Land Acquisition - Determination of Market Value - Non-compliance with Statutory Requirements - Judicial Review – The petitioner challenged the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, which reduced the value of the acquired land significantly. The court held that the award did not comply with the statutory requirements of the 2013 Act, particularly Section 26, which mandates the determination of market value based on specific criteria and the application of a multiplication factor specified by the government. The court found that the necessary notification specifying the multiplication factor was not issued, and mere instructions were not sufficient compliance. The award was set aside. [Paras 1-13]​​

Compliance with Statutory Requirements - Held, the statutory requirement of issuing a notification specifying the multiplication factor as per Section 26(2) and the First Schedule of the 2013 Act was not fulfilled. Instructions issued by the government did not meet the legal requirement, and the Collector's award based on such instructions was invalid. [Paras 10-11]​​

Decision - Award Set Aside - The award dated 29.5.2015 passed by the Collector was set aside due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements. The necessary consequence of setting aside the award was ordered, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. [Paras 12-13]​​

Constitutional Law - Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility Criteria - Judicial Review – The petitioner, a Sewadar in the office of the Market Committee, was promoted to the post of Clerk subject to the condition of completing five years of service and passing the type test. The Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, later canceled this promotion citing non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria at the time of promotion. The petitioner argued that he subsequently fulfilled the conditions and claimed the cancellation was against natural justice. The court dismissed the petition, holding that acquiring eligibility at a later date does not rectify the initial illegality. The principles of natural justice do not extend to giving a hearing if the action taken was in accordance with the statutory rules. Discrimination cannot be claimed to seek directions for perpetuating an illegality. [Paras 1-20]​​

Natural Justice - Extent and Limits - Held, principles of natural justice are not rites to be performed on all occasions. They must be applied reasonably and logically, not to illogical extremes. If a promotion is illegal due to non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria, a subsequent hearing does not validate the promotion. [Paras 13-14]​​

Discrimination - Invalid Plea - Held, a plea of discrimination cannot sustain when the petitioner was not legally eligible for the promotion. Even if other employees were promoted under similar circumstances, it does not create a right for the petitioner. Article 14 envisions a positive concept and does not endorse perpetuating illegality. [Paras 17]​​

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The petitioner was found ineligible for promotion under the 1989 Rules at the time of promotion. The subsequent fulfillment of conditions did not cure the defect. However, the dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from asserting his right to be considered for future promotion upon acquiring eligibility. [Paras 18-20]​​

Constitutional Law - Religious Beliefs - Samadhi - Disposal of Body - Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India - High Court's order mandating disposal of the body of Ashutosh Ji Maharaj by cremation quashed. The High Court held that in the absence of any law directing the disposal of the body, such a direction would violate the fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26, which protect the religious beliefs and practices of the followers of Ashutosh Ji Maharaj, who believe he is in 'Samadhi'​​.

Locus Standi - Right to Perform Last Rites - Disputed Relationship - The court ruled that Dalip Kumar Jha had no locus standi to claim the body for performing last rites as he failed to establish his relationship with Ashutosh Ji Maharaj. The matter was left to be determined in appropriate civil proceedings​​.

Absence of Law - Preservation of Body - Public Health - In the absence of any specific law governing the disposal of the body, the court emphasized that any directive to dispose of the body against the followers' beliefs could only be considered if there were substantial public health concerns​​.

Mandate for Cremation Set Aside - The court set aside the Single Judge's order directing the cremation of the body and directed the State and the Sansthan to ensure the preservation of the body, maintaining that the body would not be cremated without cogent evidence of public health risk or decay​​.

Taxation Law - Imposition of Higher Tax Rate - Judicial Review - The petitioners challenged the demand for higher tax by the State of Punjab after an initial reduction in the tax rate per draw. The court held that the State can lawfully collect tax only at the rate notified under the Act, and any tax collected beyond the notified amount is without legislative authority and illegal. The demand for higher tax was set aside, and the excess tax collected was ordered to be refunded. [Paras 1-15]

Role of Assurance and Notification in Tax Levy - Held, the reduction in tax was not contingent upon the increase in the number of daily draws as there was no such condition in the notification. The State cannot collect tax over and above the amount specified in the notification based on internal assurances or commitments. [Paras 10-12]

Decision - Setting Aside of Excess Tax Demand - The demand for tax above Rs. 62,000 per draw for the period from January 23, 2016, to February 21, 2016, was set aside. The excess amount collected during this period was ordered to be refunded to the petitioners with interest. [Paras 14-15]

Tender Process - Qualification Criteria of Bidders - Judicial Review – Petitioners, non-CPWD contractors registered with the Union Territory of Chandigarh, sought eligibility to submit bids for an e-tender without being registered with the CPWD – Held, the court cannot alter, amend, or modify the eligibility criteria stipulated by the party inviting the tender – The entity inviting tenders is entitled to set its own eligibility conditions and cannot be compelled to accept registrations from a different organization or enterprise – Consequently, the petition was dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Role of Courts in Tender Process – Held, courts cannot compel the party inviting tenders to accept registrations with an organization other than the one specified in the tender's eligibility criteria – The qualification criteria are determined by the inviting party based on their assessment of what is required for the performance of the work in question. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – The petition seeking alteration of the eligibility criteria from CPWD registration to Union Territory of Chandigarh registration was dismissed. [Para 8]

Seniority - Rules and Executive Instructions - Judicial Review – The case involved a seniority dispute among Lecturers appointed through different selection processes. The 2001 Rules and the 1994 Rules were silent on the determination of inter-se seniority between different batches. The court held that in the absence of specific rules, executive instructions dated 24.11.1962, which determine seniority based on the date of recommendations by the Punjab Public Service Commission, should be applied. The court emphasized that ministerial inaction or delay should not disadvantage candidates from earlier batches. [Paras 1-37]​​

**Executive Instructions of 1962 - Applicability - Held, the instructions dated 24.11.1962 are applicable for determining seniority when distinct posts are amalgamated into a common pool for promotion purposes. These instructions provide an equitable criterion that does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [Paras 26-29]​​

Criteria for Determining Seniority - Held, seniority should be determined based on the date of recommendations by the Public Service Commission to avoid inequitable outcomes due to delays in ministerial processes. This method ensures fairness and consistency. [Paras 27-30]​​

Decision - Appeal Allowed - The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The revised seniority list dated 11.11.2010 issued by the State Government was upheld, and the competent authority was directed to take follow-up action within three months. [Paras 36-37]​​

Constitutional Law - Right to Education - Administrative Lapses - Judicial Review – The petitioner completed her first year of M.Sc. (Nursing) and immediately applied for the second year by paying the requisite fee. However, she discontinued her studies to join as a Staff Nurse in the Government of Punjab. In 2015, she applied to continue her second year but her application was rejected due to the maximum period allowed for the degree being four years. The court held that the university's delay in deciding the petitioner's application caused her to lose valuable time. Had the application been decided promptly, the petitioner would have completed her degree within the four-year period. The university was directed to allow the petitioner an extended period of one year to complete her degree. [Paras 1-5]​​

Administrative Delay - Impact on Students - Held, the university exhibited a casual approach in handling the petitioner's application, resulting in wasted time. There was no dispute regarding the petitioner's enrollment and fee payment for the second year. The delay in application processing by the university was unjustified. [Para 3]​​

Decision - Extension Granted - The court extended the period by one year for the petitioner to complete her M.Sc. Nursing degree. The university was directed to consider her application for continuation and allow her to complete the course, provided all other aspects were in order. [Para 4]​​

Limitation Act, 1963 - S.3 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O.14 Rl.1 - Limitation as a Legal Issue - Non-framing of Issue - Judicial Review – Held, the absence of an explicit issue on limitation by the trial court does not invalidate the question of whether the suit was within the period of limitation. Limitation is a fundamental issue, and the court must consider it regardless of whether it was raised earlier. [Para 52]

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 63, 68, 69 - Proof of Will - Registered Will - Standard of Proof – Held, a registered will must be proved in strict compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. If attesting witnesses are not alive, the will can be proved under Section 69 of the Evidence Act. The attestation must be in the handwriting of the attesting witnesses, and the signature of the executant must be authenticated. [Paras 53, 58]

Delay in Production of Registered Will - Not Fatal - Held, even though there was a delay in producing the will after the death of the testatrix, the delay is not considered fatal to the plaintiffs' case if the will is otherwise duly proved and there are valid reasons for the delay. [Para 63]

Soundness of Mind - Plea of Unsoundness - Held, a challenge to the will on the grounds of the testatrix's unsoundness of mind must be supported by medical evidence. In the absence of such evidence, and where testimony indicates the testatrix was of sound mind, the plea of unsoundness is not sustainable. [Para 66]

Natural Succession vs. Will - Held, the will's deviation from natural succession is justified if reasons for such deviation are specified in the will, such as the testatrix’s decision to bequeath her property to the plaintiffs due to their support and care. [Para 67]

Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 58 and 65 - Suit for Declaration - Held, the suit filed after three years of the death of the testatrix is not time-barred under Article 65, which allows a period of twelve years for possession based on title. [Para 71]

Decision - Reversal of Lower Court’s Judgment - Validity of Will Upheld - The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, upholding the validity of the registered will, recognizing the plaintiffs as the rightful owners in possession of the suit land. The issues of limitation and unsoundness of mind were resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. [Paras 52-71]

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Supervisory Responsibility and Delay – Petitioner, a retired District Food and Supplies Controller, faced allegations of supervisory lapses and damage/shortage of wheat gunny bags dating back to 1989 – Inquiry initiated six years later in 1995 and completed in 2002 found no lack of supervision by the petitioner – Competent authority's dissent notes issued in 2007 resulted in orders for recovery and withholding of gratuity in 2008 – High Court quashed the orders, noting significant delays and lack of evidence of supervisory failure by the petitioner – Held, petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of subordinate staff without clear evidence of supervisory negligence. [Paras 19-23]

Evidence and Procedure - Inquiry Report and Dissent Notes – Inquiry Officer found no proof of supervisory lapses by the petitioner – Competent authority disagreed and issued dissent notes five years post-inquiry – Court held that dissent notes without substantial evidence cannot override inquiry findings – Recovery orders based on delayed and unsupported dissent notes were unjustified. [Paras 19, 21, 23]

Judicial Review - Delay in Disciplinary Actions and Its Impact – Court emphasized the unreasonable delay of six years to issue charge-sheets and five years to act on inquiry reports – Such delays undermine the credibility of disciplinary actions and cause undue hardship to the accused – Petition allowed, and recovery orders quashed due to procedural unfairness and lack of timely action. [Paras 19, 23]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned charge-sheets dated 17.10.1995 and 11.12.1996, show cause notices dated 09.03.2007, and recovery orders dated 07.02.2008 and 29.03.2008 quashed – Respondents directed to release gratuity, commuted pension, and the amount recovered from the petitioner with 9% interest per annum. [Paras 23-24]