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]​​

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A - Structured Formula Basis - Enhancement of Compensation - Judicial Review – The appellants, family members of the deceased Surinder Kumar, sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT. The court held that once an award is made under Section 163-A, which provides for special provision for payment of compensation on a structured formula basis, there is no deviation from the Second Schedule of the Act. The MACT's award was modified and the compensation was enhanced. [Paras 1-14]​​

Structured Formula Basis - Compliance with Schedule II - Held, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act should be dealt with strictly as per Schedule II. There is no scope for deviation in the manner of how the amounts are specified as payable. [Para 7]​​

Calculation of Compensation - Held, the court calculated the compensation based on the income of the deceased, deductions for personal expenses, and applying the multiplier as per Schedule II. The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4,58,300/-, including loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. [Paras 12-13]​​

Interest on Enhanced Compensation - Held, the additional amount of compensation shall attract interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. [Para 9]​​

Decision - Appeal Partly Allowed - The court modified the award of the Tribunal, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4,58,300/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization of the amount. The compensation was directed to be distributed in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. [Paras 13-14]​​

Constitutional Law - Pension - Withholding of Pension - Departmental Inquiry - Judicial Review – The petitioner, a retired Excise and Taxation Officer, had his pension stopped following his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that it is necessary to determine the misconduct by holding a departmental inquiry before stopping the pension of a retiree, as per the limits stipulated under the rules. The stoppage of pension without such an inquiry was found to be illegal. The petition was allowed, and respondents were directed to pay arrears of pension with interest. [Paras 1-17]​​

**Need for Departmental Inquiry - Held, the government must conduct a departmental inquiry to determine whether the circumstances leading to the conviction amount to "grave misconduct." Mere conviction and sentencing do not automatically justify stopping the pension. An inquiry ensures that the basic ingredients of grave misconduct are established before taking action. [Para 8]​​

**Application of Rules - Held, Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules requires the determination of serious crime or grave misconduct through a departmental inquiry. Any action to stop or withhold pension without such inquiry is contrary to the rules. [Para 10]​​

Decision - Petition Allowed - The impugned order dated July 14, 2014, stopping the petitioner's pension, was set aside. The respondents were directed to make payment of arrears of pension from the date it was stopped, along with 9% interest per annum, within two months from the receipt of the judgment. The respondents were granted liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry if desired, with any action taken operating prospectively from the date of the order. [Para 17]​​

Constitutional Law - Lok Adalat - Jurisdiction and Powers - Judicial Review – The petitioners challenged the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, which had decided the issue of tampering with an electricity meter and unauthorized use of electricity in favor of the consumer. The court held that Lok Adalats are not constituted for adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their primary role is to explore the possibility of conciliation. They are not equipped to handle technical matters such as theft or unauthorized use of electricity or tampering with meters. The impugned order was set aside, and the consumer was directed to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act before the appropriate appellate authority. [Paras 1-5]​​

Role and Limitations of Lok Adalat - Held, Lok Adalats are meant to facilitate conciliation and cannot adjudicate technical issues that require expertise, such as tampering with electricity meters. These matters should be left to proper adjudication by the appellate authorities provided under the relevant statutes. [Para 3]​​

Consumer Rights and Remedies - Held, while setting aside the Lok Adalat's order, the court ensured that the consumer would still have a remedy by directing them to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. The appellate authority would hear the case on merits, and the consumer would not be exempt from any statutory requirements, including depositing the required amount while filing the appeal. [Para 4]​​

Decision - Impugned Order Set Aside - The court set aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and directed the respondent to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. The limitation for filing the appeal would not apply due to the consumer's continuous litigation before alternative forums. [Paras 4-5]​​

Land Acquisition - Determination of Market Value - Non-compliance with Statutory Requirements - Judicial Review – The petitioner challenged the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, which reduced the value of the acquired land significantly. The court held that the award did not comply with the statutory requirements of the 2013 Act, particularly Section 26, which mandates the determination of market value based on specific criteria and the application of a multiplication factor specified by the government. The court found that the necessary notification specifying the multiplication factor was not issued, and mere instructions were not sufficient compliance. The award was set aside. [Paras 1-13]​​

Compliance with Statutory Requirements - Held, the statutory requirement of issuing a notification specifying the multiplication factor as per Section 26(2) and the First Schedule of the 2013 Act was not fulfilled. Instructions issued by the government did not meet the legal requirement, and the Collector's award based on such instructions was invalid. [Paras 10-11]​​

Decision - Award Set Aside - The award dated 29.5.2015 passed by the Collector was set aside due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements. The necessary consequence of setting aside the award was ordered, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. [Paras 12-13]​​

Constitutional Law - Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility Criteria - Judicial Review – The petitioner, a Sewadar in the office of the Market Committee, was promoted to the post of Clerk subject to the condition of completing five years of service and passing the type test. The Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, later canceled this promotion citing non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria at the time of promotion. The petitioner argued that he subsequently fulfilled the conditions and claimed the cancellation was against natural justice. The court dismissed the petition, holding that acquiring eligibility at a later date does not rectify the initial illegality. The principles of natural justice do not extend to giving a hearing if the action taken was in accordance with the statutory rules. Discrimination cannot be claimed to seek directions for perpetuating an illegality. [Paras 1-20]​​

Natural Justice - Extent and Limits - Held, principles of natural justice are not rites to be performed on all occasions. They must be applied reasonably and logically, not to illogical extremes. If a promotion is illegal due to non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria, a subsequent hearing does not validate the promotion. [Paras 13-14]​​

Discrimination - Invalid Plea - Held, a plea of discrimination cannot sustain when the petitioner was not legally eligible for the promotion. Even if other employees were promoted under similar circumstances, it does not create a right for the petitioner. Article 14 envisions a positive concept and does not endorse perpetuating illegality. [Paras 17]​​

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The petitioner was found ineligible for promotion under the 1989 Rules at the time of promotion. The subsequent fulfillment of conditions did not cure the defect. However, the dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from asserting his right to be considered for future promotion upon acquiring eligibility. [Paras 18-20]​​

Constitutional Law - Religious Beliefs - Samadhi - Disposal of Body - Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India - High Court's order mandating disposal of the body of Ashutosh Ji Maharaj by cremation quashed. The High Court held that in the absence of any law directing the disposal of the body, such a direction would violate the fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26, which protect the religious beliefs and practices of the followers of Ashutosh Ji Maharaj, who believe he is in 'Samadhi'​​.

Locus Standi - Right to Perform Last Rites - Disputed Relationship - The court ruled that Dalip Kumar Jha had no locus standi to claim the body for performing last rites as he failed to establish his relationship with Ashutosh Ji Maharaj. The matter was left to be determined in appropriate civil proceedings​​.

Absence of Law - Preservation of Body - Public Health - In the absence of any specific law governing the disposal of the body, the court emphasized that any directive to dispose of the body against the followers' beliefs could only be considered if there were substantial public health concerns​​.

Mandate for Cremation Set Aside - The court set aside the Single Judge's order directing the cremation of the body and directed the State and the Sansthan to ensure the preservation of the body, maintaining that the body would not be cremated without cogent evidence of public health risk or decay​​.