexts – No conflict as issues of selection eligibility and provident fund liability differ in scope – G.B. Pant University case relied upon to support conclusion that cafeteria/mess workers can be University employees despite student committee involvement [Paras 7–15].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Controlling Authority’s Orders Upheld – University liable to pay gratuity to mess workers employed in hostels under its control – No costs awarded [Para 23].

Criminal Revision – Conviction Under Sections 465, 471, 409, 120-B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Petitioners convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur, for offences involving criminal breach of trust and forgery – Appeals dismissed by Sessions Judge – Revision petitions filed and kept pending for over 16 years – Held: Conviction well-founded based on material on record – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts [Paras 2–4, 12].

Sentence – Reduction on Ground of Delay and Mitigating Factors – Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone - FIR registered in 1997; conviction in 2007; appeal dismissed in 2009; revision petitions heard in 2025 – Petitioners Nanak Singh and Darshan Singh had undergone only about two and a half months in custody – Held: Considering age, time lapse of over 28 years since FIR, and partial incarceration, sentence reduced to period already undergone on condition of paying ₹50,000 each to Gram Panchayat – Sentence of fine and default term unchanged [Paras 9, 13–14].

Death of Co-Accused – Abatement of Proceedings – Proceedings Abated - During pendency of revision petitions, petitioners Gura Singh and Dharam Singh passed away – Proceedings abated in respect of the deceased accused as per order dated 14.05.2025 [Para 8].

Decision – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Revision Petitions Disposed - Court found no merit to disturb conviction – However, in exercise of discretion under revisional jurisdiction, modified sentence considering long passage of time and limited custody – Revision petitions disposed of on these terms [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Law – Sections 323, 325, 341 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced - Petitioners were convicted for causing hurt and wrongful restraint – Sentenced to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines – Revision petitions filed after dismissal of appeals – Held: Findings of conviction not perverse – However, considering that petitioners underwent over 3 months in custody and faced trial for more than 7 years, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 3, 7, 10–11].

Sentencing – Discretion in Non-Mandatory Sentences – Period Already Undergone Considered Sufficient - No minimum sentence prescribed for the offences under Sections 323/325/341 IPC – Court exercised discretion guided by principles laid down in Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P. – Held: When sentence is discretionary, it must be proportionate, mindful of rehabilitation and passage of time – Petitioners' conduct since conviction considered [Paras 8–9].

Multiple Petitioners – Parity in Sentencing – No Distinction Made Despite Prior Cases - Though State opposed relief citing prior involvement of two petitioners – Court found no basis to deny relief as sentence was not mandatory and time factor weighed heavily – Sentence reduced for all petitioners [Paras 6–7].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified - Trial Court’s conviction findings affirmed – Sentence of two years modified to period already undergone (3 months and 16 days) – Petitioners to be released if not wanted in any other case – All pending applications also disposed [Paras 11–13].

Civil Writ – PIL - Public Infrastructure – Disruption Due to Highway Widening – Incomplete Work – Litigation Delayed Civic Amenities - Petitioners, residents of Byadgi Town, sought directions for restoring roads, drainage, sewerage and potable water disrupted during the construction of State National Highway No.136 – Held: Road and civic work were interrupted due to quashing of land acquisition notifications by Dharwad Bench – State has recommenced acquisition proceedings – Authorities directed to act promptly after litigation ends [Paras 3–6.2].

Right to Basic Amenities – Article 21 – Public Duty Affirmed - Petitioners invoked their right to clean environment and basic civic infrastructure as part of the right to life under Article 21 – Court observed authorities are duty-bound to restore civic amenities including roads, drainage, and water supply after land acquisition proceedings conclude – Held: Expectation of swift action from officials post-litigation [Paras 3.4–6.1].

Land Acquisition – Quashing of Notifications – Re-initiation of Proceedings - Original acquisition notifications dated 16.05.2020 and 26.07.2021 were set aside on technical grounds – New preliminary notification issued on 27.02.2023 – Objections heard and process underway – Held: Completion of acquisition critical to resume and complete civic works [Paras 5.3–6].

Final Decision – PIL Disposed of – Direction to Expedite Civic Restoration - The PIL was disposed of with direction to complete acquisition and resume civic works without delay – Pending interlocutory applications also stood disposed of [Paras 6.2–7].

Criminal Law - Foreigners Act – Misapplication of Section 14B – Charge Modified – Petitioner, a Sri Lankan national, accused of overstaying a valid visa and creating false Indian identity documents – Trial court erroneously framed charge under Section 14B of the Foreigners Act alleging use of forged passport to enter India – Held: Prosecution case itself confirms entry was on valid Sri Lankan passport and visa – Section 14B applies only where forged passport is used for entry – Petitioner’s act of overstaying and obtaining false identity documents attracts Sections 14(a) and 14(b), not 14B – Charge modified accordingly [Paras 1–5, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Plea Bargaining – Ineligibility Due to Incorrect Charge – Application for plea bargaining under Section 290 BNSS was dismissed due to framing of charge under Section 14B, which prescribes punishment up to 8 years – Held: Once charge is properly reframed to Section 14(b), where maximum punishment is 5 years, petitioner becomes eligible for plea bargaining – Impugned dismissal order of CMP quashed – Trial court directed to reconsider plea bargaining application [Paras 2, 6, 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 14B Foreigners Act – Scope and Ingredients – Section 14B mandates knowledge and use of a forged passport for entry into India – Mere overstay or illegal stay without such entry condition does not fall within scope of 14B – Interpretation reaffirmed in light of precise charge language and admitted facts [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Charge under Section 14B deleted – Replaced with Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act – Impugned order dated 11/03/2025 rejecting plea bargaining application quashed – Trial court to reconsider the application on basis of modified charge [Paras 8–9].

Civil Writ - Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Claim for Higher Rank – No Policy Exists – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought appointment as Sub-Inspector or Assistant Sub-Inspector claiming parity with other individuals whose family members served as spies and were imprisoned in Pakistan – Held: There is no express or implied policy of the Punjab Government supporting such appointment to a higher post – Petitioner was already appointed as Constable considering his background and qualifications – Court cannot direct for appointment to a higher post without legal backing – Claim rejected [Paras 6-8].

Compassionate Appointment – No Vested Right – Appointment Beyond Policy – The Court reiterated that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general recruitment rules and must strictly conform to the applicable policy – In absence of any policy providing for appointment to higher ranks based on the petitioner's circumstances, no direction can be issued to grant appointment beyond what was already given [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The writ petition challenging rejection of representations for appointment to higher post is dismissed – No direction can be issued in absence of any government policy enabling such appointment [Para 9].