Service Law – Pay Revision and Recovery Notice – Petitioner, initially appointed as a daily wager and later receiving a fixed salary, challenged the recovery of alleged excess salary based on audit objections. High Court quashed the impugned order and recovery notice, directing proper pay revision and payment of arrears [Paras 1-12].

Procedure under Articles 14, 16, and 226 – Petitioner’s rights under constitutional provisions were examined, focusing on the due process for salary recovery and pay revision – Court emphasized the importance of following established procedures and providing fair opportunity for representation [Paras 3-10].

Decision – Petition allowed – Held – Impugned order and recovery notice set aside – Respondents directed to revise the petitioner’s pay and disburse arrears in accordance with established procedures [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law - Dowry Prohibition - Revision against appellate court's acquittal in dowry-related charges - Revisionist challenged the appellate court's order setting aside trial court's conviction of accused for offences under Sections 498-A, 323/34 IPC, and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Appellate court found trial court’s decision against weight of evidence - High Court upheld appellate court's decision, finding no illegality or perversity - Revisional court emphasized limited scope in interfering with acquittal - Held that appellate court's conclusion that prosecution failed to prove its case was neither illegal nor perverse - Prosecution unable to establish ownership or possession of the plot by the first informant crucial for the dowry demand allegations - Discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding assault and absence of medical reports noted - Trial court’s judgment was found to be based on a misapprehension of evidence - Revision dismissed [Paras 1-12]

Evidence Evaluation – Appellate Court's Acquittal – Appellate court found prosecution's case unsubstantiated due to absence of evidence supporting dowry demand and absence of medical proof of injuries – High Court upheld appellate court's assessment, noting no manifest error in reappraisal of evidence – High Court emphasized limited revisional jurisdiction, affirming that appellate findings were not perverse or illegal [Paras 6-12].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision – Held – The revision is dismissed, affirming the appellate court's acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence of dowry harassment and physical assault – The findings of the appellate court were not found to be legally flawed or unreasonable, thus maintaining the acquittal [Paras 12-16].

Educational Admission – Cancellation due to invalid Non-Creamy Layer Certificate – Challenge under Article 226 – Petitioner’s admission to MBBS course at Respondent No. 4 college, based on Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, cancelled after enquiry revealed misrepresentation by Petitioner’s father regarding marital status and spouse’s income – Enquiry conducted due to writ petition by another MBBS aspirant alleging misuse of OBC reservations – Petitioner continued studies under interim order from this Court [Paras 1-7].

Misrepresentation and False Information – Findings by Enquiry Committee – Petitioner’s father misrepresented marital status and spouse’s income on certificate application, leading to undue benefit under OBC quota – Enquiry confirmed father’s income alone under threshold but combined income with spouse would breach OBC income limit, affecting eligibility – Court upholds cancellation of certificate and consequent admission cancellation [Paras 11-18].

Balance of Convenience – Issuance of Degree – Despite unfair means in obtaining admission, Court permits retention of MBBS degree due to completion under interim orders, highlighting importance of not wasting medical education already imparted – Orders Petitioner to be considered as Open Category student, with directions to pay fee difference and a cost to Respondent No. 4 [Paras 19].

Decision and Relief Granted – The Court upheld the cancellation of the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate and MBBS admission but acknowledged the Petitioner’s completion of the degree under interim orders – Ordered the Petitioner to be treated as an Open Category student, with directions to pay the fee difference and a cost of Rs. 50,000 to the hospital – Recognized the need to maintain the integrity of admissions while balancing the national interest in retaining medical professionals [Paras 18-20].

Land Acquisition – Failure of Procedure – Writ petition against State for restoration of land acquired in 1983 under West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 and compensation – Petitioner challenged the non-completion of acquisition process and non-payment of compensation – Despite expiry of the 1948 Act and repeal of the 1894 Act by the 2013 Act, no acquisition award was made – Court directed re-notification of acquisition under the 2013 Act to resolve the issue of compensation – Held, possession taken without compensation constitutes a continuing wrong allowing for judicial intervention irrespective of the delay – Court orders re-notification of acquisition and compensation determination under the 2013 Act [Paras 13-25].

Service Law - Misconduct and Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner, former Area Manager, charged with unauthorized sale of seeds causing financial discrepancies, challenged the disciplinary action including his dismissal – Dismissal upheld due to sufficient evidence of misconduct including failure to adhere to procedural norms for sales transactions [Paras 1-56].

Denial of Natural Justice Allegations – Petitioner claimed denial of right to fair hearing for being unable to use a retired employee as Defence Assistant and for non-examination of key witnesses from M/s. KTC – High Court found no violation of natural justice, as petitioner was given opportunities to appoint a Defence Assistant from current employees and sufficient justification was provided for not calling M/s. KTC officials [Paras 43-44, 40].

Evidence and Inquiry Process – Inquiry Officer’s reliance on both documentary and oral evidence found justified despite petitioner’s objections – Court ruled inquiry was conducted fairly without any apparent bias or procedural defects that influenced the outcome adversely against the petitioner [Paras 48-53].

Proportionality of Punishment – Challenge on grounds of disproportionality of the punishment rejected; High Court deemed the punishment of dismissal appropriate given the gravity of misconduct and financial implications for the respondent corporation [Para 49].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No violation of natural justice or procedural impropriety found – Punishment of dismissal upheld.

Non-delivery of Possession – Petitioner not provided possession of flat despite full payment – Respondent offered inadequate temporary solutions and refunds without interest – Court highlighted plight of petitioner who invested life savings and faced severe accommodation issues – Writ petition allowed with direction for full refund with interest and compensation for mental agony [Paras 1-23].

Contempt of Court – Alleged non-compliance with Court's earlier order for monthly compensation to petitioner – Respondent complied with orders by paying monthly sums and attempting to provide suitable alternate accommodations – Contempt petition dismissed due to respondent's compliance and efforts [CONT.CAS(C) 1294/2023 & CM APPL. 3311/2024, Paras 1-6].

Judicial Notice – Court noted exponential rise in property prices, deeming respondent's offer to refund only principal amount as inadequate – Emphasized duty of State-run enterprises to act fairly, granting additional compensation for mental agony [Para 18, 22].

Civil Law – Orders for delisting trucks by Ex-Servicemen Corporation – Challenge in Himachal Pradesh High Court against delisting orders due to concealment of re-employment – Common judgment passed for multiple writ petitions - Orders for delisting trucks – Chairman-cum-Managing Director of HP Ex-Servicemen Corporation delisted trucks owned by petitioners – Concealment of re-employment by petitioners at the time of truck attachment – Court upheld the orders based on compliance with Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [Paras 2-5].

Re-employment and Truck Attachment – Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh (supra) dictates non-attachment of trucks if ex-serviceman is re-employed – If re-employed after attachment, the truck must be surrendered – Apex Court upheld this ruling [Para 3].

Final Judgment – Dismissal of petitions – Held – Petitions dismissed based on adherence to previous court directions – Ex-Servicemen Corporation to allow petitioners to ply trucks until new names from waiting list are finalized – Petitioners have no right to ply trucks once new names are finalized [Paras 5-6].

Civil Procedure - Execution Proceedings - Challenges to auction sale and procedural irregularities - Petitioner filed multiple CRPs against orders of the Executing Court related to a decree obtained by the respondents due to alleged irregularities in auction sale - CRP No.959 of 2020 challenges dismissal of application to set aside auction sale due to material irregularity and fraud - CRP No.2618 and CRP No.2621 of 2023 challenge orders confirming the auction sale and dismissing application for setting aside auction on deposit of decretal amount, respectively - Interim stay granted by High Court on further proceedings, pending adjudication of these CRPs - Execution court's orders found to be in contravention of interim stay orders, deemed a nullity and set aside - High Court held that CRP No.959 of 2020 against the order under Order 21 Rule 90 is not maintainable as appeal lies against such orders [Paras 1-25]

Decision: CRP No. 959 of 2020 dismissed as not maintainable, remedy by way of appeal suggested. CRP Nos. 2618 and 2621 of 2023 allowed, orders under challenge set aside due to contravention of High Court’s interim stay.

Writ - Criminal Law – Offence under Section 304(A) IPC for Causing Death by Negligence – Petition for Return of Seized Driving License – The petitioner, K. Perumal, drove a bus involved in a fatal accident, resulting in the registration of a case under Section 304(A) IPC. The second respondent police seized the petitioner's driving license and handed it to the first respondent, the Regional Transport Officer. Despite approaching the first respondent for the return of his license, no action was taken, prompting the present writ petition [Paras 1-3].

Motor Vehicles Act – Licensing Authority’s Power to Revoke or Suspend License – Court’s Previous Ruling Referenced – The petitioner cited a previous order of the court in W.P(MD) No. 2111 of 2021, which addressed a similar issue. The court reviewed the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allow the licensing authority to disqualify or revoke a driving license, provided that the holder is given an opportunity to be heard, and reasons are recorded in writing. In the present case, the license was seized without following these statutory procedures [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The court directed the first respondent to return the driving license to the petitioner forthwith. The order emphasized the requirement for due process under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the seizure of the license without proper notice and opportunity to be heard was unlawful. The ruling aligns with the principles established in previous judgments, ensuring the protection of procedural rights of individuals involved in road traffic incidents [Para 7].