Transfer Order – Mala Fides and Transfer Policy Violation – Judicial Review – Petitioner challenged the transfer order on grounds of mala fides and violation of Transfer Policy, being transferred before three years without recorded reasons – Held, petitioner unable to establish mala fides – In transfer matters, writ jurisdiction is invoked only in cases of mala fides or public interest – Violation of Transfer Policy not sufficient for interference as policy guidelines are not binding – Administrative decisions by the Bank aimed at maintaining a conducive working environment – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-25].

Scope of Judicial Review in Transfer Matters – Transfer orders, being an incident of service, are not generally interfered with unless they are arbitrary, mala fide, or infract any governing principles – Courts exercise caution in such matters, ensuring administrative decisions are not substituted with judicial discretion without compelling reasons – Transfer policies are guidelines, not enforceable rights [Paras 13-22].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No case of mala fides or arbitrariness made out – Transfer Policy violation not a valid ground for judicial interference – Transfer deemed an administrative necessity by the Bank [Paras 25].

Protection of Minor in Runaway Marriage — Application by minor girl and her husband seeking protection from her parents after eloping — GIRL's age at time of leaving home 16 years and 10 months, HUSBAND's age 18 years and 6 months — Both minors under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, yet claiming marriage under customary rites — Application of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and its implications on their marriage discussed — Protection granted by entrusting girl to her mother-in-law's care until age of majority, under supervision of Child Welfare Committee — Held, girl's express wish to stay with her husband's family respected, custody not forced back to parents against her will despite her minor status — Legal guardianship discussed in the context of minor marriages and autonomy in personal decisions.

Legal Status of Child Marriage — Analysis of child marriage legality under conflicting statutes — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 versus Child Marriage Act, 2006 — Held, marriage not void ab initio but voidable at instance of minor — Legal inconsistencies highlighted with implications for law reform, acknowledging the evolving capacities and maturity of minors — Judicial discretion exercised in favor of minor's expressed wishes, with continued protection and welfare checks mandated.

Jurisdiction and Welfare of Minors — Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction exercised in context of protecting minor's welfare — Despite minor status, Court places importance on minor’s expressed desires and social maturity — Held, welfare of the minor best served by respecting her autonomy and ensuring her protection under close supervision — Role of Child Welfare Committee emphasized in monitoring minor's well-being in non-parental custody.

RERA – Pre-Deposit Requirement – Constitutional Validity – Petitioners contended that requiring only promoters to make a pre-deposit as a condition for entertaining their appeals is discriminatory – Held, not discriminatory; distinction based on intelligible differentia satisfying Article 14 – Pre-deposit is mandatory under proviso to Section 43(5), and appeals cannot be entertained without it – Consistent with Supreme Court decisions, pre-deposit requirement deemed reasonable [Paras 1-16].

Consumer Complaints – Concurrent Remedies – Section 71 and Section 88 – Homebuyers can pursue complaints under the Consumer Protection Act and RERA simultaneously – Not mandatory to transfer complaints from consumer fora to Adjudicating Officer (AO) – Consumers must choose relief consciously; if opting for AO, relief limited to compensation or interest – RERA provides additional remedies, not derogating from other laws [Paras 17-37].

Applicability of RERA to Ongoing Projects – Contention on retroactive application of RERA to ongoing projects addressed – Court held RERA applies to ongoing projects for protecting interests of homebuyers and ensuring transparency – Provisions intended for effective consumer protection and sectoral regulation [Paras 38-45].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Proviso to Section 43(5) of RERA upheld – Pre-deposit condition for promoters' appeals validated – Rules 28 and 29 of Haryana Rules as amended also upheld – Time granted for making pre-deposit as a one-time measure – Authority's jurisdiction under RERA affirmed [Paras 46-47].

Writ Petition – Selection Process – Vice-Chancellor – Petitioner, an aspirant for Vice-Chancellor, challenged the selection process and the Board's decision to reconstitute the Search Committee – Alleged inclusion of ineligible candidates – Held, petition dismissed for non-impleadment of necessary parties and incorrect averments – Petitioner's participation in the process and later challenge without impleading shortlisted candidates deemed inappropriate [Paras 1-18].

Procedural Requirements – Misleading Information – Non-impleadment – Petitioner failed to challenge the Gazette Notification and did not implead the Board or shortlisted candidates – Incorrect information led to interim stay – Petition found non-maintainable due to procedural lapses and attempt to mislead the Court – Petitioner’s conduct criticized for lack of responsible behavior in seeking a role model position [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Petition found non-maintainable due to non-impleadment of necessary parties and incorrect contentions [Paras 17-18].

Real Estate Regulation – Single Member Authority – Validity of Orders – Petition challenged delegation of adjudicatory functions to a single member of the Authority – Held, Section 29 envisages the Authority as a multi-member body; no provision in the Act permits a single member to exercise judicial functions – Regulations 7 and 8 authorizing a single member bench quashed as ultra vires – Orders passed by a single member of the Appellate Tribunal also set aside for lack of jurisdiction – Both the Authority and Appellate Tribunal must function with the required quorum of members as specified under the Act [Paras 1-66].

Delegation of Functions – Consistency with the Act – Judicial Interpretation – The Authority cannot make regulations inconsistent with the Act under Section 85 – Single member benches cannot discharge judicial functions unless expressly provided by the Act – Regulations delegating adjudicatory power to single members invalid – Orders by single-member Appellate Tribunals are void – Judicial functions must be performed by the prescribed quorum [Paras 56-60].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Regulations 7 and 8 of the Punjab RERA Procedure Regulations quashed – Orders passed by single member benches set aside – Authority and Appellate Tribunal directed to function with prescribed quorum – New circular to be issued by Authority consistent with the judgment [Paras 75-83].

Real Estate Regulation – Single Member Authority – Validity of Orders – Petition challenged delegation of adjudicatory functions to a single member of the Authority – Held, Section 29 envisages the Authority as a multi-member body; no provision in the Act permits a single member to exercise judicial functions – Regulations 7 and 8 authorizing a single member bench quashed as ultra vires – Orders passed by a single member of the Appellate Tribunal also set aside for lack of jurisdiction – Both the Authority and Appellate Tribunal must function with the required quorum of members as specified under the Act [Paras 1-66].

Delegation of Functions – Consistency with the Act – Judicial Interpretation – The Authority cannot make regulations inconsistent with the Act under Section 85 – Single member benches cannot discharge judicial functions unless expressly provided by the Act – Regulations delegating adjudicatory power to single members invalid – Orders by single-member Appellate Tribunals are void – Judicial functions must be performed by the prescribed quorum [Paras 56-60].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Regulations 7 and 8 of the Punjab RERA Procedure Regulations quashed – Orders passed by single member benches set aside – Authority and Appellate Tribunal directed to function with prescribed quorum – New circular to be issued by Authority consistent with the judgment [Paras 75-83].

Public Employment – Equity in Appointment Process – Petitioners contested the appointment of Respondent No. 4, who approached the court after his application was rejected due to incomplete documentation – Held, approaching the court does not place Respondent No. 4 in a better position than other candidates who did not approach the court but were similarly rejected – Relief granted to Respondent No. 4 is inequitable as it adversely affected the petitioners who fulfilled all requirements and secured their positions fairly – Appointment process must maintain fairness and equity among all candidates [Paras 1-23].

Judicial Review – Process Integrity – Holistic View vs. Equity – Court emphasized that equity does not justify distorting the appointment process by favoring one candidate over others without valid reasons – All candidates must be treated equally, especially in public sector appointments through open selection processes – Respondent No. 4 failed to comply with application requirements despite multiple opportunities [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the learned Single Judge set aside – Petitioners' appointments upheld – No costs ordered [Para 23].

Rent Law – NRI Landlord – Leave to Contest – NRI landlord sought eviction for settling permanently in Amritsar – Tenant failed to file an affidavit with the application for leave to contest – Held, leave to contest must follow procedure under Section 38(7) – Rent Authority to examine tenant’s entitlement within limited aspect of Section 24(3) – Tenant's failure to follow procedure resulted in summary eviction – Orders of eviction upheld [Paras 1-13].

Summary Procedure – Affidavit Requirement – Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court and High Court precedents affirm necessity of affidavit for contesting eviction petitions – Tenant’s failure to provide affidavit deemed an admission of landlord’s claims – Legislative intent is a speedy resolution in favor of landlords with genuine needs – Orders by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority justified [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Tenant granted three months to vacate premises – Orders by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld [Para 15].

Compromise in Legal Proceedings – Validity of Statements in Court – Landlord filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act for non-payment of rent and personal necessity – Parties settled and recorded their statements before the Appellate Authority – Tenant later sought disposal of the appeal on merits, claiming he was allured into making the statement – Held, statements recorded by a party or counsel in court are as valid as written compromises and satisfy the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – The exception is fraud or deception, which must be proven in a separate suit – No evidence of collusion found, petition dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Legal Sanctity of Court Statements – Documentary Evidence – Statements made in court and recorded by a judicial officer hold the same sanctity as written instruments of compromise – Judicial statements are presumed to be voluntary and are binding unless proven otherwise through specific legal action alleging fraud – Tenant's application for merit-based disposal lacked substantiating evidence of fraud or collusion [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Appellate Authority’s order upheld – Statements recorded by the court considered valid compromises – No action against the counsel as no complaint filed with Bar Council – Time provided to comply with the order given the pandemic situation [Paras 23-25].

Service Law – Recruitment as Station Supervisor – Eligibility Criteria – Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995 and related advertisement required a graduate with Hindi/Sanskrit at Matric level and a minimum of five years' experience in Motor Road Transport Government, Semi-Government or public undertakings for direct recruitment as Station Supervisors (SS) – No requirement of supervisory experience for direct recruits – Held, promotional eligibility criteria cannot be applied to direct recruits – Amendment to eligibility criteria post-selection process invalid [Paras 1-20].

Promotional vs. Direct Recruitment Criteria – Administrative Instructions – Promotional eligibility required five years’ supervisory experience, but direct recruitment criteria specified general experience in Motor Road Transport – Changing eligibility criteria by administrative clarification after the selection process commenced deemed impermissible – Statutory rules cannot be overridden by administrative instructions [Paras 14-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Single Judge set aside – Respondents directed to consider the appellants for appointment as Station Supervisors based on eligibility criteria in the advertisement and the Rules – Exercise to be completed within twelve weeks [Paras 22-23].