Municipal Law - Removal of President - No Confidence Motion - Section 22 Punjab Municipal Act - Principles of Natural Justice - The court held that once the petitioner participated in the fresh election process and recorded a 'No Objection,' he could not later claim that his explanation was not duly considered or that his removal violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner's involvement in the election process and acceptance of its outcome negated his claims of procedural impropriety [Paras 9, 15, 16].

Legal Principles - Speaking Order - Requirement of Reasons - Duty of Competent Authority to Consider Representation - The court found that the competent authority had duly considered the petitioner's representation blaming the opposition for the 'No Confidence' resolution, thus fulfilling the requirement to record reasons and consider explanations. The contention that the explanation was not considered was found to be unfounded [Paras 22, 23].

Judicial Review - Impact of Participation in Fresh Election - Estoppel by Acquiescence - The court emphasized that the petitioner's subsequent participation in the election process estopped him from challenging the previous removal order. His 'No Objection' to the election indicated acquiescence and acceptance of the process, rendering any previous procedural lapses irrelevant [Paras 16, 19, 27, 29].

Decision - Petitions Dismissed - No Procedural Violation Found - The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner's removal followed due process and his subsequent actions nullified any claims of procedural injustice. The petitioner's challenge to the removal was invalidated by his acceptance and participation in the subsequent electoral process [Paras 28, 31].

Constitutional Law - Institutional Preference in Admissions - Article 14 - Validity of University-Wise Distribution of Seats - The court upheld the institutional preference policy for admission to PG medical courses, which grants 50% of state quota seats to candidates from the same university. The policy was found to be neither illegal nor unconstitutional, and not violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court in D.N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1762, upheld a similar policy, finding it valid and reasonable to cater to educational needs specific to university regions [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15].

Preference vs. Discrimination - Adverse Consequences Not Equivalent to Legal Injury - The court stated that every adverse consequence is not a legal injury. The grievance of the petitioners, who claimed discrimination due to institutional preference, was found not to have a constitutional perspective. The policy aimed at maintaining educational standards and continuity within universities, which justified its rational basis and reasonable connection to the object of the rules [Paras 14, 20, 28].

Legal Precedents - Institutional Preference Upheld by Apex Court - The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including M.R. Mini v. State of Kerala, AIR 1980 SC 838, and Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, 1984 (3) SCC 654, which upheld institutional preference in admissions. The court reiterated that such preference is not discriminatory if it does not preclude students from other universities from competing and does not exceed 50% of the total seats [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Decision - Petitions Dismissed - Institutional Preference Policy Upheld - The petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the impugned notifications clarifying the institutional preference policy. The policy was found to be in line with constitutional norms and judicial precedents, ensuring fair competition and non-arbitrary selection processes [Paras 21, 28, 29].

Tort Law - Electrocution - Liability of Power Corporation - No Contributory Negligence - Compensation and Damages - The court held that the power corporation was liable for damages due to negligence in maintaining electric wires, even if the construction of the house was raised later without permission. The defense of contributory negligence was rejected as the corporation had not proven it took adequate precautions to prevent the mishap [Paras 7, 17].

Evidence - Proving Negligence - Duty of Care by Power Corporation - Lack of Proper Protection for High Voltage Wires - The corporation's failure to ensure the safety of 11 KV electric wires passing over residential areas was deemed negligent. The trial court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation, which was enhanced to Rs. 20,00,000 by the lower appellate court [Paras 5, 6].

Legal Principles - Strict Liability - Public Safety and Maintenance of Electrical Installations - The court emphasized the principle of strict liability, holding that entities managing inherently dangerous installations must ensure safety and prevent accidents. The corporation's argument of illegal construction was not a valid defense against its responsibility for public safety [Paras 8, 9, 11, 12].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Compensation Upheld - The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions that awarded Rs. 20,00,000 in compensation to the respondent. It was held that the corporation could not absolve itself of liability by citing unauthorized construction, as it failed to take necessary precautions [Paras 18, 19].

Civil Procedure - Recalling Witness for Cross-Examination - Section 151 CPC - Specific Remedy Under Order 18 Rule 17 - The court held that the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when a specific remedy is available under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The trial court correctly dismissed the petitioner's application to recall RW-1 Dr.Paviter Kaur for further cross-examination, as the petitioner did not utilize the specific remedy available [Paras 12, 13].

Electronic Evidence - Admissibility - Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act - Certificate Requirement - The court emphasized that electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act at the time of tendering evidence. The CDs presented by the petitioner were not admissible as the requisite certificate was not produced. The petitioner's request to submit a true copy of the CDs was denied [Paras 21, 23, 24].

Judicial Discretion - Use of Inherent Powers - Restriction When Specific Provisions Exist - The court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC should be used with circumspection and only when no specific provision exists. The trial court's discretion in denying the application under Section 151 CPC was exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily [Para 12].

Decision - Revision Petition Dismissed - No Merit Found - The revision petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to provide the necessary certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act at the time of submitting the CDs. The trial court's decision to reject the application for recalling the witness and for submitting the CDs was upheld [Paras 25, 26].

Family Law - Nullity of Marriage - Sections 5(i) and 11 Hindu Marriage Act - Validity of Marriage in Light of Previous Marital Status - The court held that the previous marriage of the respondent was declared null and void before the Lok Adalat on March 31, 2003, rendering the respondent's marriage to the petitioner on February 23, 2003, void. However, it was found that the actual marriage took place on February 23, 2007, not February 23, 2003, as stated in the marriage certificate used for immigration purposes [Paras 14, 17].

Evidence - Marriage Certificate - Rebuttable Presumption - Marriage certificate prepared for immigration purposes does not conclusively prove the date of marriage - The presumption attached to the marriage certificate is rebuttable. The court found that the marriage certificate dated April 1, 2003, indicating a marriage date of February 23, 2003, was prepared with the objective of facilitating immigration to Canada. The true marriage date was February 23, 2007, as admitted by the petitioner in cross-examination [Paras 14, 17].

Estoppel - Silence and Delay in Challenging Marriage - Silence of the petitioner from 2003 to 2010 created an estoppel against him from challenging the marriage as a nullity - The petitioner did not challenge the marriage until 2010, which created an estoppel against him. The court found that no marriage had actually taken place on February 23, 2003, but rather on February 23, 2007 [Para 17].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - No Infirmity in Lower Court's Judgment - The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's judgment that the marriage was not a nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner was not allowed to take advantage of the marriage certificate prepared for immigration purposes [Paras 19, 20].

Taxation Law - Validity of Tribunal Orders - Section 57 Haryana VAT Act - Quorum of Members - Order Passed by Remaining Members after Retirement of One Member - The court held that when a matter is heard by a full-member bench, the decision must be pronounced by the same bench. If one member retires before the pronouncement, the bench is no longer validly constituted, and the remaining members cannot pronounce the judgment. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh decision [Paras 13, 14, 19].

Judicial Procedure - Composite Functioning of Tribunal Members - Bench Dynamics - The court emphasized that tribunal members function as a composite body, discussing and exchanging views until the final pronouncement. If any member retires before the judgment is delivered, the dynamic is disrupted, invalidating the judgment process [Para 13].

Legal Precedents - Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh - The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Surendra Singh, which establishes that a judgment must be pronounced by the same members who heard the case, as they may change their views until the final pronouncement [Para 15].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Matter Remitted - The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Haryana Tax Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of Section 56 of the Haryana VAT Act [Paras 18, 19].

Medical Law - Termination of Pregnancy - Section 3 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act - HIV Positive Status - Risk to Health and Life - The court held that the opinion of medical practitioners, the feasibility of termination, and the social circumstances faced by the petitioner, including her HIV-positive status and lack of support, justify the termination of pregnancy [Paras 13, 14].

Legal Principles - Informed Consent and Medical Opinion - Requirement for Registered Medical Practitioners' Opinion - For pregnancies between 12 and 20 weeks, termination requires the opinion of two registered medical practitioners. The court must consider the medical opinion and social circumstances of the patient to form a decision [Para 13].

Social and Medical Impact - Risk of HIV Transmission - Continuous Treatment - The medical board reported a significant risk of HIV transmission from mother to child (20-45%) without treatment. Given the lifelong treatment requirements and the petitioner's social and economic circumstances, termination was deemed appropriate [Para 14].

Decision - Petition Allowed - Termination Ordered - The court directed the respondents to terminate the pregnancy immediately, considering the petitioner's health, mental condition, and lack of social support. The medical college was instructed to provide necessary pre and post-termination care [Paras 14, 15].

Service Law - Suspension Period - Acquittal of Delinquent Officer - Rule 7.3(2) of Punjab State Electricity Board Main Service Regulations, 1975 - Treatment of Suspension Period Post Acquittal - The court held that an acquittal, whether on technical grounds or due to paucity of evidence, should be considered an honorable acquittal. The petitioner cannot be penalized by treating the suspension period as "leave of kind due" instead of "spent on duty" [Paras 11, 12].

Legal Principles - Acquittal and Regularization of Suspension - The court emphasized that unless gross misconduct is proved, an acquittal should lead to the reinstatement of the employee with the suspension period treated as spent on duty. The authorities failed to justify treating the suspension period otherwise [Para 11].

Judicial Review - Quashing of Orders - Arbitrary Treatment of Suspension Period - The court found the orders declining the relief unjustified and suffering from material infirmity. It directed the respondents to treat the suspension period as spent on duty and to regularize it accordingly, including the release of leave encashment [Para 12].

Decision - Petition Allowed - Orders Quashed - The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondent authorities to treat the suspension period from 11.11.1994 to 11.06.1995 as "spent on duty" and to release the leave encashment amount [Paras 12, 13].

Family Law - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty - Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act - Mental and Physical Cruelty - Requirements to Establish Mental Cruelty - The appellant must prove that the respondent's conduct caused such mental pain and suffering that it became impossible to live together. The court found that the respondent's actions, including abuse, violence, and financial demands, constituted cruelty [Paras 13, 17, 30].

Evidence - Cross-Examination of Appellant - Irrelevance and Insulting Nature - Questions posed in cross-examination aimed at humiliating the appellant rather than addressing relevant issues - The court observed that cross-examination was primarily focused on irrelevant and insulting questions, highlighting a lack of substantial evidence against the appellant's claims [Para 18].

Child Testimony - Impact on Children - Statements of Children Indicating Quarrelsome Nature of Respondent - The statements of the children revealed that their father frequently quarreled with their mother, supporting the appellant's claims of cruelty. The court found the children's testimonies to be honest and untutored, reflecting the respondent's quarrelsome behavior [Para 29].

Decision - Petition Allowed - Divorce Granted - The appeal was accepted, the impugned judgment set aside, and the marriage dissolved based on the grounds of cruelty. The court acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and granted a decree of divorce [Paras 31, 32, 33].