Default Bail – Indefeasible Right – Reasonable Opportunity – Petitioner applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC due to incomplete challan without FSL report – Bail granted but bonds furnished after court hours – Held, default bail is an indefeasible right, not defeated by late submission of bonds if reasonable opportunity to fulfill conditions is given – No requirement in CrPC for immediate readiness with bail bonds – Court must allow time to fulfill conditions based on case facts – Order rejecting bonds for lateness set aside, petitioner granted another opportunity [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Reasoning – Interpretation of Bail Provisions – FSL report filed on day of bail order does not negate right to default bail if initial challan was incomplete – Courts must not demand immediate bail bond fulfillment – Justice requires reasonable opportunity for accused to comply, avoiding miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner granted another opportunity to furnish bail bonds and sureties to trial court’s satisfaction [Para 13].

Eviction – Bonafide Need – Burden of Proof – Landlord sought eviction for settling son and daughter-in-law, claiming no other business space – Held, landlord’s averments of no other space sufficient, tenants must disprove – No need for landlord to prove non-existence of premises if such situation never existed – Landlord’s silence on rear residential portion of the building does not impact maintainability of eviction petitions – Orders of eviction upheld [Paras 1-37].

Eviction – Suppression of Facts – Fourth Shop – Landlord admitted fourth shop with separate electricity meter used as a store – No suppression as site plan disclosed it – Landlord did not benefit by withholding information – Plea of suppression by tenants rejected [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Revisions dismissed – Orders of eviction by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Stay applications also dismissed [Paras 38-40].

Juvenile Justice – Bail to Juvenile – Statutory Mandate – Petitioner, a juvenile, sought bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act – Bail to juveniles is a rule, denial is an exception – Court must release a juvenile unless one of the three exceptions in Section 12(1) applies: association with known criminals, exposure to moral danger, or defeating the ends of justice – Gravity of the offense not a consideration for bail – Petitioner granted bail, as none of the exceptions applied [Paras 1-13].

Legal Principles – Non-obstante Clause – Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act – Section 12 overrides provisions of the CrPC – Prior dismissal of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC does not affect the bail application under Section 12 – Juvenile’s prolonged detention not justified, bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned orders denying bail set aside – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail – Conditions imposed for the legal guardian to monitor the juvenile [Paras 11-12].

Contracts Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act – Employer-Employee Relationship – Reinstatement – Labour Court found that claimants, shown as employees of Contractors, were actually employees of the petitioner company – Registration under the 1970 Act did not specify the nature of work performed by the claimants – Held, Labour Court correctly held claimants as employees of the company, reinstating them with all benefits – Petitioners failed to prove claimants were employed by Contractors [Paras 1-27].

Burden of Proof – Continuity of Service – Documentary Evidence – Petitioner claimed workers were employed by Contractors but failed to produce documentary evidence – Labour Court assessed evidence correctly, finding continuous work with the company – No appointment letters from Contractors, and petitioner destroyed older records – Labour Court’s findings upheld [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Labour Court’s award reinstating claimants with full back-wages and continuity of service upheld – Petitioner’s applications rendered infructuous [Paras 27-29].

Covid-19 Pandemic – Holding of Exams – Adherence to Guidelines – Petitioner challenged the University’s decision to hold BDS first-year exams, alleging violation of Covid-19 guidelines – University successfully conducted previous exams with due precautions – Supreme Court in Maghi Devi case upheld conduct of exams with no highlighted deficiencies – Petitioner, residing near exam center, cannot represent other students – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Examination Conduct – Precautionary Measures and Legal Compliance – University adhered to guidelines, no complaints from students – Petitioner did not demonstrate any specific violations – Practical exams to be conducted on non-living subjects with precautions – University's conduct of exams upheld as compliant with Covid-19 guidelines [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – University's notifications for exams upheld – University’s adherence to Covid-19 guidelines affirmed [Para 10].

Bail – Chit Funds Scheme – Financial Fraud – Petitioner, a director and promoter of M/s HDPL, involved in unauthorized chit fund scheme, collected substantial money from the public with false assurances – Petitioner’s role direct and active in the scheme – Large sums collected not yet recovered – Petitioner declared Proclaimed Offender in related cases – Bail denied due to flight risk and criminal antecedents [Paras 1-13].

Criminal Law – Financial Crime – Proclaimed Offender – Petitioner involved in similar financial fraud cases – Convicted under Section 174-A IPC for absconding – History of evading court proceedings – Prosecution’s apprehension of petitioner being a flight risk valid – Bail petition dismissed [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Bail petition dismissed – Petitioner to remain in custody – Observations not to affect merits of the case during trial [Para 13].

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Cooperative Society – Petitioners' services terminated by respondent cooperative society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 – Held, society not "State" under Article 12, not amenable to writ jurisdiction – No financial stake or control by the State, no public function performed by society – Petition dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1-18].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Public Function and State Control – Respondent society governed by its own bye-laws, no evidence of State being a stakeholder – Supreme Court precedents establish that societies not created under statute and without pervasive State control are not "State" under Article 12 – Relevant cases include S.S. Rana v. Registrar Cooperative Societies and General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Respondent society not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petitioners directed to pursue other legal remedies if available [Para 17].

Contract Law – E-Tender – Revocation of Cancellation – FCI Regional Office scrapped the tender due to less participation and invited fresh tenders – Petitioner challenged the scrapping and served a legal notice – FCI Headquarters revoked the scrapping and decided to proceed with the initial tender – Held, FCI as a statutory body and contracting party has authority to rectify mistakes by its delegates – Decision by Headquarters valid – Petitioner has no vested right to be awarded the contract despite being the L-1 bidder – Petitioner's grievance stands resolved as financial bid has been opened [Paras 1-23].

Authority of Contracting Party – Delegation of Powers – Correction of Errors – Regional Office's decision to scrap the tender could be reconsidered by FCI Headquarters – Headquarters’ decision not an appeal or revision but an exercise of authority vested in FCI – Delegation of powers allows FCI to ensure consistency and adherence to guidelines – Petitioners in other writs have no vested right after disqualification in initial tender [Paras 16-22].

Decision:

CWP No. 7474 of 2020 disposed of as partly infructuous – Directed FCI to proceed with the tender enquiry as per law – Petitioner's claim for allotment of contract dismissed [Para 23(a)].

CWP No. 7442, 7454, 7455, 7456 of 2020 dismissed – No illegality in FCI’s actions – Public interest not adversely affected [Para 23(b)].

Proclaimed Offender – Quashing of Order – Improper Service – Petitioner declared proclaimed offender and FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC due to non-appearance in a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 NI Act – Held, the correct address of the petitioner was not furnished by the complainant, resulting in non-service of summons – Mandatory 30-day period for appearance not complied with – Proclamation effected at wrong address – Order declaring petitioner proclaimed offender and subsequent FIR quashed [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Compliance with Section 82 CrPC – Service of Summons – Petitioner’s correct address not used for service of summons – Proclamation effected at a different address – Court noted non-compliance with Section 82 CrPC – Petitioner offered to surrender and furnish bank guarantee equivalent to cheque amount – Court accepted offer and quashed the proclamation and FIR [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR under Section 174-A IPC quashed – Petitioner to surrender and join proceedings, furnish bank guarantee – Trial court directed to release petitioner on bail upon compliance [Para 9].