Regulation of Private Education Boards – Petitioners challenged the amendment to the Punjab School Education Board Act, 1969, Constitutional Law – Right to Trade and Business – Education – asserting it violated Article 19(1)(g) by creating a monopoly favoring the Punjab School Education Board – Held, Article 19(1)(g) is not an absolute right and reasonable restrictions can be imposed in public interest – Ordinance aimed at preventing abuse in education sector and ensuring quality education – CBSE and ICSE recognized due to statutory backing, unlike the petitioner – No infringement of constitutional rights found – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-21]

Regulatory Measures and Public Interest – Analysis – Held – Regulation of education standards essential to prevent mushrooming of unrecognized institutions – Ensuring quality education justifies restrictions imposed by the Ordinance – Regulatory measures balanced freedom under Article 19 with public interest controls under Clause (6) of Article 19 – Education’s inclusion in the concurrent list allows state legislation on the subject – Ordinance does not exceed legislative competence. [Paras 12-16]

Decision – Dismissing Writ Petition – Court upholds validity of the Punjab School Education Board (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013 – Reasonable restrictions imposed to maintain education standards and prevent misuse – No merit in petitioner’s claim of parity with CBSE and ICSE – Petition dismissed in limine. [Paras 20-21]

Municipal Law – Solid Waste Management – Contract Cancellation – Petitioner No.1, Pollution Control Committee, filed a writ petition to direct the Municipal Corporation for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste and dead animals – Municipal Corporation awarded contract to petitioner No.2 for setting up a solid waste management plant – Lease deed executed but petitioner No.2 failed to obtain necessary clearance from Pollution Control Board – Contract cancelled and lease possession not given – Cancellation challenged on grounds of lack of opportunity for hearing – Held, petitioner No.2 failed to obtain mandatory clearance, rendering the contract cancellation justified – Judicial review of concluded contracts limited unless public law element involved – No merit in challenge to cancellation without possession or proper clearance. [Paras 1-38]

Contractual Obligations – Regulatory Compliance – Analysis – Held – Compliance with Pollution Control Board authorization critical for validity of waste management contracts – Public interest in ensuring environmental safety – Judicial review does not extend to non-statutory contract breaches absent a public law element – Petitioner No.2’s failure to meet basic contractual condition of obtaining clearance justified contract termination – Procedural arguments regarding lack of hearing academic without possession or clearance. [Paras 18, 34, 36]

Decision – Dismissing Writ Petition – Court finds cancellation of contract and lease justified due to non-compliance with regulatory requirements – No merit in procedural arguments – Petition dismissed – Municipal Corporation directed to re-award contract within six months, ensuring compliance with regulatory norms for public safety. [Para 38-39]

Land Acquisition - Determination of Market Value - Appeals - A batch of 226 appeals challenging awards by the Reference Court regarding the market value of land acquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant - Held, Market value must be assessed based on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Policy dated 06.05.2007 of assessing value on the date of the award, not permissible - Court directed to use the date of notification for calculation - Appeals Allowed in Part, market value reassessed accordingly [Paras 2.1, 3.4, 5.21].

Evidence Admissibility - Analysis - Held, Applications to admit additional evidence allowed - High Court as the first appellate court must reappreciate evidence, ensuring the market value reflects the date of notification under Section 4, not the award date - Discrepancies in Reference Court’s reliance on state policy corrected [Para 5.5].

Decision - Reassessment of Compensation - Court mandates reassessment of market value from the date of notification, rejecting the policy-based approach by the Reference Court - Revised compensation to be determined [Para 5.21].

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC – Appeal against conviction for raping a 7-year-old girl – Victim's testimony corroborated by medical evidence – Delay in lodging FIR explained due to non-identification of the accused initially – High Court finds testimony of the minor victim credible and consistent with the prosecution’s case – No evidence suggesting false implication – Conviction and 10-year sentence upheld. [Paras 1-26]

Evidence Law – Testimony of Child Witness – Reliability – Victim’s testimony found credible and free from exaggeration – Minor victim’s consistent statements during investigation and trial deemed reliable – High Court emphasizes that child witness testimony should not be rejected unless tutored or unreliable – Court finds no tutoring or unreliability in victim’s statements. [Para 22]

Delay in Lodging FIR – Explanation and Impact – Delay due to victim's inability to initially identify the accused – High Court accepts delay as properly explained – Emphasizes that delay in sexual offence cases can be due to various reasons including family’s hesitation – Delay does not affect credibility of prosecution’s case. [Paras 14, 17]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – High Court upholds trial court’s judgment and sentence – Finds no merit in the appeal – Confirms 10-year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 376(2)(f) IPC – Emphasizes statutory minimum punishment for rape of a girl under 12 years. [Para 26]

Tax Law - Right to Appeal Under Section 39 - State's Right to Appeal – The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision dismissing their appeal under Section 39(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, as not maintainable and the subsequent review application – Court held that Section 39(2) does not limit the right of appeal to any particular person or party and includes the State – The existence of revisionary powers under Section 40 does not negate the right of appeal under Section 39(2) – Right to appeal under Section 39(7) against orders in revision does not preclude appeals under Section 39(2) – Petition allowed, Tribunal's orders set aside, and appeal restored for merit-based disposal. [Paras 5, 7, 8]

Judicial Principles - Interpretation of Appeal and Revision Provisions – The Tribunal erroneously concluded that the appeal was not maintainable by misinterpreting Sections 39 and 40 – Revisionary powers under Section 40(1) are distinct from the right to appeal under Section 39(2) – The Tribunal failed to recognize the State's right to appeal and misread the legislative scheme of the Act. [Paras 6-7]

Procedural Law - Review and Appeal Mechanisms – The Tribunal's denial of the State's appeal and review application was based on a restrictive interpretation of the Act – Court clarified that the appeal and revision are separate remedies and one does not exclude the other – The legislative intent was to provide a comprehensive appeal mechanism under Section 39. [Paras 6-7]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders of the Tribunal dated 12.08.2005 and 30.11.2007 set aside – Appeal before the Tribunal restored to file and directed to be disposed of on merits. [Para 8]

Personal Injury Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident - Claimant suffered multiple fractures to the left ankle, underwent surgeries, and incurred medical expenses - Claimant's income assessed based on income tax return prior to the accident - Assessment of permanent physical disability and future loss of earnings - Award for pain and suffering, transportation charges, attendant charges, and loss of amenities of life - Interest awarded from the date after 30 days of injury - Appeals by claimant and insurance company dismissed, as compensation awarded by the Tribunal upheld. [Para 1-23]

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Applicability – The appellant argued that incidents of sexual harassment and assault occurred either before the enforcement of the POCSO Act or after the prosecutrix attained majority – Held, incidents in 2011 occurred before the POCSO Act, but continued harassment in 2012 and 2013 fell within its purview – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-52].

Sexual Harassment – Repeated Incidents – Detailed Testimony – The prosecutrix's detailed testimony about repeated incidents of harassment was considered credible despite the appellant’s claims of improvements in her statements – Court found her deposition consistent with the evidence [Paras 24-34].

Delay in FIR – Context of Reluctance – Delay of over a month in filing the FIR explained by the prosecutrix's hesitation and the sensitive nature of the allegations against her mother and close relative – Court accepted her explanation as reasonable under the circumstances [Paras 43-44].

Applicability of Section 42 of POCSO Act – Overlapping Offences – Section 42 of POCSO Act mandates greater punishment between IPC and POCSO for overlapping offences – Trial court erred in convicting under both Section 354A IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act – Conviction under Section 354A IPC set aside [Paras 49-51].

Decision: Appeals and revision petition dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld except for the setting aside of the conviction under Section 354A IPC due to overlap with POCSO Act [Para 52].

Will – Registration – Validity – Whether a will is invalid if signed by the testator and attesting witnesses before an official rather than the Registrar – Court held that although ideally, the signatures should be obtained before the Registrar, the will is not invalidated solely on this ground – Registration of a will is not compulsory, and the execution of the will was otherwise duly proved – Appellate court’s finding that the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances reversed [Paras 1-23].

Joint Hindu Family Property – Proof – Whether mere joint residence and common ration card prove property is Joint Hindu Family property – Court held that these factors alone are insufficient to establish the property as Joint Hindu Family property – Plaintiff failed to prove the property was ancestral – Appellate court’s findings based on insufficient evidence set aside [Paras 24-32].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed – Findings of the appellate court reversed on both substantial questions of law [Paras 33].

Judicial Discipline – Repeated Petitions – Abuse of Process – Petitioner repeatedly filed petitions under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking similar relief – Court dismissed previous petitions on the same grounds – Petitions considered as 'bench hunting' and abuse of process – Courts bound by doctrine of judicial discipline, findings of higher courts or coordinate benches must be respected – Current petition dismissed with costs [Paras 1-19].

Perjury – False Affidavit – Previous Judgments – Petitioner alleged respondent filed false affidavit leading to dismissal of her writ petition – Earlier courts found no basis for inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s repeated attempts to re-litigate same issue deemed frivolous and misleading – Petition dismissed for lack of merit and non-disclosure of full facts [Paras 2-18].

Judicial Conduct – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioner concealed previous court orders and facts – Court emphasized that litigants with intent to deceive and mislead are not entitled to relief – Petition dismissed with costs imposed on petitioner for wasting judicial time during COVID-19 pandemic [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Held – Petition dismissed as non-maintainable – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed to be deposited with Haryana Corona Relief Fund [Paras 18-19].