Acquisition of Land – Public Interest and Compensation – Notification under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act issued for laying a petroleum pipeline. Landowners’ objections raised regarding the use of horticultural land and public interest considerations. Competent Authority failed to address objections adequately. High Court directed a reassessment of objections and compensation based on current market value [Paras 1-18].

Procedure for Objections – Necessity of Objective Consideration – Competent Authority’s duty to consider objections objectively and pass reasoned orders. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. High Court emphasized the importance of transparency and adherence to statutory requirements in land acquisition processes [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Review and Equitable Relief – High Court acknowledged the national importance of the pipeline project but balanced it with the rights of landowners. Directed prompt reconsideration of objections by the Competent Authority while ensuring project continuation without significant delays [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Writ appeal allowed. Judgment and order dated 09.05.2024, modified to direct the Competent Authority to reconsider objections and pass speaking orders promptly. Appellants entitled to compensation based on current market value of the land. No order as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Octroi Duty – Valuation Methodology – Petitioner challenges the levy of octroi based on MRP less ad hoc deductions as per Rule 2(7)(b) of Octroi Rules, 1965 – Argument that determination should be based on invoice value under Rule 2(7)(a) – Court finds Petitioner's protest against levy from 2001 and subsequent Small Causes Court appeals favoring Petitioner’s contentions – However, Petitioner's failure to protest from 1995 to 2001 without any reservation weakens the claim for retrospective relief – Relief sought for refund considered unjust enrichment due to burden likely passed to consumers – Petition dismissed but leaves open issues of law for future determinations [Paras 1-42].

Unjust Enrichment – Equity Considerations – Constitutional Bench precedents cited against refund of taxes or duties passed on to consumers – Principle applied to deny refund to Petitioner despite possible misapplication of valuation rules – Court emphasizes that equity prevents recovery of such refunds when it leads to unjust enrichment of the claimant [Paras 32-39].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Issues of law regarding valuation under clauses (a) or (b) of Rule 2(7) kept open for case-by-case determination – Interim relief vacated due to GST subsumption of octroi – No order as to costs [Paras 40-42].

Bail – Cancellation – Grounds for Revocation – Accused granted bail for offences under IPC, IT Act, and POCSO Act – Subsequent complaint by victim’s mother alleging threats and pressure to withdraw the case – Special Court canceled bail for violation of conditions – High Court upheld the cancellation, emphasizing that interference with witnesses and threats are valid grounds for revocation [Paras 1-10].

Legal Standards for Cancellation – Established parameters for bail cancellation include misuse of liberty, interference with the investigation, and attempts to intimidate witnesses – Detailed examination of legal precedents upholding these principles – High Court confirmed that violation of any bail condition warrants revocation [Paras 8-13].

Detailed Case Analysis – Review of records showed prima facie evidence supporting allegations of threats by the accused – Court noted the importance of examining supervening circumstances and conduct of the accused post-grant of bail – Affirmed the necessity for courts to carefully consider allegations and protect the integrity of the judicial process [Paras 7-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail cancellation order upheld – Directions issued for immediate surrender of the petitioner, failing which coercive steps to be taken for arrest and detention [Paras 9-11].

Criminal Procedure – Testimony of Accused – Petition under Section 315 Cr.P.C. seeking permission for the accused to testify as a witness and present electronic evidence in defense – Trial court dismissed the petitions on grounds of irrelevance and non-production of evidence prior to the accused’s testimony – High Court held that denying the accused the opportunity to present defense evidence merely due to procedural timings is contrary to law – Importance of not prejudging the facts emphasized – Orders set aside [Paras 1-10].

Electronic Evidence – Relevance and Admissibility – Accused sought to introduce electronic evidence (WhatsApp screenshots, call recordings, etc.) to support his defense – Trial court rejected on grounds of irrelevance to the issue of consent in child abuse cases under POCSO – High Court ruled that such evidence should not be precluded and must be considered in the context of defense evidence [Paras 7-9].

Defense Rights – Presumption of Innocence – High Court emphasized the necessity for the trial courts to allow the accused to fully exercise his right to present evidence in his defense, particularly under laws with reverse onus clauses, like POCSO – Miscarriage of justice found due to the lower court’s approach [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Held – Trial court’s order dated 27.05.2024 dismissing the petitions under Crl.M.P.Nos.910, 911, and 912 of 2023 is set aside – Accused permitted to testify and present electronic evidence – Directions to expedite defense evidence [Para 10].

Service Law – Regularization and Seniority – Petitioners’ initial appointments on a contractual basis – Claimed regularization from the date of initial appointment and counting of contract service period towards seniority – High Court held that initial appointments were valid, and petitioners were entitled to have their contract service counted towards seniority and other benefits – Orders rejecting such claims were quashed [Paras 1-50].

Recruitment Rules – Statutory Interpretation – 1997 Rules did not bar contract appointments and did not specify the Public Service Commission as the recruiting agency – Regularization under 2004 Rules valid – Petitioners’ continuous service entitled them to seniority from initial appointments [Paras 27-38].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – State’s regularization of petitioners under 2004 Rules deemed acceptance of valid initial appointments – Petitioners not estopped from claiming seniority and other service benefits [Para 34].

Necessary Parties – Non-joinder – Petition maintained despite non-joinder of all affected parties – Private respondents adequately represented interests of others in the cadre – Procedural objections overruled [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Directed to consider contract service period for seniority and related benefits – Arrears to be paid within eight weeks [Paras 49-50].

Anticipatory Bail – Criminal History – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of collecting money on behalf of jail officials through illegal means – State opposed bail citing petitioner’s prior criminal history, including a case under Section 302 IPC – Court observed that despite the availability of evidence, the petitioner had not been arrested earlier, suggesting a lack of intent by the police to arrest – Similarly placed co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-6].

Role of Criminal History in Bail Decisions – Court emphasized the importance of a reasoned approach in considering criminal history – Distinguished between cases resulting in conviction and those pending or acquitted – Stressed the need for a balanced judgment between individual liberty and public safety [Paras 7-10].

Conditions for Bail – Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – Petitioner required to furnish a personal bond and surety, or provide a fixed deposit in favor of the Chief Judicial Magistrate [Paras 11-18].

Final Opportunity for Reformation – Court noted that the petitioner was given a final opportunity to correct his behavior, warning that future offenses would impact the assessment in subsequent bail applications [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Bail granted under strict conditions with a warning of severe consequences for any future criminal behavior.

Criminal Law – Parole Application – Denial Based on Conviction and Foreign National Status – High Court examines statutory provisions and case facts – Orders release on parole with conditions – [Paras 1-15].

Parole and Reformative Process – Relevance of Good Conduct – Court recognizes petitioner’s good conduct and long incarceration – Emphasizes parole as a reformative measure – [Paras 7-10].

Application of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – Assessment of Convict’s Parole Eligibility – High Court reviews rule 1211 exceptions and special circumstances – Grants parole with specified conditions – [Paras 6-12].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Parole Granted – Conditions Imposed:

Personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount.

Weekly reporting to local SHO.

Provision of an active contact number.

Restriction from leaving Delhi NCR.

Surrender to Jail Superintendent post-parole period.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Petition for quashing FIR on grounds of false implication and counterblast to another FIR lodged by the petitioners – Petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated to counter FIR No. 60 lodged by them – Held, allegations in FIR prima facie constituted offenses under IPC – High Court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be sparing and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice [Paras 1-22].

Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Scope and limitations – High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial to assess the truthfulness of allegations – FIR cannot be quashed solely based on petitioners’ claim of false implication – FIR and investigation disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offenses – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR No. 61 of 2020 and related proceedings upheld – High Court directs petitioners to seek remedy through trial process – Observations made during disposal of the petition to not affect the merits of the case.
 

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Additional Evidence – Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity – Landlord sought to lead additional evidence by examining a Director of the company after initially closing its evidence – Tenant opposed, citing that this was an attempt to fill a lacuna – Rent Controller allowed the application, which was upheld by the High Court – Court ruled that additional evidence was necessary to determine the bona fide necessity of the landlord-company, and the tenant was duly compensated with costs [Paras 1-21].

Inherent Powers of the Court – Reopening of Evidence – Court emphasized that, although Order 18 Rule 17A was deleted, Section 151 CPC empowers the court to allow additional evidence in appropriate cases to ensure justice – Additional evidence was permitted as it was necessary for the effective adjudication of the landlord’s claim of personal necessity [Paras 7-13].

Legal Precedents – Cited Supreme Court rulings on the use of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC for reopening evidence, highlighting that such powers should be used sparingly and only when necessary to clarify issues or achieve justice [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The High Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller, allowing the landlord to lead additional evidence, finding no illegality in the order.