Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 22 – Eviction of Children and Relatives – Petitioner, a widowed daughter-in-law, directed to vacate her father-in-law’s self-acquired house – Court upheld the Tribunal’s order, emphasizing that a senior citizen cannot be compelled to allow any relative to stay in their self-acquired property against their wishes – Petitioner to receive an initial amount of Rs. 2 lakhs for alternate accommodation and further Rs. 25 lakhs within a month from vacating the house, along with a monthly sum of Rs. 25,000/- for six years [Paras 1-19, 53, 65-68].

Family Dispute – Right to Residence – The Court noted that respondent No. 2, the 82-year-old father-in-law, had allowed the petitioner to stay in his house since the death of her husband in 2003, but found her behavior intolerable – Court emphasized the need for an amicable settlement to mitigate family disputes – Petitioner’s claim to stay in the house without the father's consent was dismissed, as the house was self-acquired by the father-in-law [Paras 62-64].

Judicial Review – Scope and Power – Court exercised judicial superintendence under Article 226 – Tribunal’s jurisdiction affirmed to order eviction to protect senior citizens’ rights and property – Eviction order based on senior citizen's right to live with security and dignity in their own property [Paras 40, 43-45].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Held – Impugned order upheld with modifications – Respondent No. 2 to provide financial support for petitioner’s relocation and living expenses – Directions given for mutual cooperation to resolve the family dispute amicably [Paras 68-69].

Civil Procedure – Deposit of Lease Money – Striking Off Defense – Petitioner was directed to deposit lease money and his defense was struck off upon non-payment – Application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC filed by respondents was allowed by Civil Court – Held, plaintiffs had no locus standi due to lack of lessor-lessee relationship – They cannot benefit from Order XV Rule 5 CPC – Orders striking off defense set aside [Paras 1-19].

Judicial Examination – Relationship of Lessor-Lessee – Mandatory Provisions – Court emphasized that without an established lessor-lessee relationship, mandatory provisions for deposit do not apply – Civil Court failed to consider locus standi and admitted relationship issues – Proper judicial procedure requires acknowledging disputes regarding relationships and agreements before enforcing payment directives [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Impugned orders dated 18.10.2019 and 18.12.2019 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) set aside – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 4,17,414/- with the Court within one month – Amount to be kept in fixed deposit until trial conclusion – Civil Court directed to decide the suit within six months and grant reasonable opportunity for evidence – Non-compliance to reactivate impugned orders [Para 19].

Admission to Professional Courses – Scrapping of Entrance Test – COVID-19 Pandemic –Petitioner challenged the scrapping of entrance exams for law courses, arguing that the decision violated the terms of the prospectus and compromised merit-based admissions – Held, first choice should be to hold entrance test for law courses as preferred by the University and recommended by the Supreme Court in Chander Chinar Baba Akhara Udasin Society case – Relevant clauses of the prospectus allowed modifications depending on circumstances, thereby authorizing the University’s decision – Scrapping entrance test was not without authority of law – Decision taken considering lack of infrastructure, financial constraints, social distancing norms, and ensuring fairness in online exams – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-46].

Modification of Prospectus – Authority and Judicial Review –Terms of the prospectus empowered the University to modify admission procedures based on the prevailing situation – Decision to scrap entrance exams due to COVID-19 was within the University’s authority and aimed at ensuring public health and safety – Such decisions, while legally sound, remain open to judicial scrutiny and must align with statutory mandates and institutional competence [Paras 30-35].

COVID-19 Precautions – Impact on Admission Procedures –Court recognized the University's practical difficulties in conducting physical exams, including the risk of viral spread and adherence to social distancing protocols – Decision based on detailed assessment of resources and public health guidelines – Emphasized duty of institutions to safeguard health of candidates and staff [Paras 40-45].

Decision:Writ petition dismissed – University’s decision to scrap entrance exams upheld as legally justified and in public interest under exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic [Para 46].

University Regulations – Eligibility and Compliance – Student Rights – Petitioner, a BA student, permitted by Vice Chancellor to opt for History and Culture of Punjab instead of Punjabi, contrary to the online joint prospectus and statutory regulations – Syndicate reversed decision – Held, actions of university officials in violation of statutory regulations do not confer vested rights on students – No estoppel against law – Petition dismissed with costs on the University for improper conduct causing stress and jeopardizing the petitioner’s career [Paras 1-19].

Statutory Compliance – Role of University Authorities – Judicial Review – Vice Chancellor’s approval inconsistent with regulations – Eligibility criteria under prospectus mandatory – Syndicate, as competent authority, rightfully reversed the Vice Chancellor’s decision – University must adhere to statutory provisions in educational administration [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Petitioner not entitled to opt for History and Culture of Punjab – University ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to petitioner for improper initial approval and resultant distress – Petitioner allowed to take Punjabi examination as a deficient subject/paper [Paras 17-19].

Transfer Order – Mala Fides and Transfer Policy Violation – Judicial Review – Petitioner challenged the transfer order on grounds of mala fides and violation of Transfer Policy, being transferred before three years without recorded reasons – Held, petitioner unable to establish mala fides – In transfer matters, writ jurisdiction is invoked only in cases of mala fides or public interest – Violation of Transfer Policy not sufficient for interference as policy guidelines are not binding – Administrative decisions by the Bank aimed at maintaining a conducive working environment – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-25].

Scope of Judicial Review in Transfer Matters – Transfer orders, being an incident of service, are not generally interfered with unless they are arbitrary, mala fide, or infract any governing principles – Courts exercise caution in such matters, ensuring administrative decisions are not substituted with judicial discretion without compelling reasons – Transfer policies are guidelines, not enforceable rights [Paras 13-22].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No case of mala fides or arbitrariness made out – Transfer Policy violation not a valid ground for judicial interference – Transfer deemed an administrative necessity by the Bank [Paras 25].

Protection of Minor in Runaway Marriage — Application by minor girl and her husband seeking protection from her parents after eloping — GIRL's age at time of leaving home 16 years and 10 months, HUSBAND's age 18 years and 6 months — Both minors under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, yet claiming marriage under customary rites — Application of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and its implications on their marriage discussed — Protection granted by entrusting girl to her mother-in-law's care until age of majority, under supervision of Child Welfare Committee — Held, girl's express wish to stay with her husband's family respected, custody not forced back to parents against her will despite her minor status — Legal guardianship discussed in the context of minor marriages and autonomy in personal decisions.

Legal Status of Child Marriage — Analysis of child marriage legality under conflicting statutes — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 versus Child Marriage Act, 2006 — Held, marriage not void ab initio but voidable at instance of minor — Legal inconsistencies highlighted with implications for law reform, acknowledging the evolving capacities and maturity of minors — Judicial discretion exercised in favor of minor's expressed wishes, with continued protection and welfare checks mandated.

Jurisdiction and Welfare of Minors — Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction exercised in context of protecting minor's welfare — Despite minor status, Court places importance on minor’s expressed desires and social maturity — Held, welfare of the minor best served by respecting her autonomy and ensuring her protection under close supervision — Role of Child Welfare Committee emphasized in monitoring minor's well-being in non-parental custody.

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].