Bail - Apprehension of Arrest – Anticipatory Bail Application – Petitioner, a doctor, apprehending arrest in connection with a case under POCSO Act and other offences – Involved in facilitating delivery and allegedly taking care of an abandoned child – Application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail [Para 1, 11-12].

FIR and Charges – FIR lodged against principal accused for offenses under IPC, POCSO Act, and SC & ST (PA) Act – Petitioner not named in FIR but emerged during investigation for his role in the delivery of a minor victim’s child [Para 2].

Legal Objection on Maintainability – State’s preliminary objection regarding maintainability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., citing Sections 18 & 18-A of SC & ST (PA) Act – Argument that petitioner not implicated directly in FIR [Para 4].

Judicial Interpretation of Legal Provisions – Supreme Court and High Courts’ rulings indicating that bar under Section 18 and 18-A of SC & ST (PA) Act does not apply if prima facie case under the Act is not made out – Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. considered maintainable in such situations [Paras 6-10].

Court’s Observation on Petitioner’s Involvement – No direct allegations against petitioner in FIR – Involvement limited to caring for abandoned child – Absence of prima facie case under SC & ST (PA) Act against petitioner [Para 11, 13].

Decision – Anticipatory bail application allowed – In case of arrest, petitioner to be released on terms deemed fit by arresting officer, including cooperation with investigation [Para 14].

Writ Petition for Quashing Order – Petitioner sought quashing of the order passed by State Information Commission, Haryana, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which denied information requested under the Right to Information Act – Petitioner filed a writ in the nature of certiorari for non-compliance with the judgment in Rajwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP-17672-2023). [Para 1]

Non-compliance with Established Legal Principles – State Information Commission passed the impugned order without adhering to the guidelines laid down in Rajwinder Singh's case, which requires specific findings by appellate authorities under the Right to Information Act – Petitioner argued that the order was cryptic and non-speaking. [Para 2, 5]

Guidelines for Appellate Authorities under RTI – The High Court in Rajwinder Singh’s case provided directives for first and second appellate authorities under the RTI Act, emphasizing the need for detailed, point-wise decisions on information requests, including reasons for non-disclosure if applicable. [Para 5]

Direction for Fresh Decision – High Court set aside the impugned order for being inconsistent with legal precedents – Directed the State Information Commission, Haryana to redecide the petitioner's appeal within three months, in accordance with the principles laid down in Rajwinder Singh’s case. [Para 6]

Criminal Appeal – Regular Bail in NDPS Act Case – Petitioner seeking regular bail for possession of marginally higher than commercial quantity of narcotic substance (Alprazolam) – Arrested and previously granted interim bail but later declared a proclaimed offender – Re-arrested and incarcerated for over 7 months. [Para 1, 2, 6]

Bail Principles – Bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Emphasis on the sanctity of individual liberty and the presumption of innocence, in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 'State of Rajasthan v. Balchand' and 'Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India'. Consideration of the accused's right to a speedy trial and circumstances of each case for bail decision. [Para 10-12]

Petitioner’s Circumstances – Petitioner not involved in other criminal cases of similar nature – Undergone incarceration of 7 months and 9 days – Out of 9 prosecution witnesses, 6 already examined. [Para 5, 8, 15]

Decision – Granting of regular bail to petitioner considering his previous interim bail, duration of incarceration, and marginal excess in narcotic substance possession over commercial quantity – Bail granted on furnishing of bail and surety bond, with a warning against indulgence in similar offences. [Para 16, 17]

Petition for Pension - Petitioner, a retired employee of respondent-bank, seeks pension from 01.06.2005 under the bank's pension policy, having submitted an application which is allegedly disregarded by the respondents. [Para 1-2]

Territorial Jurisdiction Questioned - Respondents argue the High Court of Punjab and Haryana lacks territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner retired from Mumbai office and resides in Canada, while mistakenly impleading Calcutta office in the petition. [Para 3]

Jurisdiction Analysis - The Court, relying on the Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim precedent (2007) 11 SCC 335, emphasizes that "part of cause of action" must arise within its jurisdiction to invoke writ jurisdiction, which is not fulfilled in this case. [Paras 5-6, 12]

Precedents Cited - References to the Kerala High Court Full Bench decision in The Registrar, Indian Maritime University vs. K.G. Viswanathan and another; 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 21221, and M/s Vijay K. Jairath And Co. Versus Union of India and Another; CWP No.12420 of 2008 regarding territorial jurisdiction. [Paras 7-8]

Dismissal of Petition - The Court concludes that no cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction, rendering the petition non-maintainable, but grants liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies as permissible by law. [Paras 9-11]

Regular Bail – Grant of Bail in FIR No. 122, dated 20.06.2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC – Petitioner seeks regular bail – No specific allegations against petitioner in FIR – Based on circumstantial evidence and no recovery from petitioner – Incarceration of over 3 years – Regular bail granted. [Paras 1, 3, 16]

Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession in case against petitioner – No direct evidence implicating petitioner in the crime. [Paras 6, 7, 16]

Length of Incarceration – Consideration of over 3 years of incarceration for the petitioner – Impact on decision to grant bail. [Paras 9, 15, 16]

Legal Principles for Bail – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' – Consideration of the individual's liberty and societal interest in bail decisions – Application of these principles in granting bail to the petitioner. [Paras 10-13, 16]

Future Conduct and Bail Conditions – Clarity on cancellation of bail for future similar offences – Mention that observations in the order do not affect the merits of the trial. [Para 17]

Final Order – Bail granted due to lack of specific allegations in FIR against the petitioner, circumstantial nature of evidence, no recovery from the petitioner, and prolonged incarceration of 3 years, 7 months, and 3 days – Release on furnishing bail and surety bond [Para 16].

Land Acquisition – Release of Acquired Lands – Petitioners seeking mandamus for release of their acquired lands under clause 7 of the policy dated 14.09.2018 – State of Haryana decided to release lands not utilized by respondents – Petitioners’ lands part of public purpose projects, hence non-releasable. [Paras 1, 10]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Application and interpretation of acquisition and compensation provisions – Reference to 'Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others' for understanding lapsing provisions under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013. [Paras 5]

Possession and Compensation – Criteria for lapsing of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Acquisition not lapsed if possession taken or compensation paid – Petitioners’ claim for lapsing declaration rejected as compensation deposited and possession assumed. [Paras 6]

Section 101 A of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Petitioners’ reliance on Section 101 A and clause 7 of policy dated 14.09.2018 for release of lands – Lands earmarked for public purpose, thus essential and viable, negating petitioners’ argument based on said section and policy. [Paras 9, 10]

Parity Claim – Petitioners’ comparison with other land losers for similar releases – Specific case of Mohinder Singh distinguished – Petitioners not entitled to parity due to different circumstances and lack of lapsing declaration under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013. [Paras 12, 13, 16, 17]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to 'The Press Employees and Friends Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others' – Analysis of issues similar to the instant case concerning Section 101-A of RFCTLARR Act, 2013. [Paras 18]

State Ownership and Utilization of Acquired Lands – State as absolute owner post-acquisition – Utilization or sale of lands for public purpose valid – Petitioners’ lands integral to layout plans, rendering them non-releasable. [Paras 19, 20, 21]

Discrimination Claim – Petitioners’ allegation of invidious discrimination in releases – Claim rejected based on integral role of petitioners’ lands in layout plans, differentiating from other land losers. [Paras 20, 21]

Final Decision – Writ petition lacking merit, dismissed – Acquired lands deemed essential for public purpose, not qualifying for release under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 or state policy. [Paras 22, 23, 24]

Challenging Tribunal Award – Air India Ltd. (AIL) challenged award granting permanent status to respondents (wards of employees) engaged through subsidiaries (AIATSL, AICL, AIASL) following compassionate grounds policy – AIL's primary contention was the absence of direct employment relationship with respondents and impact of recruitment freeze per Government Memorandum. [Para 2, 4, 6, 10, 32-33]

Tribunal Findings – Tribunal found respondents were appointed by AIL on compassionate grounds, exercising control and supervision, thus entitled to permanent status, backwages, continuity of service. [Para 29, 39]

High Court Analysis – HC found Tribunal misdirected in evaluating control and supervision; emphasized compassionate appointments must be against sanctioned vacant posts, which were abolished post-Government Memorandum (1997) – AIL had no vacancies for permanent appointments post-1997. [Para 30, 32-33, 40-41]

Erroneous Tribunal Conclusion – HC noted the Tribunal erred in granting permanency in AIL services to respondents, already receiving wages from AICL or AIASL, without considering limitation and feasibility due to recruitment freeze. [Para 42]

Remand to Tribunal – HC remanded the case to Tribunal for deciding alternate prayer for permanency in services of AICL or AIASL, keeping all questions open. [Para 46-48]

Decision – Petition partly allowed. Tribunal's award set aside, remanded for reconsideration on alternate prayer for permanency in services of AICL or AIASL. No costs awarded. [Paras 48-50]

Condonation of Delay – Dismissal of Restoration Application – Application for restoration of RSA 61/1975 dismissed due to delay of 25 years and 2 months – Counsel for appellant unable to provide cogent reasons for the delay – Reliance on judgments for condonation of delay found inapplicable – Court emphasizes that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient reason, rejecting the application due to lack of adequate grounds. [Paras 3-27]

Legal Representation – Counsel’s Responsibility in Tracking Cases – Highlighting the duty of counsel in keeping track of cases, especially those admitted by the Court and pending for years – Court lenient in restoring proceedings dismissed in default and in delay of filing restoration petitions, but requires cogent reasons for long delays. [Para 12-14]

Precedent in Law – Individual Case Assessment for Condonation of Delay – Court notes that each case of condonation of delay must be assessed on its own merits – No universal precedent applicable, emphasizing the importance of individual case examination. [Paras 24-25]

Restoration of Appeal and Reopening of Contempt Proceedings – Dismissal of Applications – Dismissal of CM APPL. 18179/2023 for restoration of RSA 61/1975 and CM APPL. 18180/2023 for reopening of contempt petition, due to rejection of condonation of delay application. [Para 27]

Civil Law - Court Fee – Declaration and Consequential Relief – Mandatory Injunction as Distinct Relief – Challenge to trial court's order directing plaintiff/petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fees for relief of mandatory injunction, separate from the relief of declaration. The trial court found mandatory injunction not to be a consequential relief to the declaration, necessitating separate court fees. Petitioner's argument of injunction being consequential to the declaration in a suit for declaration rejected by the court. Reliance on Civil Revision No. 433 of 2006 and Delhi High Court judgment in Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta & Ors for determining the nature of consequential relief. The High Court's judgment emphasized that the consequential relief must follow directly from the declaration and cannot be claimed independently as a 'substantial relief'. [Paras 2-3, 5-7]

Retiral Dues Dispute – Claim for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction – Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding the retiral dues of a late employee. The suit sought to declare actions by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as null and void and claimed an injunction for the dues to be paid to the petitioner instead of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The court found that the claim for injunction was independent and not consequential to the declaration, thereby requiring separate court fees. [Paras 3-4, 8]

Judicial Interpretation – Separation of Declaration and Consequential Relief – The court’s interpretation based on various precedents, determining that a relief of injunction in a declaration suit is not always consequential. Emphasis on the substance over the form of the plaint, and the need for a relief to follow as a natural consequence from the declaration. The court distinguished between 'further relief' and 'consequential relief', underlining that not all further relief constitutes consequential relief. [Para 7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – High Court upheld the trial court's observation and dismissed the petition. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order and clarified that the relief of declaration and injunction should be valued separately for court fees. The reliance of the petitioner on previous case law was found inapplicable in the present case. [Paras 8-9]