Rent Law - Eviction for Bona Fide Need - Grandson's Independent Business – Petitioners, tenants, challenged eviction orders based on landlord’s claim of bona fide need for grandson’s independent shop – Held, working with grandfather and being an income tax assessee does not negate right to independent business – Grandson's need for improved status and separate business justified – Landlord entitled to eviction for bona fide requirement of setting up a departmental store by merging two shops. [Paras 3, 9]

Landlord's Right to Choose Property Use - Judicial Deference – Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld landlord’s claim – Courts emphasized landlord’s prerogative to decide use of property – Tenants or courts cannot dictate terms – Practical approach favored in assessing landlord's bona fide needs. [Paras 7-8, 10-11]

Supreme Court Precedents on Bona Fide Requirement – Reference to Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta – Bona fide need encompasses sincere, genuine requirement beyond mere desire – Landlord’s choice of premises for satisfying genuine need respected. [Para 10]

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Eviction orders upheld – Landlord’s bona fide requirement for grandson’s independent business recognized. [Para 16]

Constitutional Law - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Eviction Proceedings - Judicial Review – The petitioner sought eviction of his daughter-in-law from a house owned by his parents under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The District Magistrate declined the eviction on the grounds of a pending civil suit. The court held that the pendency of the civil suit was irrelevant as the daughter-in-law had no right to live in a house exclusively owned by her parents-in-law, particularly when the husband had moved out. The order of the District Magistrate was set aside and the eviction was ordered. [Paras 1-23]​​​​

Right of Residence - Wife's Entitlement - Held, the wife cannot claim any right to live in a house exclusively owned by her mother-in-law or father-in-law. The share in the house does not include the share where the aggrieved party has lived in a strained relationship. [Paras 8-10]​​​​

Application of Principles of Natural Justice - Procedure – The District Magistrate's order was found lacking in application of mind as it incorrectly held the pending civil suit as a reason to decline eviction. The court emphasized that the proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are special and summary in nature, and should not be impeded by civil suits filed with ulterior motives. [Paras 11-14]​​

Decision - Allowance of Petition - The writ petition was allowed, the order of the District Magistrate was set aside, and the respondent No. 2 (daughter-in-law) was granted one month to vacate the premises. The petitioner was permitted to seek execution of the order if necessary. [Paras 22-23]​​​​

Constitutional Law - Administrative Action - Principles of Natural Justice - Judicial Review – The petitioner was granted consent to establish a poultry farm by the Punjab Pollution Control Board. Subsequently, the NOC was revoked without issuing a show cause notice or granting a hearing, citing potential law and order issues due to public protests. The court held that the revocation without following the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, was illegal. The right to be heard before any adverse order is a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The revocation order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner. [Paras 1-17]​​

Audi Alteram Partem - Fundamental Right to Hearing - Held, the rule of audi alteram partem mandates that no person should be condemned unheard. This principle applies to both quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings involving adverse civil consequences. The petitioner was denied this fundamental right, rendering the revocation order invalid. [Paras 11-13]​​

Decision - Allowance of Petition - The writ petition was allowed, the order dated 12.07.2016 revoking the NOC was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Punjab Pollution Control Board for a fresh decision after granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court also directed the petitioner to maintain status quo at the site till the fresh decision. [Paras 14-17]​​

Agricultural Produce Markets Act - Confiscation and Storage – Writ Petition – Agricultural produce stored without a valid license – Market Committee confiscated the produce under Section 13(1)(b) – Rule 24-B provides procedures for confiscation – Petitioner directed to alternative remedy of appeal under Section 40 – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Jurisdiction and Appeal – Analysis – Under the Act, agricultural produce cannot be stored in a notified market area without a license – Market Committee has the authority to confiscate such produce – Confiscation orders are appealable under Section 40 – Disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of goods and storage location to be decided by appellate authority – Petitioner relegated to file an appeal. [Paras 10-12]

Procedural Compliance – Appellate Remedy – Petitioner must first exhaust statutory remedies – Confiscation order dated 13.10.2017 is appealable – Appeal to be filed within 30 days – Confiscated goods released upon submission of a demand draft – Appeal outcome to determine final disposition of the amount. [Paras 13-14]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail alternative remedy of appeal – Appeal to be decided on merits within specified time – Interim order for release of goods continued subject to appeal outcome. [Paras 12-14]

Right to Information Act, 2005 - Public Authority Definition – Letters Patent Appeal – Applicant must prove that the body falls within the definition of a public authority under Section 2(h) – Hospital neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the government – Appeal dismissed – Hospital not a public authority under the Act. [Paras 1-17]

Control and Financing by Government – Analysis – Hospital's control and finance by the government must be substantial – Mere regulatory oversight or minimal financial support does not suffice – Substantial evidence required to show government control over management and affairs – Financial assistance too minimal to establish substantial financing – Appellant failed to prove hospital as a public authority. [Paras 12-14]

Burden of Proof – Applicant’s Responsibility – Burden of proving that a body is a public authority under Section 2(h) lies on the applicant seeking information – Appellant failed to establish the hospital met the criteria – Definition of public authority involves substantial control or financing by government. [Para 15]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Single Judge’s order upheld – Hospital not proven to be a public authority – Applications for condonation of delay in filing/re-filing also dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Constitutional Law - Power of Judicial Review - Jurisdiction of High Courts - National Green Tribunal Act - Judicial Review – The petitioners, farmers, challenged the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) order dated May 19, 2016, which imposed a blanket ban on tree felling in Punjab, affecting the widening and lining of the Bist Doab Canal. The court held that the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by legislation. The NGT Act does not explicitly exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts. Thus, the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not barred by Sections 22 and 29 of the NGT Act. [Paras 1-23]​​

Maintainability of Writ Petition - Jurisdictional Overlap – Held, a writ petition challenging an NGT order is maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The court referred to the Madras High Court's decision in Kollidam Aaru Pathukappu Nala Sangam v. Union of India, which emphasized the constitutional power of judicial review by High Courts. [Para 23]​​

Execution of Public Interest Projects - Balance Between Environmental Concerns and Development – The petitioners' request to continue the Bist Doab Canal project, which required felling of trees, was considered essential for public interest, including irrigation and flood control. The court temporarily suspended the NGT's order to allow the state to proceed with the project while adhering to environmental guidelines. [Paras 24-26]​​

Decision - Temporary Suspension of NGT Order – The writ petition was disposed of by suspending the NGT's order for four months, enabling the Punjab government to continue the Bist Doab Canal project and other affected projects, with directions to approach the NGT for further orders. [Para 26]​​

Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - Jurisdiction of Authorities - Judicial Review – Petitioner, running a flour mill, challenged the assessment order and demand for theft of electricity and compound charges issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner also sought remedy against the dismissal of his appeal by the Additional District Collector (ADC) on grounds of locus standi and lack of evidence. The court held that the ADC erred in dismissing the appeal without proper hearing and that the correct remedy was under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. The court disagreed with a prior judgment that suggested only the Special Court under Section 154 could address such disputes, emphasizing that Section 127 provides an adequate remedy for consumers. The matter was remitted to the ADC for fresh adjudication. [Paras 1-15] ​​

**Remedies under Electricity Act - Applicability of Section 127 - Held, Section 127 is an appropriate remedy for challenging final assessment orders related to electricity theft. Section 145 bars civil court jurisdiction, ensuring no party is left remediless under the Act. The court differentiated its view from a coordinate bench which had limited the jurisdiction to the Special Court under Section 154, emphasizing that consumers can utilize Section 127. [Paras 7-13]​​

Decision - Remitting the Matter for Fresh Adjudication - The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the order of the ADC. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication by the ADC, providing both parties an opportunity to present evidence and arguments comprehensively. [Paras 14-15]​​

Constitutional Law - Powers of Registrar - Judicial Review – Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 22.01.2014 by the Registrar cancelling the registration of the society. The court held that the Registrar has ample powers under Section 5 of the Punjab Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, to refuse and cancel registration if material discrepancies, misfeasance, and mismanagement are found. The power to grant registration inherently includes the power to cancel it. The petition was dismissed as the Registrar's order was found to be legal and justified. [Paras 1-17]

Procedural Compliance - Notice and Hearing – Held, the Registrar's actions were within legal bounds despite claims of inadequate notice and hearing. The Registrar's decision followed an inquiry which revealed substantial issues including lack of proper notice for the general body meeting and fabrication of records by the society’s managing committee. The inquiry report was not challenged by the petitioners, affirming the legality of the cancellation order. [Paras 6-16]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Registrar's order for cancellation of the registration of Kansal Rural Self Supporting Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. due to discrepancies, misfeasance, and mismanagement found during the inquiry. [Para 17]

VAT Law - Applicability to Non-Goods Vehicle Transport - Judicial Review – Gold ornaments found in the appellant's possession while traveling by train were penalized for lack of proper documentation under Section 51(2) of the VAT Act. The Tribunal held that the term ‘person’ in the proviso to Section 51(2) included any person selling goods within or outside the State, regardless of the mode of transport. The court held that Section 51(2) and its proviso apply only to goods transported in a goods vehicle, as indicated by the definition and context within the Act. Penalty imposed for goods transported by train was set aside. [Paras 1-27]

Scope of Section 51(2) - Held, Section 51(2) of the VAT Act applies specifically to goods transported in goods vehicles, requiring specified documents. The proviso to Section 51(2), which requires additional declarations for inter-state trade, is also confined to goods vehicles. [Paras 18-19]

Interpretation of 'Person' - Held, the use of the term ‘person’ in the proviso does not extend the obligation to furnish declarations to individuals transporting goods by means other than goods vehicles. The rules and forms under the VAT Act, which require details related to goods vehicles, support this interpretation. [Paras 20-24]

Decision - Allowance of Appeal - The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The penalty imposed on the appellant was quashed, as the statutory provisions did not apply to goods transported by train. [Paras 26-27]