Criminal Writ - Preventive Detention – Legality of Repeated Detention on Identical Grounds – Appellant contested the detention order dated 23.02.2024, arguing it was based on grounds identical to those in a prior detention order quashed by the court – Held: Issuing a fresh detention order on the same grounds previously quashed lacks legal basis unless fresh, substantial grounds are present; the detaining authority’s reliance on stale grounds violates the right to personal liberty under Article 22(5) [Paras 1-6].

Fresh Material Requirement – Validity of Grounds in Successive Detention Orders – Appellant's detention order included reference to an additional FIR (No. 67/2022) which had also been dismissed by the designated NIA Court – Held: Inclusion of the dismissed FIR does not qualify as valid fresh material for detention; preventive detention must rest on new evidence that bears direct relevance to public order concerns [Para 9].

Subjective Satisfaction – Detaining Authority’s Discretion – Courts noted that reliance on prior criminal activities alone does not satisfy subjective satisfaction requirements if activities are stale and lack a current, live link to public order – Held: Reference to prior, quashed grounds for detention fails the test of subjective satisfaction essential for preventive detention orders [Para 10].

Personal Liberty – Constitutional Safeguard under Article 22(5) – The court emphasized the sanctity of personal liberty, asserting that preventive detention, a deviation from standard criminal process, must meet stringent standards of procedural fairness and substantiation to prevent abuses of power [Para 12].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – The court quashed the impugned detention order and directed the appellant’s release unless required in another case, underscoring the misuse of preventive detention powers by the detaining authority [Conclusion].

Election Law – Cancellation of Elections – Impugned Order – The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.10.2024, which cancelled the elections for the post of Panch and Sarpanch of village Chak Haraj, Tehsil Mamdot, District Ferozepur – The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and against natural justice – High Court held that the cancellation of elections was beyond the State Election Commission's jurisdiction, which should only be exercised by the Election Tribunal through an election petition [Paras 1, 4, 8, 9, 10].

Improper Rejection of Nomination – Jurisdiction of Election Tribunal – The dispute arose when the nomination papers of some candidates were rejected, leaving the petitioner as the sole candidate for the Sarpanch post – Under Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, improper rejection of nominations can be grounds for voiding an election, but this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal – The Court found that the Commission’s cancellation order was an overreach, as it did not have the authority to adjudicate election disputes [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

Legal Precedent – Bar on Interference During Election Process – Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952), the Court held that election disputes should be addressed only after elections through an election petition, not during ongoing elections, as this could unduly delay the process – This principle supports the view that only an Election Tribunal can decide such disputes post-election [Para 11].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to declare the petitioner as elected unopposed as Sarpanch – The Court also directed respondents to conduct fresh elections for the Panch posts, limited to candidates with accepted nominations – The Court clarified that any aggrieved party could challenge the results by filing an election petition before the Election Tribunal [Paras 12, 13].
 

Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Medical Grounds and Lack of Notice from Counsel – Petitioners sought condonation of delay, citing medical complications following knee surgery of petitioner No. 1 and lack of communication from counsel – Court noted medical records substantiating the health issues and lack of timely notification as valid reasons for delay – Held: Technicalities should not hinder substantive justice; delay condoned, appeal to be decided on merits [Paras 5-8].

Compensation for Delay – Undertaking to Avoid Further Adjournments – Petitioners compensated respondent with ₹50,000 for the delay – They further undertook not to seek adjournments in the appellate proceedings, ensuring no further delay – Held: Compensation and undertaking considered sufficient; appeal remanded for expeditious disposal [Para 10].

Decision: The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.09.2024 is set aside, and the First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits, ensuring prompt disposal.

Service Law – Delay in Payment of Leave Encashment and CGEGI – Grant of Interest under Rule 39(3) of CCS Leave Rules and Constitutional Principles – Petition filed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi challenging CAT’s order for interest on delayed release of leave encashment and CGEGI – Respondent retired in July 2022, but leave encashment and CGEGI were disbursed only in December 2023; Tribunal granted interest based on principles of restitution and Supreme Court precedent in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana – Held: Rule 39(3) allows withholding of leave encashment only if disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending; administrative delays without such proceedings cannot justify withholding, and compensation through interest is warranted to address the delay’s impact – High Court affirmed Tribunal’s order, emphasizing employee’s right to timely retirement benefits under Articles 14, 19, and 21 [Paras 2, 5, 8, 15, 16, 20].

Interest as a Restitution Principle – Jurisdiction of Tribunal in Awarding Interest on Delayed Retirement Benefits – Petitioners argued against interest on the basis of respondent’s alleged non-cooperation; Court clarified that interest for delayed payment is justified when procedural lapses occur without statutory or disciplinary basis – Held: Following S.K. Dua, interest can be granted by CAT in absence of express statutory provision, in line with principles of fairness and restitution, where delay in disbursal impacts retiree’s rights under the Constitution – Petition dismissed; Tribunal’s award of interest at GPF rates upheld [Paras 10, 18, 20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Petitioners directed to comply with Tribunal’s order for interest payment at GPF rates on delayed leave encashment and CGEGI disbursal within four weeks – No case for issuance of notice in writ petition [Para 22].
 

Matrimonial Law – D.V. Act - Interim Maintenance – Modification by Appellate Court – Quantum Justified Under Beneficial Legislation – The petitioner challenged the award of ₹5,000 per month as interim maintenance to his estranged spouse under Section 23 of the D.V. Act, arguing that the couple had been separated since 2003, and no recent domestic violence had occurred. The appellate court, however, modified the original order to include this maintenance amount, recognizing the relief as essential under the beneficial nature of the D.V. Act – Held: The award of interim maintenance is within the discretion of the appellate court to provide interim relief in alignment with the Act’s protective intent, warranting no interference [Paras 5-8].

Separation Period and Eligibility for Relief – Applicability of D.V. Act Provisions – Despite the prolonged separation, the appellate court’s provision of interim maintenance reflects the ongoing protective scope of the D.V. Act, ensuring minimal sustenance for the aggrieved party until final resolution. The court noted that the statute’s objective extends to providing interim relief for financial security, regardless of the period of separation [Paras 7-9].

Expedited Trial Directive – Conclusion Within 6 Months – In disposing of the revision, the court directed that the trial court expedite the conclusion of Misc. Case No. 65 of 2018 within six months from this order, thereby ensuring timely finality in line with the D.V. Act’s objective [Para 10].

Revision petition disposed of; interim maintenance upheld. Trial court instructed to expedite case resolution within six months, uninfluenced by appellate findings.

Decision: CRR 38 of 2022 dismissed, upholding interim maintenance of ₹5,000 as ordered by the appellate court.

Selection Process – Eligibility and Compliance with Control Order Requirements – The petitioners contested the selection of Respondent No. 6 for MR distributorship, asserting that his godown failed to meet key specifications, such as sufficient ventilation and an open veranda, required under the Control Order, 2013 – Held: The Directorate Level Selection Committee’s allocation of high marks to Respondent No. 6, despite non-compliance with essential godown specifications, was arbitrary and merited judicial review [Paras 6-9].

Sanction of Godown Plan by Gram Panchayat – Validity and Jurisdiction – Petitioners argued that the plan for Respondent No. 6’s godown was improperly sanctioned by a Gram Panchayat, which lacked the authority to approve structures over 6,000 sq. ft. – The court agreed, holding that only the Zilla Parishad could authorize such plans under the Panchayat Act, rendering the respondent's approval invalid and unsuitable for a public distribution purpose [Paras 10-13].

Final Score Adjustment and Procedural Irregularities – Despite Respondent No. 6 scoring lower than the petitioner on the initial inspection, he received higher final marks due to the committee’s 80% weighting – Court found that this manipulation lacked transparency and disregarded merit-based assessment, favoring Respondent No. 6 without clear justification [Paras 15-18].

Selection of Respondent No. 6 for MR distributorship quashed. Direction issued to grant distributorship license to the petitioner, provided he meets all eligibility criteria within six weeks [Para 25].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Selection of Respondent No. 6 for distributorship is quashed. State authority directed to issue license to the petitioner if found eligible.

Guardianship – Article 226 – Appointment of Guardian for Person in Comatose State – Petition filed under Article 226 seeking declaration of the petitioner as the guardian of her husband, who is in a persistent vegetative state due to a cerebrovascular stroke – Held: No existing legislation for appointing a guardian in such cases; Court invoked parens patriae jurisdiction to safeguard the interests of the comatose patient – Wife appointed as guardian to manage movable and immovable properties for the benefit of the husband and family – Strict conditions imposed for compliance and accountability [Paras 9–15].

Comatose Patient – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Lack of Legislation – In absence of specific statutory provisions addressing guardianship of persons in a vegetative state, the Court exercised parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 – Directive principles of state policy underscore the need for legislative intervention to address guardianship for individuals in such conditions [Paras 10–16].

Guidelines – Guardian Accountability – Court issued detailed guidelines ensuring accountability of the appointed guardian, including periodic reporting, restriction on misuse, and oversight by the Registrar and public officers – Permitted use of funds strictly for medical and welfare purposes [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Petitioner declared guardian of her husband, with authority to manage listed properties and accounts under prescribed conditions – Court emphasized legislative necessity to streamline guardianship procedures for comatose individuals.
 

Passport Application – Rejection on Grounds of Family’s Criminal Antecedents – Fundamental Rights Violated - The Court examined the rejection of passport applications on the ground of criminal records of the petitioner’s husband and father-in-law – Held: Criminal antecedents of family members cannot influence assessment of the petitioner’s character or eligibility for issuance of a passport. Respondents directed to reassess the applications based solely on the petitioner’s character [Paras 13-14].

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Fresh Application Ordered in W.P. No. 10154/2021 – Repeated Rejection on Same Grounds - Respondents were previously directed to disregard grounds of earlier rejection in fresh assessments. Non-compliance with this direction led to rejection on identical grounds – Held: Such non-compliance amounts to a cavalier approach, warranting quashing of the impugned orders [Paras 12-13].

Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – Fundamental Rights – The petitioner enjoys the same fundamental rights as other citizens, and extraneous considerations based on family connections infringe upon her constitutional rights – Held: Reassessment ordered, and if eligible, the passport must be issued without delay [Para 14].

Decision: The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the passport applications are quashed. Respondents are directed to reassess the applications within four weeks, solely on the petitioner’s character, and issue the passport within six weeks if found eligible.

Criminal Law – Quashing of POCSO and Rape Charges – Settlement and Marriage with Victim – Application under Section 482 of CrPC – Petition by Accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash charges under Sections 450, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 6(1), 5(j)(ii)(l), and 21 of the POCSO Act, asserting that the accused married the victim, and they are now living peacefully with their child – Held: Generally, charges of rape and POCSO Act offenses are serious crimes impacting public interest, and compromise is not permissible as such cases affect society – However, in this unique circumstance where the victim married the accused and settled with the family, the Court considered humanitarian grounds, prioritizing family harmony and child welfare over continuation of litigation – Quashment allowed exceptionally to ensure peaceful family life and child well-being [Paras 1, 8-9].

Public Policy Considerations – Limitations on Compromise in Serious Offenses – Exception for Family Welfare – Court examined the limits of compromise in heinous offenses, referencing precedent to affirm that cases involving rape, sexual assault, or POCSO Act charges cannot typically be quashed on settlement grounds, given their social impact – Held: While such offenses are generally non-compoundable and immune to settlement-based quashment, Court granted an exception for family welfare, underscoring the importance of stability for the minor child and marital harmony in the specific context [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Proceedings in S.C. No. 273 of 2021 quashed in light of marriage and family considerations – Case dismissed to preserve family unity and child welfare [Para 9].