Power Supply and Peak Load Hours Restrictions - Appeal from lower courts' decision on penalty imposed for power usage during restricted hours - Appellant argued respondent exceeded permissible power usage during restricted hours, violating specific instructions (Ex.DW3/8) limiting power usage to 5% of sanctioned load during peak hours - Respondent maintained it was a continuous process industry allowed to use up to 50% of sanctioned power during peak hours as per earlier permissions and instructions, which were never officially revoked [Paras 1-10]

Factual Background - Respondent previously penalized for similar offense - Contention revolves around whether respondent exceeded permitted usage during peak hours based on its status as a continuous process industry - Dispute also includes whether permissions allowing greater usage during peak hours were still valid [Paras 2-6]

Courts' Findings - Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found respondent used only 35.294 KW, within permissible limits for a continuous process industry - No evidence presented that permissions were revoked - Trial Court's and Appellate Court's findings led to dismissal of appellant's claims [Paras 8-9]

Decision - High Court upheld lower courts' findings, noting no substantial question of law arose that required further examination - Appeal dismissed, confirming that respondent did not violate peak load restrictions as imposed [Para 10]

Criminal Law - Kidnapping and wrongful confinement - Appeal against acquittal - State challenges the acquittal of respondents charged under Section 364 IPC for allegedly abducting and confining the complainant by tying him with ropes - Trial court acquitted based on discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence - High Court reviewed the entire evidence, upheld trial court's judgment of acquittal, noting significant variations in witnesses' accounts, including the medical evidence which did not corroborate the alleged severity of confinement or assault - Medical evidence presented only showed minor abrasions, inconsistent with the claims of being tied and assaulted - No other independent witness from a busy thoroughfare area corroborated the incident - Appeals Court held that minor discrepancies in witness accounts, and the unconvincing nature of the evidence presented, do not meet the standard of proof required to overturn an acquittal [Paras 1-19].

Departmental Action - Forfeiture of Approved Service – Regular Second Appeal against lower court's decree upholding cancellation of one year’s approved service permanently – Original action initiated due to alleged negligence in duty by the respondent, then a Head Constable in Punjab Armed Police – Inquiry conducted, respondent found guilty, punishment imposed without considering respondent's reply – Both trial and appellate courts decreed against the appellants, holding that permanent forfeiture not provided under Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.5, affecting pension and seniority rights adversely - Held, permanent forfeiture of service not permissible under the Rules – Concurrent findings by lower courts not perverse or illegal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Interpretation of Rules – Rule 16.5 of Punjab Police Rules scrutinized – Specifies withholding increments and temporary or permanent stoppage of approved service but does not expressly permit permanent forfeiture affecting seniority and pension benefits – Reliance placed on Harminder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others: 2014(1) S.C.T. 16 and earlier precedents to conclude lack of provision for such permanent penalty under the rules [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - No substantial question of law arises - Permanent forfeiture of approved service not permissible under Punjab Police Rules.

Pension Dispute – Excess Payment Recovery – Challenged through Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus – Petitioner challenged government order demanding recovery of excess pension payments alleging no opportunity for representation was given and asserting recovery as arbitrary due to lack of any misrepresentation or fault on part of the pensioner – High Court set aside recovery order for being unjust, arbitrary, and violating principles of natural justice – Directed reinstatement of full pension benefits to the petitioner’s wife and refund of any amounts wrongly deducted. [Paras 1-19]

Due Process Violation – Principles of Natural Justice – Recovery order issued without prior notice to the petitioner – No opportunity provided for the petitioner to explain or contest the alleged overpayment – Recovery actions against retired employees, especially after long periods, deemed unjust and arbitrary – Court applied precedent from Rafiq Masih case to hold recovery impermissible in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud by the pensioner [Paras 10, 12-15].

Retrospective Pension Recovery – Held, impermissible under law after significant lapse of time post-retirement and without any fault on the pensioner’s part – Referenced Hon’ble Apex Court decision in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) – Recovery attempt post ten years of retirement termed unjustified and recovery order quashed. [Paras 14-17]

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed - Relief Granted – Impugned order set aside – Directions issued to respondents to resume payment of family pension to petitioner and return any recovered amounts within six weeks – Court’s decision reinforces protection of retired employees from undue financial recovery actions [Paras 19-20].

Competition Law – Penalty – Levy of Interest – Petitioners challenged CCI’s order to deposit interest on penalty amount for delayed payment without following due procedure under 2011 Regulations – High Court held that interest can be levied only if demand notice as per 2011 Regulations is served first – Demand notice mandatory for levying interest on penalty – CCI's order set aside as it bypassed mandatory procedure [Paras 1-24].

Regulatory Procedure – Demand Notice – 2011 Regulations – Interest on delayed payment of penalty can be levied only post issuance of demand notice – Demand notice informs the enterprise of penalty, due date, and interest liability for delay – Compliance with 2011 Regulations is mandatory before imposing interest – Reference to analogous provisions in Income Tax Act and relevant judicial precedents supporting mandatory notice requirement [Paras 3-23].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – CCI’s order dated 18.07.2023 set aside – Petitioners not liable to pay interest from 10.12.2018 till date of payment without proper demand notice – CCI directed to follow due procedure under 2011 Regulations for recovery of penalty and interest [Paras 23-24].
 

Civil Procedure – Stay of Suit – Section 10 CPC – Petitioner challenged Trial Court's order staying suit CS SCJ 117/2020 under Section 10 of CPC – Trial Court stayed suit citing pending previous suit CS ADJ 749/2018 for possession under Section 6 of SRA – High Court held that Section 10 stay not applicable as causes of action in both suits are different – CS ADJ 749/2018 for possession due to alleged forcible dispossession, CS SCJ 117/2020 for declaration of forged document and injunction – Section 6 SRA suit is summary and limited to dispossession without delving into title issues – Stay under Section 10 CPC improper [Paras 1-24].

Specific Relief Act – Section 6 SRA – Summary Procedure – Suit under Section 6 SRA limited to summary remedy for dispossession without due process of law – Not to be clubbed with other reliefs like declaration or injunction – Section 6 SRA does not allow for appeals, only revision petitions – Subsequent suits for title or other declarations permissible separately – High Court references relevant case law and principles for separate adjudication [Paras 19-22].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with CS SCJ 117/2020 as per law – High Court clarified legal principles on Section 10 CPC and Section 6 SRA to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure appropriate legal processes [Paras 24-25].

Simultaneous Proceedings – Departmental Inquiry and Criminal Trial – Petitioners challenged the departmental inquiries initiated during the pendency of their respective criminal trials – Common witnesses in both proceedings cited as a reason for stay – High Court referred to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that both proceedings can proceed simultaneously unless complicated questions of law or facts are involved – Petitions dismissed due to lack of such complications [Paras 1-20]​​ .

Precedents Considered – Relevant Supreme Court judgments included Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors., establishing principles for simultaneous proceedings and detailing conditions under which stays might be justified – Emphasis on prompt departmental inquiry to maintain service discipline [Paras 4, 10, 13]​​ .

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Held – Departmental proceedings to continue concurrently with criminal trials – Court found no merit in petitioners’ argument for stay based on witness examination overlap and potential prejudice [Para 20]​​ .

Criminal Procedure – Delay Condonation – Delay of 275 days in filing criminal revision justified by affidavit and consented by parties – Delay condonation application allowed – [Para 3].

Family Law – Bigamy – No evidence of valid solemnization of second marriage according to Hindu rites, particularly the ‘Saptapadi’, essential for a valid Hindu marriage – Revisionist previously filed for divorce which was granted before the alleged second marriage – Allegations of bigamy under Section 494 IPC not established – [Paras 4-5, 11-12].

Legal Principles – Valid Marriage – To establish an offence under Section 494 IPC, a valid second marriage during the subsistence of the first is necessary – Absence of valid marriage rituals in the present case negates the charge of bigamy – [Para 10].

Quashing Proceedings – Summoning order for bigamy quashed due to lack of prima facie evidence of valid marriage ceremony – Criminal proceedings under Sections 504, 506 IPC to continue – Protection against malicious prosecution affirmed by reference to precedents setting criteria for quashing – [Paras 19-21].

Delay in Filing Revision – Criminal Revision filed 275 days late due to reasons stated in an affidavit and condoned based on mutual consent of parties – Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024 allowed. [Para 3]

Bigamy Allegations – Revisionist, accused of solemnizing a second marriage without divorce from the first spouse, presents evidence of long separation and subsequent divorce from the first husband prior to the second marriage – Contests the validity of the second marriage and absence of essential rites like ‘Saptapadi’ as required under Hindu Marriage Act. [Paras 4-6, 11-12]

Legal Assessment – Court finds no evidence of ‘Saptapadi’ or valid solemnization in the second marriage – Essential elements to establish a valid marriage under Section 494 IPC missing, thus no prima facie case against the revisionist. [Para 12]

Application of Legal Precedents – References to Supreme Court rulings on quashing proceedings when the chances of conviction are bleak or the prosecution appears to be malafide – The inherent power of the court highlighted to prevent misuse of legal process and to ensure justice. [Paras 14, 15, 18-19]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Order – Court quashes the summoning order relating to bigamy charges under Section 494 IPC against the revisionist due to lack of evidence on valid marriage solemnization, though proceedings for other charges under Sections 504, 506 IPC to continue. [Paras 20-21]