Regulation of Fee – Private Unaided Educational Institutions – Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 30(1) – Vires of Section 87 of the Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966 – Notification extending Punjab Regulation of Fee of Unaided Educational Institutions Act, 2016 to Chandigarh challenged – Requirement for schools to disclose income, expenditure, and balance sheet on website – Court held provisions reasonable, aimed at transparency and curbing profiteering – No violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1) – Autonomy of institutions not infringed – Petition dismissed [Paras 176-182].

Transparency and Accountability – Public Interest – Reasonable Restrictions – Court emphasized education as a profession involving charitable activities – Regulatory measures to protect student community and ensure non-exploitative education standards upheld – Modifications made to ensure balance between interests of students, institutions, and societal need for accessible quality education [Paras 176-182].

Autonomy vs. Regulation – National Interest – Court reiterated that rights under Article 30(1) are not absolute – Government regulations permissible to ensure transparency, prevent profiteering, and maintain educational standards – Modifications by Central Government do not destroy minority character of institutions [Para 177].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Held – Modifications by Central Government in extending the 2016 Act to Chandigarh valid and reasonable – Provisions ensuring transparency and accountability do not violate constitutional rights – Regulatory measures necessary for preventing capitation fee and profiteering in education – Petitions dismissed [Paras 182].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Beyond 24 Weeks – Genetic Defect – Section 3(2)(ii) of the MTP Act – Petitioner sought termination of pregnancy at 24 weeks and 5 days due to genetic defect in fetus – Previous child with similar disorder – Permanent Medical Board confirmed fetus likely affected by Metachromatic Leukodystrophy, a neurological disorder – Court held petitioner’s case falls under Section 3(2)(ii) despite being 6 days beyond 24-week limit – Termination permitted in light of Medical Board's recommendation – Petition allowed [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Consideration – Statutory Interpretation – Section 3(2) – Court emphasized importance of Medical Board’s clear recommendation and petitioner’s psychological distress – Statutory period of 24 weeks not absolute if substantial risk of serious fetal abnormality is confirmed – Medical and psychological considerations override strict statutory limits [Paras 3-6].

Public Interest – Health and Welfare – Court highlighted importance of considering health and welfare of the petitioner – Termination in petitioner’s interest due to potential lifelong problems for child with Metachromatic Leukodystrophy – Judicial intervention necessary to prevent undue hardship [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Medical termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks permitted due to genetic defect in fetus – PGIMER Chandigarh directed to admit petitioner and terminate pregnancy under supervision of Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology – Economic condition of petitioner to be considered for expenses [Para 7-10].

Pension Parity – Private Aided Colleges vs. Government Employees – Articles 14 and 311 – Petitioners, retired teachers from private aided colleges, claimed parity in pension calculation with government employees – Court held teachers of private aided colleges cannot claim parity due to different service conditions and recruitment methods – Non-transferable posts and different retirement ages noted – Petitioners’ lack of protection under Article 311 highlighted – Pension calculated under 1999 Rules upheld [Paras 1-23].

Statutory Provisions – Pension Calculation – Rule 9 of 1999 Rules – Pension for private aided college teachers calculated at 50% of average pay of last 10 months – Court found no discrimination as different service conditions justified distinct treatment – Petitioners' claim for last pay drawn rejected as parity not warranted [Paras 3-13].

Judicial Precedents – Validity of Cut-off Dates – Reference to Supreme Court cases affirming validity of cut-off dates for pension benefits – Government entitled to set cut-off dates based on financial and administrative considerations – Petitioners' reliance on D.S. Nakara case found misplaced as subsequent rulings modified its application [Paras 8-10].

Government Policy – Financial Implications – Court recognized government’s right to implement pension schemes considering financial constraints – Change in pension calculation method from last pay drawn for those retiring post-2010 valid – Pre-2010 retirees governed by previous method based on financial planning [Paras 16-23].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners not entitled to parity with government employees – Different service conditions and statutory provisions justify distinct pension calculation methods – No arbitrariness in government’s decision to set cut-off dates – Petition dismissed [Para 24-25].

Recovery of Excise Revenue – Arrears of Land Revenue – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Section 98 – Petitioner contended that with the abolition of land revenue by the Punjab Land Revenue (Abolition) Act, 1997, recovery of excise revenue as arrears of land revenue is not permissible – Court held that under Section 98 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, arrears of land revenue can be recovered not only under the provisions of the Act but also under any other Act, for recovery of fees, fines, costs, and other charges – Excise revenue can be recovered as arrears of land revenue – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-21].

Legal Provisions – Abolition of Land Revenue – Section 98 – Court emphasized that the Punjab Land Revenue (Abolition) Act, 1997, does not affect the recovery of other dues under Section 98 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Arrears of land revenue, including excise revenue, can be recovered under the provisions of any other enactment for fees, fines, costs, and charges – Argument that no recovery notice under Section 68 of the Act can be issued after abolition of land revenue rejected [Paras 10-20].

Procedural Fairness – Natural Justice – Service of Orders – Petitioner claimed non-receipt of order dated 07.09.2017 – Court found that notices were duly served on the petitioner’s Manager, thus complying with principles of natural justice – Petitioner's challenge based on non-service of notice dismissed [Paras 28-50].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Recovery of excise revenue as arrears of land revenue upheld – Abolition of land revenue does not preclude recovery of other statutory dues under Section 98 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Petition dismissed for lack of merit and compliance with procedural fairness [Paras 51-56].

Fraud and Nullity – Tribunal Orders – Article 226 of Constitution – Constitutional Court's Duty – Petitioner alleged fraud in obtaining tribunal orders for plot allotment – Court held that orders obtained by fraud are nullity and non-executable – Duty of every court to declare such orders null and void – Mere omission to disclose insignificant facts does not necessarily lead to dismissal of a petition under Article 226 [Paras 1-36].

Acquisition and Allotment – Fraudulent Acts – Evidence of Fraud – Detailed examination revealed fraudulent acts by the Chairman of the Improvement Trust and connivance with officials and society members – Resolution to allot plots annulled by State Government under Section 72-E of Punjab Town Improvement Act – Fraud vitiated allotment of plots and development charges [Paras 1-36].

Judicial Review – Inadequate Remedy – Supreme Court Jurisdiction – Court found that dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP) at the threshold by the Supreme Court does not preclude the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 – No merger of orders due to non-speaking dismissal of SLPs [Paras 25-27].

Consumer Protection Act – Additional Remedies – Section 3 – Remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, not in derogation of other laws – High Court's power to review decisions obtained by fraud remains intact despite Consumer Forum's jurisdiction [Paras 21-24, 31].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Orders of the tribunal declared null and void due to fraud – Directions for fresh investigation by SIT within 3 months – Court emphasized need for diligent action by authorities to prevent recurrence of such frauds [Paras 34-38].

Reservation Policy – Vertical vs. Horizontal Reservation – Articles 14 and 16 – Petitioners challenged the conversion of Ex-Servicemen reservation from vertical to horizontal and its subdivision among reserved categories – Court held that horizontal reservation, whether overall or compartmentalized, is valid – Conversion aims at equitable distribution and is not arbitrary or discriminatory – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-10, 17.3].

Legal Framework – Constitutional Provisions – Court discussed Articles 14, 15, and 16, emphasizing the State's power to ensure equality through reasonable classification – Horizontal reservation ensures fair representation within the confines of 50% reservation cap as mandated by the Supreme Court – Constitutional and statutory compliance affirmed [Paras 6-10, 16-19].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court Guidance – Cited cases including Indra Sawhney, Anil Kumar Gupta, and Saurav Yadav – Clarified that horizontal reservations like those for Ex-Servicemen cut across vertical reservations, ensuring representation across categories – Adhered to principles laid out in these precedents [Paras 8, 10, 12, 13].

Policy Implementation – Administrative Actions – Subdivision of horizontal reservation avoids complications and prejudice, ensuring better implementation – Government's policy found consistent with judicial guidance and not arbitrary – Rationalized administrative decision upheld [Paras 17-18, 18.1-18.2].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Instructions converting and subdividing Ex-Servicemen reservation valid and constitutional – Ensured equitable representation without exceeding reservation limits – Petition dismissed for lack of merit and compliance with Articles 14 and 16 [Para 20].

University Affiliation and Expansion – Prohibited Activities – Section 10 of Haryana Private Universities Act, 2006 – University set up under the Act cannot affiliate colleges, open offshore campuses, or offer distance education – Petitioners sought to expand activities beyond Haryana using changed sponsoring body – Court held such expansion prohibited under Section 10 – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-21].

Procedural Law vs. Substantive Justice – Compliance with Natural Justice – Court emphasized that procedural laws should not override substantive justice – Petitioners claimed lack of natural justice in withdrawal of permission – Court found no prejudice caused to petitioners as they were given opportunities to present their case – Procedural lapses did not alter substantive outcome – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Financial Resources and Property Ownership – Section 9 of Haryana Private Universities Act, 2006 – Sponsoring body must possess land and financial resources – Petitioners' trust lacked property ownership and financial stability – Society's property mortgaged for loans – University and Trust misrepresented financial position to banks – Permission withdrawal justified [Paras 1-24].

Natural Justice and Administrative Fairness – Examination of Submissions – Detailed scrutiny of administrative and procedural aspects – Court found no procedural unfairness or administrative bias – Petitioners failed to show violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice – Petition dismissed [Paras 19-34].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners' request to change the sponsoring body of PDM University denied – Section 10 prohibits expansion beyond Haryana – Procedural lapses did not impact substantive justice – No permission to substitute sponsoring body due to lack of compliance with statutory requirements – Petition dismissed [Para 34].

Ad-valorem Court Fee – Suit for Recovery – Clever Drafting – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Petitioner's suit styled as one for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction under Specific Relief Act – Claimed recovery of Rs. 6,35,00,000/- for articles allegedly taken by the defendant – Court held that suit is for recovery of money, thus ad-valorem court fee payable on the amount claimed as per Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act – Plaintiff cannot avoid proper court fee by clever drafting [Paras 1-10].

Legal Principle – Substance over Form – Examination of Pleadings – Court emphasized that the substance of the claim determines the court fee, not the form of the suit – Plaintiff’s attempt to project the suit as one for injunction to evade higher court fee rejected – Pleadings clearly showed intent to recover specific monetary amount [Paras 10-11].

Precedents – Irrelevance of Cited Cases – Petitioner relied on judgments in Amandeep Sidhu, Shiv Kumar Sharma, and Meticulous Pharmaceutical – Court found these precedents inapplicable as they involved different facts where either final determination was contingent or different legal questions were at issue – Present case involved clear monetary claim requiring ad-valorem fee [Paras 11-14].

Judicial Review – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court's Decision – Court upheld the trial court’s order directing payment of ad-valorem court fee – No interference warranted under Article 227 as the trial court correctly applied legal principles to the facts – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Held – Plaintiff's suit substantively for recovery of money requires ad-valorem court fee – Clever drafting to evade fee not permissible – Trial court’s order upheld, petition dismissed with no grounds for interference [Paras 16-17].

Election Petition – Maintainability – Petitioners sought to invalidate election results alleging respondents' encroachment on government land – Held, writ petition not maintainable under Article 226 – Proper remedy is an election petition as per Sections 74 and 89(1)(c) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 – Writ petition dismissed due to the existence of an alternative remedy – Emphasized that the controversy can only be adjudicated after evidence is led, which is suitable for an election petition, not a writ petition [Paras 1-10].

Specific Remedy – Preclusion by Existing Petition – Petitioners had already filed an election petition challenging the election on similar grounds – Concession by petitioners’ counsel that an election petition was pending before the Competent Authority – Reiterated that when a specific legal remedy has been availed, a writ petition on the same grounds is not maintainable [Para 8].

Misplaced Reliance – Incorrect Justification – Petitioners relied on an interim order in a different case (CWP No.5876 of 2021) – Court clarified that circumstances of the referenced case were not applicable to the present matter, as the former involved a General Election Observer's report on malpractices – Petitioners cannot leverage that order for their claim [Para 9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners' plea dismissed as non-maintainable – Directed petitioners to pursue the election petition already filed for resolution of their grievances [Para 10].