RERA – Pre-Deposit Requirement – Constitutional Validity – Petitioners contended that requiring only promoters to make a pre-deposit as a condition for entertaining their appeals is discriminatory – Held, not discriminatory; distinction based on intelligible differentia satisfying Article 14 – Pre-deposit is mandatory under proviso to Section 43(5), and appeals cannot be entertained without it – Consistent with Supreme Court decisions, pre-deposit requirement deemed reasonable [Paras 1-16].

Consumer Complaints – Concurrent Remedies – Section 71 and Section 88 – Homebuyers can pursue complaints under the Consumer Protection Act and RERA simultaneously – Not mandatory to transfer complaints from consumer fora to Adjudicating Officer (AO) – Consumers must choose relief consciously; if opting for AO, relief limited to compensation or interest – RERA provides additional remedies, not derogating from other laws [Paras 17-37].

Applicability of RERA to Ongoing Projects – Contention on retroactive application of RERA to ongoing projects addressed – Court held RERA applies to ongoing projects for protecting interests of homebuyers and ensuring transparency – Provisions intended for effective consumer protection and sectoral regulation [Paras 38-45].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Proviso to Section 43(5) of RERA upheld – Pre-deposit condition for promoters' appeals validated – Rules 28 and 29 of Haryana Rules as amended also upheld – Time granted for making pre-deposit as a one-time measure – Authority's jurisdiction under RERA affirmed [Paras 46-47].

Writ Petition – Selection Process – Vice-Chancellor – Petitioner, an aspirant for Vice-Chancellor, challenged the selection process and the Board's decision to reconstitute the Search Committee – Alleged inclusion of ineligible candidates – Held, petition dismissed for non-impleadment of necessary parties and incorrect averments – Petitioner's participation in the process and later challenge without impleading shortlisted candidates deemed inappropriate [Paras 1-18].

Procedural Requirements – Misleading Information – Non-impleadment – Petitioner failed to challenge the Gazette Notification and did not implead the Board or shortlisted candidates – Incorrect information led to interim stay – Petition found non-maintainable due to procedural lapses and attempt to mislead the Court – Petitioner’s conduct criticized for lack of responsible behavior in seeking a role model position [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Petition found non-maintainable due to non-impleadment of necessary parties and incorrect contentions [Paras 17-18].

Real Estate Regulation – Single Member Authority – Validity of Orders – Petition challenged delegation of adjudicatory functions to a single member of the Authority – Held, Section 29 envisages the Authority as a multi-member body; no provision in the Act permits a single member to exercise judicial functions – Regulations 7 and 8 authorizing a single member bench quashed as ultra vires – Orders passed by a single member of the Appellate Tribunal also set aside for lack of jurisdiction – Both the Authority and Appellate Tribunal must function with the required quorum of members as specified under the Act [Paras 1-66].

Delegation of Functions – Consistency with the Act – Judicial Interpretation – The Authority cannot make regulations inconsistent with the Act under Section 85 – Single member benches cannot discharge judicial functions unless expressly provided by the Act – Regulations delegating adjudicatory power to single members invalid – Orders by single-member Appellate Tribunals are void – Judicial functions must be performed by the prescribed quorum [Paras 56-60].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Regulations 7 and 8 of the Punjab RERA Procedure Regulations quashed – Orders passed by single member benches set aside – Authority and Appellate Tribunal directed to function with prescribed quorum – New circular to be issued by Authority consistent with the judgment [Paras 75-83].

Real Estate Regulation – Single Member Authority – Validity of Orders – Petition challenged delegation of adjudicatory functions to a single member of the Authority – Held, Section 29 envisages the Authority as a multi-member body; no provision in the Act permits a single member to exercise judicial functions – Regulations 7 and 8 authorizing a single member bench quashed as ultra vires – Orders passed by a single member of the Appellate Tribunal also set aside for lack of jurisdiction – Both the Authority and Appellate Tribunal must function with the required quorum of members as specified under the Act [Paras 1-66].

Delegation of Functions – Consistency with the Act – Judicial Interpretation – The Authority cannot make regulations inconsistent with the Act under Section 85 – Single member benches cannot discharge judicial functions unless expressly provided by the Act – Regulations delegating adjudicatory power to single members invalid – Orders by single-member Appellate Tribunals are void – Judicial functions must be performed by the prescribed quorum [Paras 56-60].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Regulations 7 and 8 of the Punjab RERA Procedure Regulations quashed – Orders passed by single member benches set aside – Authority and Appellate Tribunal directed to function with prescribed quorum – New circular to be issued by Authority consistent with the judgment [Paras 75-83].

Public Employment – Equity in Appointment Process – Petitioners contested the appointment of Respondent No. 4, who approached the court after his application was rejected due to incomplete documentation – Held, approaching the court does not place Respondent No. 4 in a better position than other candidates who did not approach the court but were similarly rejected – Relief granted to Respondent No. 4 is inequitable as it adversely affected the petitioners who fulfilled all requirements and secured their positions fairly – Appointment process must maintain fairness and equity among all candidates [Paras 1-23].

Judicial Review – Process Integrity – Holistic View vs. Equity – Court emphasized that equity does not justify distorting the appointment process by favoring one candidate over others without valid reasons – All candidates must be treated equally, especially in public sector appointments through open selection processes – Respondent No. 4 failed to comply with application requirements despite multiple opportunities [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the learned Single Judge set aside – Petitioners' appointments upheld – No costs ordered [Para 23].

Rent Law – NRI Landlord – Leave to Contest – NRI landlord sought eviction for settling permanently in Amritsar – Tenant failed to file an affidavit with the application for leave to contest – Held, leave to contest must follow procedure under Section 38(7) – Rent Authority to examine tenant’s entitlement within limited aspect of Section 24(3) – Tenant's failure to follow procedure resulted in summary eviction – Orders of eviction upheld [Paras 1-13].

Summary Procedure – Affidavit Requirement – Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court and High Court precedents affirm necessity of affidavit for contesting eviction petitions – Tenant’s failure to provide affidavit deemed an admission of landlord’s claims – Legislative intent is a speedy resolution in favor of landlords with genuine needs – Orders by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority justified [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Tenant granted three months to vacate premises – Orders by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld [Para 15].

Compromise in Legal Proceedings – Validity of Statements in Court – Landlord filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act for non-payment of rent and personal necessity – Parties settled and recorded their statements before the Appellate Authority – Tenant later sought disposal of the appeal on merits, claiming he was allured into making the statement – Held, statements recorded by a party or counsel in court are as valid as written compromises and satisfy the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – The exception is fraud or deception, which must be proven in a separate suit – No evidence of collusion found, petition dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Legal Sanctity of Court Statements – Documentary Evidence – Statements made in court and recorded by a judicial officer hold the same sanctity as written instruments of compromise – Judicial statements are presumed to be voluntary and are binding unless proven otherwise through specific legal action alleging fraud – Tenant's application for merit-based disposal lacked substantiating evidence of fraud or collusion [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Appellate Authority’s order upheld – Statements recorded by the court considered valid compromises – No action against the counsel as no complaint filed with Bar Council – Time provided to comply with the order given the pandemic situation [Paras 23-25].

Service Law – Recruitment as Station Supervisor – Eligibility Criteria – Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995 and related advertisement required a graduate with Hindi/Sanskrit at Matric level and a minimum of five years' experience in Motor Road Transport Government, Semi-Government or public undertakings for direct recruitment as Station Supervisors (SS) – No requirement of supervisory experience for direct recruits – Held, promotional eligibility criteria cannot be applied to direct recruits – Amendment to eligibility criteria post-selection process invalid [Paras 1-20].

Promotional vs. Direct Recruitment Criteria – Administrative Instructions – Promotional eligibility required five years’ supervisory experience, but direct recruitment criteria specified general experience in Motor Road Transport – Changing eligibility criteria by administrative clarification after the selection process commenced deemed impermissible – Statutory rules cannot be overridden by administrative instructions [Paras 14-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Single Judge set aside – Respondents directed to consider the appellants for appointment as Station Supervisors based on eligibility criteria in the advertisement and the Rules – Exercise to be completed within twelve weeks [Paras 22-23].

Service Law – Seniority – Retrospective Effect of Eligibility – Petitioners, declared ineligible initially due to their degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, were later held eligible by the court – Petitioners sought to be treated as appointees of 2014 batch, despite actual appointment in 2015 – Held, as per Gurdeep Singh's case, petitioners were eligible when they applied and participated in the selection process in 2012 – Thus, they must be treated as 2014 batch appointees and entitled to seniority and promotion benefits accordingly [Paras 1-22].

Equivalence of Qualifications – Judicial Decisions and Policy Considerations – Court noted the equivalence of degrees as decided by the Corporation in 2014, and the judgment in Gurdeep Singh's case affirmed this equivalence – The Corporation’s policy decision dated 08.08.2016 for promotional benefits to late-joining Assistant Engineers due to reasons attributable to the Corporation applied similarly to Junior Engineers – Corporation’s arbitrary denial of similar benefits to petitioners violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners to be treated as 2014 batch appointees for Junior Engineers (Electrical) – Inter-se seniority to be based on merit secured in the common written examination held on 28.07.2013 – Petitioners entitled to notional pay fixation as 2014 batch appointees, without arrears for non-working period [Paras 29-31].

Sabka Vishwas Scheme – Single Declaration for Multiple Show Cause Notices – Rule 3(2) Interpretation – Petitioner contended that a single declaration suffices for a pending consolidated appeal before the CESTAT, as per Rule 3(2) – Held, Rule 3(2) requires separate declarations for each case but does not apply when multiple show cause notices are consolidated into a single order and appeal – Rejection of petitioner's application on hyper-technical grounds deemed unjustified – Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act invoked to interpret 'case' in the singular to include plural – Petitioner’s application should not have been rejected for filing one declaration [Paras 1-14].

Judicial Interpretation – Contextual Reading – Technicalities vs. Substance – Court emphasized substance over technicalities, noting CBSE’s flexible stance in previous similar corrections – Petition highlighted no dispute over the genuineness of petitioner’s claims – Larger interpretation required for just resolution – Respondents’ objection dismissed [Paras 8-13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 21st February 2020 set aside – Respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's single declaration within eight weeks – Fresh decision to be communicated within one week thereafter – Petitioner granted liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies if aggrieved by the new decision [Paras 14-15].