Regulatory Fees – Power to Legislate – Increase in Fees – Petitioner's grievance against 50% increase in fees for stamping and verification of weights and measures – Court held the Controller empowered to renew licenses as per Section 23(2) and Section 53 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – Each State has the autonomy to frame its own rules – No violation of Articles 14 and 19 found – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-17].

Quid Pro Quo – Distinction between Tax and Fee – Petitioner argued the increased fees constituted a tax rather than a fee – Court referenced Supreme Court rulings distinguishing regulatory fees from taxes – Fees need not have a strict quid pro quo but must be reasonable and not excessive – Increase justified within legislative competence – No arbitrary or unjust imposition established [Paras 12-14].

Renewal Fees – Legality – Petitioner's contention that renewal fees were beyond the State's authority – Court held renewal within the scope of powers granted by the Legal Metrology Act – Renewal fee is a corollary to issuance fee – Statutory provisions empower State to prescribe renewal fees [Paras 16-17].

Discrimination – Fee Comparison with Neighboring States – Petitioner claimed fee disparity with neighboring states constituted discrimination – Court found each State independent in its rule-making – Quantum of fee is within legislative discretion – No breach of constitutional equality principles [Para 17].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Increase in license fees and security deposit by the State of Punjab upheld – No merit in claims of arbitrariness, excessiveness, or discrimination – Petition dismissed [Para 18].

Tender Process – Review of Technical Bids – Complaint Handling Protocol – Petitioner's technical bid rejected initially – Respondent's representation led to reevaluation and acceptance of their technical bid – Review based on proper protocol stipulated in DNIT – The court found the committee acted within its power under DNIT, and there was no procedural lapse – Petitioner's claim of non-review power unsustainable [Paras 1-19].

Experience Qualification – Calculation Error – Respondent's technical bid initially declared non-responsive due to a calculation error in bid document – Representation clarified the error (521.875 KLH should be 12.575 MLD) – Reassessment found respondent met the qualification criteria – No new criteria applied, only correction of an oversight – Petitioner's objection on this basis rejected [Paras 20-32].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Principles of judicial restraint emphasized in tender matters – Unless process adopted or decision made by the authority is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or biased, court interference is unwarranted – Court found no bias or mala fide in the committee's decision – High-powered committee's credibility and expertise upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 33-39].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Respondent's technical bid reevaluated and accepted correctly – Complaint handling protocol followed – No grounds for judicial interference found – Petition dismissed with no merit [Para 39].

Tax Legislation – Interpretation – Constitutionality – Petitioner challenged the upper limit of Rs. 5 Crore for disputed tax under Section 9(a)(i) of VSV Act as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Supreme Court precedents affirmed that tax laws should be strictly construed and the legislative domain should be respected – The Court held that fixing a monetary limit for availing benefits under the VSV Act is within legislative competence and not arbitrary or discriminatory – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-25].

Equity in Taxation – Hardship and Equity – Petitioner argued that the upper limit caused hardship and was inequitable – Court reiterated there is no equity in tax matters and hardship is not a valid ground for challenging the validity of a fiscal statute – Statutes must be interpreted as per their plain language without considering legislative intent beyond what is explicit [Para 21].

Legislative Classification – Rational Basis – Challenge to the monetary limit for availing benefits under VSV Act – Court emphasized the legislature's wide latitude in economic and fiscal policies – Classification based on monetary limits is a permissible legislative action and does not infringe on constitutional equality – Principles of economic pragmatism guide such classifications [Para 23].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – The upper limit for disputed tax under VSV Act is constitutionally valid – The Court upheld the legislative classification and dismissed the plea of hardship – No violation of Article 14 found [Para 25].

Land Acquisition – Deemed Lapsing – Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Possession and Compensation – Petitioner challenged the acquisition on grounds of non-payment of compensation and continued possession – Court held that possession was taken by the Estate Officer, HUDA on the date of the Award (12th May, 2006) – Compensation awarded lying with LAC and enhanced compensation deposited in Court – Petitioner's claim of non-payment and non-possession found untenable – Representation for release of land based on incorrect assertions rightly rejected by Respondents – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Possession of Land – Acquisition Procedure – Court referred to Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal – Physical possession taken as per statutory requirements – Possession by Government deemed complete upon drawing up possession memorandum – Subsequent trespass does not negate possession [Para 15].

Non-payment of Compensation – Legal Obligation – Compensation initially awarded lying with LAC, enhanced compensation deposited in Court – Non-deposit does not lead to lapse of acquisition proceedings – Payment obligation met by tendering compensation under Section 31(1) of 1894 Act – Petitioner's plea regarding non-payment rejected [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – No negative conditions under Section 24(2) met – Representation for release based on incorrect facts – Petition dismissed with no orders as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Alternative Remedy – Availability of statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act – MSME seeking mandamus to the bank to consider case under CGSSD and to stay possession proceedings – High Court held that the petitioner unjustifiably bypassed the statutory remedy – Emphasis on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Whirlpool Corporation case regarding when writ jurisdiction can be invoked despite alternative remedies – No justification found for High Court to interfere under Article 226 – Petition dismissed, relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies under SARFAESI Act [Paras 1-19].

Principles of Natural Justice – Failure to follow RBI Circulars concerning MSMEs – Petitioner contended Bank’s action of classifying loan as NPA and issuing possession notices without hearing was against natural justice – High Court noted that the Bank's decision was a commercial one, best left to financial experts, and not open to judicial interference unless decision-making process flawed [Paras 10-16].

Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) – Effective Remedy – Emphasis on exhausting statutory remedies – Petitioner should approach DRT and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) for relief – High Court stressed that judicial review under Article 226 available after exhausting such remedies [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedies under SARFAESI Act – High Court declined to interfere, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 17-19].

Arbitration Clause – Applicability of Arbitration Acts –

Petitioners entered into a lease agreement with an arbitration clause referring disputes to the Managing Director of the Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation or his nominee under the 1961 Act – Dispute arose, and petitioners invoked jurisdiction under the 1996 Act – Held, Section 55 of the 1961 Act pertains to disputes related to the business of the cooperative society – Lease of immovable property does not relate to the business of procuring, processing, and marketing milk – Therefore, the dispute does not fall within Section 55 of the 1961 Act – Arbitration to be conducted under the 1996 Act [Paras 1-21].

Interest and Involvement of Arbitrator –

Managing Director of the Federation was found to have an interest in one of the parties to the agreement, making him ineligible as an arbitrator under Clause 5 of the VII Schedule of the 1996 Act – Petition for appointment of an independent arbitrator was allowed [Paras 22-32].

Decision:

Petition under Section 11 of the 1996 Act allowed – Appointment of independent arbitrator ordered – Connected appeals dismissed as infructuous following surrender of leasehold premises – Interim orders of Additional District Judge upheld [Paras 32-34].

Writ of Mandamus – Legal and Judicially Enforceable Right – Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to relax the norms laid down by the Indian Roads Congress for setting up a fuel station – Held, a writ of mandamus can only be issued when the petitioner establishes a legal and judicially enforceable right and the respondents are under a legal duty to perform – Petitioner did not possess such a right, and only had the right to command the respondents to make a decision – Cited judgments of co-ordinate and Division Benches were not binding precedents under Article 141 as the question of law was neither taken up nor decided therein – Petition disposed of by directing the committee to take a final decision on the matter [Paras 9-16].

Relaxation of Norms – Discretionary Power – Court emphasized that the power to relax guidelines is discretionary and does not create an enforceable right – Relaxation guidelines are meant for public safety to prevent tragedies – Therefore, the Court found it inappropriate to issue a writ of mandamus to compel authorities to grant relaxation – Directed the committee to make a decision on the petitioner’s request for relaxation [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Petition disposed of by directing the committee to take a final decision on the petitioner's request for relaxation of norms – Court did not make any findings on the merits of the case [Para 18].

Preferential Qualification – Weightage and Merit – Petitioner possessed essential qualification and a postgraduate degree in Criminology, which was a preferential qualification for the post of Deputy Superintendent Jails – Claimed he was not selected due to non-weightage for preferential qualification – Respondents argued preferential qualifications only come into play when candidates score equal marks – Court held preferential qualifications do not entitle a candidate to preference independent of overall merit – Preferential qualification tilts the balance only when marks are equal – Selection process upheld, petition dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Preferential Qualification and Reservation – Judicial Precedents – Court referred to Supreme Court judgment in The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu &ors., which established that preferential qualifications tilt the balance only when marks are equal, and do not constitute reservation – Merit must not be compromised by considering preferential qualifications as a separate block [Paras 10-11].

Decision:- Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner not entitled to preference based on preferential qualification of Criminology – Petitioner correctly awarded 2 marks for higher qualification, not 5 marks as claimed [Paras 12-13].

Parole – Involvement in Other Cases – Threat to Public Order –

Petitioner’s application for parole denied due to involvement in other NDPS Act cases and apprehension of engaging in drug activities if released – Held, likelihood of committing a similar offense while on parole is not sufficient to establish an active and real threat to the security of the state or maintenance of public order – Temporary parole of four weeks granted [Paras 1-7].

Judicial Reasoning – Precedent and Parole Criteria –

Court referenced CRWP-2156-2019, Jeet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, and CWP No.19340 of 2019, Manjit Singh @ Ladu v. State of Punjab and others, which held that involvement in other cases under NDPS Act alone is insufficient to deny parole absent concrete evidence of threat to state security or public order – State’s apprehension not supported by record – Parole granted subject to conditions [Para 6].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner granted temporary parole for four weeks subject to furnishing bonds/surety – Additional conditions imposed include providing a mobile number and undertaking not to engage in illegal drug activities – Authorities granted liberty to take action for any breach of conditions [Para 7-8].