Reservation Law - Scheduled Caste Quota - State Domicile Requirement – Appellant, a resident of Himachal Pradesh, admitted to MBBS course in Punjab under SC quota – SC certificate issued by Himachal Pradesh authorities – Interim relief for continuation of studies declined – Held, benefit of reservation in Punjab available only to SC residents of Punjab – Appellant not entitled to reservation benefits for not being a resident of Punjab. [Paras 11-13]

Promissory Estoppel - Principles and Application – Appellant claimed right to continue studies based on provisional admission – Claimed deprivation of alternative admission opportunities due to initial admission – Held, promissory estoppel inapplicable where equity conflicts with law – Mistake in provisional admission rectified promptly – No legally enforceable right accrued – Equitable considerations cannot override legal provisions. [Paras 17, 21]

Statutory Interpretation - Specific Provisions on State Quota – Examination of Punjab Government notifications and PMET-2016 prospectus – Only Punjab residents eligible for SC quota – Appellant’s admission under SC quota contrary to statutory requirements – Misleading authorities with out-of-state SC certificate invalidates claim for relief. [Paras 12, 13, 21]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant not entitled to continue MBBS course under SC quota in Punjab – Mistaken provisional admission rectified lawfully. [Para 22]

Specific Performance - Rescission of Agreement – Civil Revision – Delay in execution of sale deed – Suit for specific performance decreed in favor of respondent – Appeals and SLP dismissed – Decree holder’s application to deposit balance amount allowed – Judgment debtor’s application for rescission dismissed – Held, power under Section 28 of the Act is discretionary – Court can enlarge time for payment – Rescission not automatic due to delay unless strict stipulation of time exists – Decree holder showed continuous intent to comply – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Rescission of Contract - Discretionary Power – Analysis – Section 28 gives courts discretion to annul or enforce specific performance decrees – Delay in payment does not automatically rescind the contract – Courts retain control over decrees until fully complied with – Only when a party is unwilling to perform can the other seek rescission. [Paras 11-13, 23]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court retains discretion to extend time for payment – No evidence of decree holder’s abandonment or refusal – Continuous litigation by defendants indicates their non-cooperation – Execution of sale deed and possession transfer completed – No merit in petition. [Paras 24-25]

Constitutional Law - Compassionate Appointment – Writ Petition – Challenge to criteria for compassionate appointment in bank's scheme – Criteria: Employee dying within five years of first appointment or before reaching age 30 – Held that such criteria are arbitrary and contrary to the object of compassionate appointment – Objective is to relieve family from economic distress upon employee’s death – Impugned criteria set aside – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment. [Paras 1-18]

Compassionate Appointment - Scheme for Exceptional Cases – Analysis – Scheme criteria: Employee dying while performing duty due to violence/terrorism, or dying within five years of first appointment or before age 30 – Criteria found unreasonable and arbitrary – Criteria do not align with the objective of providing immediate relief to the family of deceased – Criteria struck down. [Paras 10-13, 17]

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Criteria for compassionate appointment under challenge held unconstitutional – Clause 2(ii) of circular dated 03/04.08.2011 set aside – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment within three months. [Paras 17-18]

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Definition of Debt – Civil Revision – Whether the amount due to a party who made payment under a forged instrument constitutes a debt within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act – Held that such liability falls within the ambit of the term "debt" as defined in Section 2(g) – Liability arising during the course of business activity is included, even if it involves fraud. [Paras 5-13]

Jurisdiction and Transfer – Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act – Applicability to suits pending before establishment of the Tribunal – Present suit not pending at the time of Tribunal’s establishment – Application for transfer under Section 31 and Order 7 Rule 10 CPC not maintainable. [Paras 18-20]

Decision – Revision Petition Outcome – The petitioner’s claim is a debt under Section 2(g) – However, application for transfer not maintainable – Petitioner advised to file an application before the DRT and seek condonation of delay. [Paras 26-28]

Evidence Law - Disclosure Statements – Criminal Appeal – If no recovery was made pursuant to the disclosure statement, it is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be relied upon – Held that no reliance can be placed on disclosure statements where no recovery was effectuated. [Para 38]

Criminal Procedure - Footprint Evidence – Investigation in murder case – Footprints lifted from the street outside the house where the murder took place are weak evidence – The street was a thoroughfare, and the presence of bare-footed footprints is improbable – Evidence of footprints cannot be relied upon. [Paras 30-34]

Criminal Law - Burden of Proof – Murder – When multiple murders occur in a house, the occupants are deemed to have knowledge of the occurrence unless a cogent explanation is provided – Section 106 of the Evidence Act places the burden of proving such facts on the accused. [Para 49]

Criminal Law - Conspiracy – Rarely proved by direct evidence and often gathered from circumstances – Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence indicating conspiracy. [Para 54]

Decision – Conviction and Acquittal – Accused Balbir Singh, Daljodh Singh, and Veer Singh's convictions upheld based on circumstantial evidence, motive, and disclosure statements – Acquittal of other accused due to lack of evidence. [Paras 37, 55-56]

Civil Law - Adverse Possession – Regular Second Appeal challenging concurrent findings – Suit for possession based on title – Defendants’ plea of adverse possession dismissed – Held that ownership of laintiffs is undisputed – Defendants' claim of adverse possession initiated from their vendor's alleged adverse possession is invalid – Adverse possession not matured into ownership – Possession of defendants deemed unauthorized – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Ownership and Possession – Legal Analysis – Held – Defendants' unauthorized possession over property – Plaintiff's title undisputed and proven – Defendants failed to establish adverse possession or valid title transfer from vendor in adverse possession – Court upholds decrees in favor of plaintiffs for possession based on title. [Paras 2, 7, 10, 11]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Court finds no substantial question of law – Concurrent findings by lower courts upheld – Defendants' possession deemed illegal and unauthorized – Costs not awarded. [Paras 14-15]

Border Security Forces Act, 1969 - Section 117 - Section 48(f) - Judicial Review - Requirement of Reasoned Orders – The petitioner, a Head Constable in the BSF, challenged the sentence of forfeiting seven years of service for promotion and pension purposes and the rejection of his representation under Section 117 of the BSF Act. The court held that any administrative order must be supported by reasons. The impugned sentence and the rejection of representation lacked necessary consideration and analysis of evidence. The court set aside the orders, entitling the petitioner to all service benefits including monetary benefits. [Paras 1-13]​​

Necessity for Reasoned Orders - Held, the Supreme Court has consistently held that even administrative decisions must be supported by reasons to ensure transparency and fairness. The absence of reasons in the sentencing order and the rejection of the representation violated principles of natural justice and fair play. [Paras 8-10]​​

Role of Inquiry Officer - Held, the DIG acted in dual roles, both forwarding the complaint and later sentencing the petitioner, which raised concerns of bias and fairness. An inquiry officer must be impartial and free from bias, ensuring the accused's right to a fair hearing. [Para 7]​​

Quasi-Judicial Functions - Held, orders affecting civil consequences must be reasoned, ensuring the affected party can make an effective representation or challenge. The sentence and rejection of representation, being quasi-judicial actions, required detailed reasoning and analysis of evidence. [Para 11]​​

Decision - Orders Set Aside - The court set aside the sentence dated 31.08.2012 and the order dated 01.03.2013, entitling the petitioner to all service benefits including monetary benefits. The respondents were directed to calculate and disburse the benefits within four months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply. [Paras 12-13]​​

Constitutional Law - Forfeiture of Consideration - Discretion of Authorities - Judicial Review – The petitioner’s highest bid in an auction by GMADA was accepted, but he failed to pay the balance consideration. Upon seeking to surrender the plot and request a refund, the Estate Officer forfeited 10% of the total price of the site, as per Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. The court held that the authorities have the discretion to forfeit an amount up to 10% and must exercise this discretion based on the facts of each case, including post-contractual facts. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the revisional authority to decide the quantum of forfeiture after hearing the petitioner. [Paras 1-20]​​

Discretion in Forfeiture - Held, the statutory provision under Section 45(3) allows authorities to forfeit up to 10% of the total consideration. It is not mandatory to forfeit the full 10%, and authorities must consider the circumstances of each case to determine the appropriate amount. [Paras 10-11]​​

Principle of Contra Proferentem - Held, the allotment letter's terms, prepared by the respondents, must be read in favor of the petitioner following the principle of contra proferentem. This means if there is ambiguity, it should be resolved against the party that drafted the document. [Para 14]​​

Post-Contractual Facts - Held, the discretion to determine the amount of forfeiture includes consideration of post-contractual facts, which could not have been known at the time of the allotment letter. [Para 16]​​

Decision - Impugned Orders Set Aside - The impugned orders forfeiting 10% of the total consideration were set aside. The revisional authority was directed to decide the quantum of forfeiture after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The matter was disposed of accordingly. [Paras 18-20]​​

• Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Natural Justice - Speaking Order - Judicial Review – The petitioner, a 1984 riot victim and Sikh migrant holding a Red Card, sought regularization of her house. The cancellation of her LOI without a speaking order and hearing was challenged. The court held that any order affecting rights must be reasoned and pass the test of natural justice. The impugned order was non-speaking and violated natural justice, warranting its quashing. The matter was remitted for a fresh speaking order after affording the petitioner a hearing. [Paras 1-11]​​

   

  Natural Justice - Speaking Order Requirement - Held, orders that affect rights must state reasons to justify decisions. Non-speaking orders fail to meet the standards of transparency and fairness. [Para 9]​​

   

  Opportunity of Hearing - Administrative Orders - Held, principles of natural justice mandate that affected parties must be heard before passing adverse orders. The impugned order issued without such an opportunity is invalid. [Para 10]​​

   

  Decision - Petition Allowed - The writ petition was allowed, quashing the letter dated 6.7.2016 that canceled the LOI. The case was remitted to the respondent authorities to pass a fresh speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court directed that any adverse order should not be implemented for one month to allow the petitioner to seek legal remedies. [Para 11]​​