Constitutional Law – Age Relaxation – Petitioners sought age relaxation for applying against posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic delayed recruitment processes, thus affecting their eligibility – High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no legal obligation on the State to fill vacancies immediately, and age relaxation depends on public need, administrative exigencies, and budgetary provisions [Paras 1-14, 24-28].

Recruitment Process – Age Criteria – Petitioners contended that the Chief Minister’s tweet indicated an increase in the recruitment age limit from 28 to 32 years – High Court found that no official amendment was made to the relevant rules and that the decision to increase the age limit had not been implemented – The Court held that such social media announcements do not confer a legal right [Paras 8, 23, 24].

Rule 12.6(c) of Punjab Police Rules – Special Circumstances – Petitioners argued that the Director General of Police could relax the upper age limit under special circumstances – High Court held that no such special circumstances were found and that the decision to grant age relaxation lies within the discretion of the State [Paras 9, 11].

Promissory Estoppel – Petitioners cited the principle of promissory estoppel based on the Chief Minister’s tweet – High Court rejected this argument, stating that promissory estoppel does not apply against statutory provisions and that no unequivocal promise was made [Paras 15, 22, 27].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no legal or fundamental right of the petitioners was violated – Directed that the recruitment process proceed as per existing rules without granting age relaxation [Para 30].

summoning orders issued by the ACJM, Hoshiarpur, contending that the undertakings given to the Election Commission of India and the Gurudwara Election Commission were contradictory – High Court upheld the summoning orders, emphasizing that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator during the preliminary evidence recording and that there was sufficient material on record to summon the accused [Paras 1-14, 27-37].

False Undertaking – Specific Averments – Petitioners argued that the undertakings submitted to the Election Commission of India and the Gurudwara Election Commission were contradictory and that the constitution filed with the Election Commission of India was false – High Court found that there were specific averments and sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners [Paras 12, 14, 27, 28].

Procedure under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court reiterated that interference under Section 482 is justified only in rarest of rare cases where the complaint is frivolous or there is a clear abuse of process – Held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and the summoning orders were based on sufficient material [Paras 13, 22, 23, 46].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments challenging the summoning orders – Directed the trial court to proceed with the case as per established procedure [Para 37].

Benami Transactions – Exception under Section 2(9)(A) – Dismissal of Application for Rejection of Plaint – Property transferred or held by a person where consideration is paid by another person and held in a fiduciary capacity not a benami transaction – Procedure for declaring a benami transaction outlined in the Act – Mere assertion by petitioner insufficient to abort claim – Dismissal of application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC upheld [Paras 1-12].

Cause of Action – Rejection of Plaint – Evaluation of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC requires reading averments as a whole – Plaint should not be rejected if it discloses material facts and cause of action – Defence contentions not relevant for determining application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC – Proper cause of action disclosed in the plaint warrants continuation of suit [Paras 7-15].

Registration of Property – Section 17 of the Registration Act – Plea of compulsory registration not applicable at stage of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC application – Oral understanding regarding transfer of property validly explained – Defence arguments regarding registration cannot be considered [Para 13].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Plaint sufficiently discloses cause of action – No merit in arguments for rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC – Observations not to affect merits of the ongoing suit [Paras 15-16].

Promotion Criteria – Eligibility for Inspector of Police – Rule 13.14(2) of Punjab Police Rules – Petitioners challenged promotions to post of Inspector based on eligibility criteria of eight years' experience – Held, Rule 13.14(2) applies to all Sub-Inspectors regardless of direct recruitment or promotion – No discrimination in eligibility criteria – Petitioners failed to meet criteria of eight years' service – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-39].

Discrimination – Equal Opportunity – Article 16 of the Constitution – Challenge to Rule 13.14(2) on grounds of discrimination against direct recruits – Court held eligibility criteria uniform and non-discriminatory – Requirement of eight years' experience as upper subordinate not violative of Article 16 – Criteria applied equally to direct recruits and promotees [Paras 22-39].

Judicial Interpretation – Rule Application – Rule 13.14(2) interpreted to include promotion to Inspector – Court emphasizes purposive interpretation to ensure effective application of statutory rules – Consistent practice of following Rule 13.14(2) for promotions upheld [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Promotion orders upheld – Eligibility criteria under Rule 13.14(2) confirmed as valid and non-discriminatory – Petitioners not entitled to promotions as Inspectors due to lack of required experience [Paras 30-39].

Habeas Corpus – Minor Marriage – Release of Detenue – Detenue aged 17 and a half years asserted marriage with respondent and desire to live with him – No FIR registered against detenue or her husband – Marriage not void but voidable at detenue's option – Even without proof of marriage, partners entitled to live-in relationship – Prosecution not justified for irregularity/illegality in marriage certificate – Petition by father for release dismissed [Paras 1-12].

Live-in Relationship – Detenue's Right to Live with Partner – Detenue asserted majority age and willingness to live with respondent – Court emphasizes individual's right to choose living arrangements – Protection granted despite father's objections – Live-in relationship permissible even without marriage validity [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Propriety – Abuse of Process – Court finds prosecuting detenue and respondent for marriage certificate irregularity an abuse of process – Complaint and inquiry report against them quashed – Court ensures protection of life and liberty of detenue [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Detenue allowed to live with respondent – Directions issued for financial security in favor of detenue – Complaint and inquiry report quashed to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice [Paras 13-16].

Judicial Impropriety – Pendency of Petition – Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Application by Magistrate during pendency of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before High Court – Held, absence of any such infirmity – Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a statutory power – Order by Magistrate not an act of judicial impropriety [Paras 1-30].

Magistrate's Discretion – Registration of Complaint – Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Statutory power conferred upon Magistrate – Essential for Magistrate to take appropriate decision and exercise jurisdiction – Failure to do so would amount to abdication of powers [Para 29].

Custodial Interrogation – Pre-judging Case – Magistrate's observation regarding custodial interrogation not amounting to pre-judging the case – Mere registration of FIR not prejudicial to accused – Court required to examine existence of cognizable offence and direct FIR registration if necessary ingredients are met [Para 30].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Orders by Additional Sessions Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate upheld – Directions for registration of FIR found legally sustainable and not an act of judicial impropriety [Paras 31-32].

Suspension of Sarpanch – Validity of Demarcation Report – Petitioner suspended from the post of Sarpanch due to alleged encroachment on Panchayat land based on a demarcation report – Contested the correctness of the report and suspension order – Held, the Director is the competent authority to form an opinion on the validity of the demarcation report, which is central to proceedings for removal of the Sarpanch – Writ Court cannot decide the correctness of the report when proceedings are sub judice before the Director – Appeal dismissed, petitioner directed to file objections to the show cause notice before the Director [Paras 1-6].

Jurisdiction of Writ Court – Alternative Remedies – Emphasized that writ courts should refrain from adjudicating matters pending before competent authorities unless no alternative remedy is available – The Director’s power to accept or reject the demarcation report and the appellate remedy to the State Government under Section 20(6) of the 1994 Act reaffirmed – Upheld Single Judge’s decision to allow petitioner to file objections to the show cause notice [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Writ court's jurisdiction limited in matters with pending statutory remedies – Directed petitioner to pursue objections and appeal within statutory framework [Para 8].

Removal of Sarpanch – Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner – Petitioner challenged his removal from the post of Sarpanch by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 51(3)(b) and 51(3)(c) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Held, Section 51 enables the Director or Deputy Commissioner to order removal after an inquiry on specified grounds, while Section 176 deals with the determination of election validity by a judge – Both sections operate in their own fields and do not exclude each other – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Harmonious Construction – Overlapping Provisions – Court emphasized the necessity of harmonious construction when provisions overlap – Section 51 allows administrative removal post-inquiry, whereas Section 176 pertains to election disputes – Both provisions must be given effect concurrently without exclusion [Para 11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner’s removal upheld – Court supported the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to remove a Sarpanch on grounds of disqualification and other specified reasons under Section 51(3) [Para 16].

Impleading Necessary Parties – Application to Sell Minors' Property – Petitioners, maternal grandmother and uncles, sought permission to sell minors’ property, impleading only the General Public as respondent – Trial Court ordered impleading of natural father and grandparents – Held, natural father and grandparents are necessary parties for proper adjudication – Under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC, court has the power to add any party at any stage if deemed necessary for complete adjudication – Emphasized that the father's and grandparents' perspectives are crucial for deciding the petition under Section 8 of the 1956 Act – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Dominus Litus Principle – Not Applicable – Court clarified that the principle of dominus litus does not apply when the case is against the General Public – Any member of the public can oppose the application – Court’s power to add necessary parties under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC upheld [Paras 9-10].

Court’s Duty – Comprehensive Fact Gathering – Highlighted the court’s duty to gather all relevant facts, ensuring no prejudice to minors' interests – Section 31(4) of the 1890 Act supports including all knowledgeable parties before deciding such applications – Importance of knowing natural father’s and grandparents’ sides to avoid decisions against minors' advantage [Paras 11-15].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial Court's orders upheld – Directed that the inclusion of natural father and grandparents is essential for a fair and just decision on the application to sell minors' property [Paras 17-18].