Writ Petition - Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-Law - Senior Citizen's Property - Jurisdiction of Civil Court Barred - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Section 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Petitioner, a senior citizen, sought eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from his house, claiming absolute ownership through a registered sale deed. The District Magistrate dismissed the application, deeming the property ancestral and advising recourse to civil court. Held, the District Magistrate failed to address relevant facts and the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 27 of the 2007 Act. Order set aside, matter remanded for fresh consideration. [Paras 7-10]

Cryptic and Non-Speaking Order - Requirement of Reasoned Decision - Senior Citizen's Rights - The Court observed that the District Magistrate's order was cryptic and non-speaking, lacking discussion on key facts and legal provisions. Directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the application with a reasoned order, ensuring adherence to statutory mandates. [Paras 6-10]

Decision - Remand for Fresh Consideration - Protection of Senior Citizens - The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded to the District Magistrate for a fresh decision. The petitioner was allowed to supplement his application with additional pleadings and documents. The District Magistrate was instructed to decide the matter expeditiously, considering the senior citizen's claims under the 2007 Act. [Paras 11-12]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Bona Fide Need - Eviction Order - Mortgage Defense - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Tenant claimed the property was mortgaged to him, terminating the landlord-tenant relationship, and possession could only be reclaimed through redemption. Court held that the tenant could not use the mortgage deed as a defense after previously denying its validity. Eviction on grounds of bona fide need upheld. [Paras 22-24]

Eviction Petition - Tenant's Inconsistent Stance - Sham Mortgage Deed - Applicability of Landlord-Tenant Law - Tenant initially denied the validity of the mortgage deed and claimed tenant status. Court held tenant's inconsistent stance invalidated his mortgage defense. The eviction petition was valid as the landlord-tenant relationship continued to exist. [Paras 22-23]

Decision - Dismissal of Revision Petition - Affirmation of Eviction Order - The Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the eviction order. The tenant's claim of a mortgage was contradicted by his earlier admissions and actions, which the court interpreted as extinguishing the right to redeem under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [Para 24-25]

Writ Petition - Forfeiture of Earnest Money - Clerical Error in E-auction Bid - Unjust Enrichment - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner submitted a price bid of Rs. 17,900 per quintal instead of Rs. 1,790 per quintal due to a clerical error. Authorities were immediately informed but did not permit rectification, leading to cancellation of allocation and forfeiture of earnest money. Held, there was no wilful default by the petitioner. Retention of earnest money by FCI amounted to unjust enrichment. Directed refund of Rs. 17,90,000 to the petitioner. [Paras 8-10]

Bid Rectification - Clerical Error - Lack of Provision in Tender Conditions - Tender Process - The Court held that despite the absence of a provision for downward revision of bids in the Model Tender Form (MTF), the authorities should have exercised their discretion to correct an apparent accidental error. Petitioner's immediate notification of the error demonstrated the lack of intent to bid at the erroneous higher rate. [Paras 6-9]

Decision - Refund of Forfeited Earnest Money - Just and Equitable Relief - The Court quashed the impugned letters rejecting the petitioner's request for bid rectification and forfeiture of earnest money. Ordered FCI to refund the forfeited amount, acknowledging that the petitioner was a victim of a clerical error and not at fault. [Para 10]

Service Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Rule 9 of Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Punishment and Appeal Regulations, 1971 - Imposition of Penalty Without Dissent or Further Inquiry - The petitioner, a Senior Executive Engineer, was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, yet the punishing authority imposed a major penalty without recording any reasons or a dissenting note - Held, the action violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory regulations - Orders imposing penalty quashed - Petition allowed. [Paras 10, 12, 13]

Non-Speaking Orders and Adverse Civil Consequences - Requirement for Reasoned Orders - Any order entailing adverse civil consequences must be a self-speaking order justifying the decision taken - The impugned order imposing the penalty was cryptic and non-speaking, lacking the required justification - The appellate order also failed to address the grounds raised in the appeal, rendering it infirm. [Paras 12, 13]

Court’s Reasoning - Procedural Compliance and Fair Hearing - The punishing authority did not follow the procedure outlined in Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(2) of the 1971 Regulations, which mandates recording reasons for any disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings or remitting the case for further inquiry - Failure to provide a fair hearing and reasoned order constituted a breach of procedural compliance and fairness. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.08.2015 and 18.11.2016 imposing the major penalty on the petitioner are quashed. All consequential benefits arising from the quashing of these orders are to be released to the petitioner forthwith. Given the petitioner's superannuation and the admission by the respondent-Corporation that no financial loss was caused, no liberty is granted to proceed afresh in the matter.

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Conflict of Interest – Petitioner challenged the appointment of the arbitrator on grounds of bias and ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule of the Act – Court held that if an arbitrator falls under any category in the Seventh Schedule, he/she becomes de jure unable to perform functions – Grounds raising justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality to be raised before the arbitrator under Section 13 – In the present case, the Managing Director’s recommendation and the government’s appointment did not violate statutory requirements – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-45].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Sole Arbitrator’s appointment upheld – The Court found no inherent bias or procedural lapses in the arbitrator’s appointment – Reaffirmed the role of the government in appointing an arbitrator as per the agreement, independent of the Managing Director’s recommendation [Paras 44-46].

Criminal Law - Medical Negligence - Quashing of Criminal Complaint and Summoning Order –Criminal Appeal against summoning order for offense under Section 304-A IPC – Allegation of medical negligence against appellant in the treatment of respondent's wife – Contention that summoning order was passed without obtaining necessary medical opinion from a government doctor as mandated by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew’s case – Held, summoning order set aside – Directions issued for the constitution of a Medical Board to determine negligence. [Paras 1-25]

Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Analysis –Held – Both the lower courts failed to follow the Supreme Court's mandate in Jacob Mathew's case, which requires obtaining a prima facie medical opinion from a government doctor before initiating criminal proceedings in medical negligence cases – Absence of such compliance necessitated the quashing of the summoning order. [Para 26]

Role of Expert Medical Opinion –Held – The necessity of obtaining an expert medical opinion prior to summoning is crucial to avoid frivolous prosecutions and ensure a fair trial – The Medical Board's assessment will provide an impartial evaluation of the alleged negligence. [Para 19-21]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Order –The summoning order against Dr. Kamal Jeet Singh is set aside due to non-compliance with the prerequisite of expert medical opinion – Case remanded for the constitution of a Medical Board to assess the alleged negligence and report within a specified timeframe – Fresh order to be passed by JMIC based on the Medical Board's findings. [Para 26-28]

NDPS Act – Compliance of Mandatory Provisions – Investigation lapses leading to bail and acquittals – Issuance of guidelines for investigating officers – Court found that non-compliance with provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act often results in faulty investigations, allowing accused to secure bail and eventual acquittal – Guidelines issued for adherence to statutory requirements to ensure fair and impartial investigations – Instructions for preparing and circulating guidelines and checklist in PDF format for ready reference by investigating officers [Paras 1-20].

Decision – Petitions Disposed of – Held – Interim bail granted to petitioners made absolute due to investigation lapses – Directed preparation and circulation of guidelines and directory checklist to all investigating officers – Failure to comply with directions will result in revival of petitions for action against senior police officials [Paras 17-20].

Constitutional Law - Right to Life - Article 21 - Stray Cattle Menace - State's Duty of Care - Victim severely injured by a stray bull, leading to 90% permanent disability and eventual death - Court held the State responsible for failure to protect life, mandated by Article 21 - Compensation awarded to the victim's family assessed under Motor Vehicles Act principles. [Paras 17, 22, 25, 26]

Municipal Law - Duty to Manage Stray Animals - Punjab Municipal Bye-laws and Haryana Municipal Bye-laws - State and municipal bodies obligated to manage and control stray animals to prevent harm to citizens - Failure to do so results in liability for compensation - Comprehensive measures and policies directed to prevent future incidents. [Paras 23, 24, 36, 37]

Court's Reasoning - Unchallenged Evidence and Negligence - Medical and police records substantiated the claim - State's negligence established by lack of proactive measures against stray animal menace - Protective and compensatory duties highlighted. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 23, 24]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The State of Punjab and its municipal authorities are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 29,32,000 with interest at 6% per annum from September 1, 2012, till payment. Compensation to be shared as follows:

Smt. Nisha (wife): 50%

Mohit Garg (son): 25%

Akshika (daughter): 25%

Mandamus Issued:

States of Punjab and Haryana to implement specific measures under their respective bye-laws to control stray animals and prevent incidents.

Local Governments to designate officials for seizing and managing stray animals, ensuring proper facilities and preventive actions.

UT Chandigarh to take similar measures until specific bye-laws are framed.

Criminal Law - Procedural Compliance under NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act –Search and Seizure Requirements – Appellants charged and tried under Sections 21(c) and 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Conviction and sentence of 14 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each challenged – Defence contended non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act – Held that non-compliance with Section 42 does not vitiate the trial if no prejudice is caused to the accused – Recovery was from the bag, thus Section 50 not applicable. [Paras 1-25]

Role of Compliance in Emergent Situations – Analysis –Held – In emergent situations where immediate action is necessary, the requirement to record information and notify superior officers under Section 42 can be postponed – Compliance is considered sufficient if the information is recorded and conveyed after the search – The urgency and practicality of the situation are critical factors. [Para 18]

Search of Bag Not Requiring Section 50 Compliance –Held – The search and recovery from the bag carried by the appellants do not necessitate compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which is mandatory only for personal searches – Division Bench relied on SC decisions affirming this principle. [Paras 21-22]

Decision – Conviction and Sentencing Upheld –The Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellants, confirming that there was substantial compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and no prejudice was caused – Appeal dismissed. [Para 24-25]