University Affiliation and Expansion – Prohibited Activities – Section 10 of Haryana Private Universities Act, 2006 – University set up under the Act cannot affiliate colleges, open offshore campuses, or offer distance education – Petitioners sought to expand activities beyond Haryana using changed sponsoring body – Court held such expansion prohibited under Section 10 – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-21].

Procedural Law vs. Substantive Justice – Compliance with Natural Justice – Court emphasized that procedural laws should not override substantive justice – Petitioners claimed lack of natural justice in withdrawal of permission – Court found no prejudice caused to petitioners as they were given opportunities to present their case – Procedural lapses did not alter substantive outcome – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Financial Resources and Property Ownership – Section 9 of Haryana Private Universities Act, 2006 – Sponsoring body must possess land and financial resources – Petitioners' trust lacked property ownership and financial stability – Society's property mortgaged for loans – University and Trust misrepresented financial position to banks – Permission withdrawal justified [Paras 1-24].

Natural Justice and Administrative Fairness – Examination of Submissions – Detailed scrutiny of administrative and procedural aspects – Court found no procedural unfairness or administrative bias – Petitioners failed to show violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice – Petition dismissed [Paras 19-34].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners' request to change the sponsoring body of PDM University denied – Section 10 prohibits expansion beyond Haryana – Procedural lapses did not impact substantive justice – No permission to substitute sponsoring body due to lack of compliance with statutory requirements – Petition dismissed [Para 34].

Ad-valorem Court Fee – Suit for Recovery – Clever Drafting – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Petitioner's suit styled as one for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction under Specific Relief Act – Claimed recovery of Rs. 6,35,00,000/- for articles allegedly taken by the defendant – Court held that suit is for recovery of money, thus ad-valorem court fee payable on the amount claimed as per Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act – Plaintiff cannot avoid proper court fee by clever drafting [Paras 1-10].

Legal Principle – Substance over Form – Examination of Pleadings – Court emphasized that the substance of the claim determines the court fee, not the form of the suit – Plaintiff’s attempt to project the suit as one for injunction to evade higher court fee rejected – Pleadings clearly showed intent to recover specific monetary amount [Paras 10-11].

Precedents – Irrelevance of Cited Cases – Petitioner relied on judgments in Amandeep Sidhu, Shiv Kumar Sharma, and Meticulous Pharmaceutical – Court found these precedents inapplicable as they involved different facts where either final determination was contingent or different legal questions were at issue – Present case involved clear monetary claim requiring ad-valorem fee [Paras 11-14].

Judicial Review – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court's Decision – Court upheld the trial court’s order directing payment of ad-valorem court fee – No interference warranted under Article 227 as the trial court correctly applied legal principles to the facts – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Held – Plaintiff's suit substantively for recovery of money requires ad-valorem court fee – Clever drafting to evade fee not permissible – Trial court’s order upheld, petition dismissed with no grounds for interference [Paras 16-17].

Election Petition – Maintainability – Petitioners sought to invalidate election results alleging respondents' encroachment on government land – Held, writ petition not maintainable under Article 226 – Proper remedy is an election petition as per Sections 74 and 89(1)(c) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 – Writ petition dismissed due to the existence of an alternative remedy – Emphasized that the controversy can only be adjudicated after evidence is led, which is suitable for an election petition, not a writ petition [Paras 1-10].

Specific Remedy – Preclusion by Existing Petition – Petitioners had already filed an election petition challenging the election on similar grounds – Concession by petitioners’ counsel that an election petition was pending before the Competent Authority – Reiterated that when a specific legal remedy has been availed, a writ petition on the same grounds is not maintainable [Para 8].

Misplaced Reliance – Incorrect Justification – Petitioners relied on an interim order in a different case (CWP No.5876 of 2021) – Court clarified that circumstances of the referenced case were not applicable to the present matter, as the former involved a General Election Observer's report on malpractices – Petitioners cannot leverage that order for their claim [Para 9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners' plea dismissed as non-maintainable – Directed petitioners to pursue the election petition already filed for resolution of their grievances [Para 10].

Eviction Jurisdiction – Property within Municipal Limits – Haryana Rent Act – Petitioner's property initially outside municipal limits as per sale and rent deeds – Later included in municipal limits by notification – Court held mere mentioning in deeds does not override legal provisions – Jurisdiction determined based on date of filing eviction petition, not the date of rent agreement – Eviction petition filed post-notification, thus within jurisdiction – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Legal Provisions – Estoppel Against Law – Mention in Sale/Rent Deed – Court emphasized that parties cannot contract out of statutory provisions – Jurisdiction determined by applicable laws at the time of filing, irrespective of deed content – Notification bringing property within municipal limits prior to eviction petition renders Haryana Rent Act applicable [Paras 9-10].

Rent Controller's Jurisdiction – Notification Impact – Eviction petition validity challenged due to initial property status outside municipal limits – Court ruled jurisdiction aligned with notification date, not deed date – Rent Controller's authority upheld as property within municipal limits at eviction filing date [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Held – Jurisdiction based on notification date bringing property within municipal limits – Mention in sale/rent deed irrelevant against statutory provisions – No interference in Appellate Authority's order – Petition dismissed, eviction petition maintainable [Paras 9-10].

Transfer of Investigation – Judicial Review – Sections 173 and 465 Cr.P.C. – Petition for transferring investigation to CBI or any independent agency due to alleged bias and malice in current investigation – Court held no accused has right to choose investigating agency, but judicial review necessary to ensure fairness – Investigation quashed due to bias and malice, directing State to conduct fresh fair and impartial investigation by an independent team [Paras 44-80].

Constitutional Remedies – Articles 226 and 32 – Fundamental Rights – Court emphasized citizen's right against undue process during investigation and adjudication – Remedies under Articles 32 and 226 applicable for protecting rights not covered by statutory provisions – Court's duty to ensure fair investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 55].

Fair and Impartial Investigation – Statutory Compliance – Sections 173 and 482 Cr.P.C. – Investigation by respondent No.3 found influenced by political interests and public pressure – Respondent No.3 exhibited bias, malice, and irrationality in investigation – Court held investigation must be free from political and external pressures – Directions issued for fresh investigation by senior police officers ensuring compliance with statutory provisions [Paras 56-80].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Investigation quashed due to bias and unfairness – State directed to conduct fresh investigation by independent senior police officers team, free from all external pressures – Petition allowed with directions for ensuring fair and impartial investigation [Para 80].

Transfer Order – Quashing – Child Care Leave (CCL) – Competent Authority – Respondent No.5, a Chemist, was granted CCL for 730 days by an unauthorized authority – After availing CCL, respondent No.5 attempted to rejoin at Hisar, which was opposed by the petitioner – Court held the CCL sanction by Engineer-in-Chief invalid as per Government instructions, which require CCL of more than 120 days to be sanctioned by Administrative Secretary – Transfer of petitioner and rejoining of respondent No.5 at Hisar found to be politically influenced and not in public interest – Transfer order quashed [Paras 1-10].

Administrative Fairness – Compliance with Instructions – The sanction of CCL by an unauthorized authority and the stipulation for rejoining at the same place violated Government instructions – Petitioner’s position as Chemist at Hisar, sanctioned by the competent authority, could not be overridden by invalid instructions – Respondent No.5’s prolonged stay at Hisar, despite policy norms, indicated favoritism and extraneous considerations [Paras 8-11].

Political Interference – Judicial Scrutiny – Evidence of political interference in transfer decisions undermines administrative integrity – Court found substantial evidence suggesting administrative machinery was manipulated to favor respondent No.5, treating petitioner as a second-class citizen – Administrative actions based on extraneous considerations cannot be upheld [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Transfer order dated 5.5.2020 quashed – Petitioner to retain position as Chemist at Hisar with all service benefits – Respondent No.5’s stipulation to rejoin at Hisar unenforceable due to improper CCL sanction – Administrative actions must comply with statutory and procedural norms [Para 11].

Medical Registration – Timely Application – Candidate Eligibility – Section 25 of Indian Medical Council Act – Petitioner applied for registration with Delhi Medical Council before the last date for submission of application forms but received the certificate post deadline – Court held that the delay in issuance of the certificate, beyond the petitioner’s control, should not render her ineligible – Petition allowed [Paras 1-23].

Unique Case Facts – No Other Eligible Candidates – Due to pandemic and lack of eligible candidates for 642 Medical Officer posts, court emphasized the necessity of filling vacancies – Petitioner’s merit and completion of selection process validated her claim – Specific order issued based on the peculiar circumstances, emphasizing need for more medical officers [Paras 23-24].

Judicial Precedents – Delay Beyond Control – Reference to Parminder Kaur and Aradhana cases – Courts held that applicants cannot be penalized for delays in certificate issuance by authorities if they applied timely – Consistent judicial approach favoring substantive eligibility over procedural delays [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner's delayed registration certificate issuance by Delhi Medical Council should not invalidate her eligibility – Directed respondents to appoint petitioner as Medical Officer against one of the vacant posts in the general category – Decision based on exceptional circumstances and public interest due to COVID-19 [Paras 27].

Temporary Permits – Granting of Temporary Permits – The petitioners, existing stage carriage permit holders, challenged the granting of temporary permits to private respondents on the same routes – Contention that the temporary permits were issued without proper legal authority and in violation of the petitioners' rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Court held that the State Government was not legally empowered to take the executive decision of granting temporary permits, and the rights of the petitioners were found to be infringed – Temporary permits quashed [Paras 1-32].

Procedure under Motor Vehicles Act – Requirements for Temporary Permits – Court noted that provisions of Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act override those of Chapter V – Temporary permits can only be granted under the proviso to Section 104 after due application of mind – Competent authority failed to record findings on the satisfaction of pre-conditions stipulated under the proviso while granting impugned permits – All procedural requirements under the Act must be adhered to [Paras 4, 10, 19].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Impugned temporary permits set aside – High Court emphasized the need for lawful and reasoned decisions by authorities and mandated that temporary permits be granted only in accordance with the statutory provisions and procedures under the Motor Vehicles Act [Paras 31-32].

Electricity Supply – Applicable Code – NOC Issuance – Petitioners, developers of various residential colonies, sought release of electricity connections as per the supply code applicable at the time of NOC issuance (2007-08) – Court held that the Supply Code, 2014 enables the distribution licensee to insist the developer fulfill updated requirements – Issuance of NOC does not bind the licensee to supply electricity as per old code – Petitioners took 10-11 years to complete projects, hence must comply with current regulations [Paras 1-21].

Infrastructure Development – Developer's Obligations – Distribution Networks – Petitioners failed to fully develop local distribution networks – Court held developers must complete necessary infrastructure before handing over to PSPCL – Distribution licensee justified in requiring compliance with Supply Code, 2014 to ensure proper electricity supply and infrastructure for future demands [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Precedents – No Automatic Right from NOC – Petitioners relied on Ansal Properties case – Court distinguished that the current case involves statutory obligations under Supply Code, 2014 – NOCs issued for feasibility assessment, not to guarantee old supply code applicability [Paras 17-18].

Consumer Welfare – Complete Infrastructure Requirement – Incomplete infrastructure by developers leads to consumer suffering – Court emphasized necessity of complete local electricity distribution networks before management transfer to PSPCL – Ensuring consumer welfare through compliance with updated regulations [Para 21].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners required to fulfill requirements of Supply Code, 2014 – Issuance of NOC does not exempt developers from updated statutory obligations – Petition dismissed for lack of merit [Paras 22-23].