Criminal Law - Bail Application - Compliance with Statutory Provisions - NDPS Act: Application for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC - Allegation of non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act in the search and seizure process - Held, the Sub-Inspector duly sent the information to his superior officer as required by Section 42(2) NDPS Act - The contention that the officer who conveyed the information was subordinate in rank was found unconvincing - Statutory compliance was upheld based on the endorsement made in the FIR and subsequent special report sent to superior officers - Application for bail dismissed due to involvement of commercial quantity of contraband and statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. [Paras 1-12]

Investigating Officer's Role - Bias Allegation: Argument raised that the complainant, who also conducted the investigation, could not have done so impartially - Rejected based on precedent affirming that the initiation of an FIR by an officer does not inherently imply bias or invalidate the investigation - Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision allowing investigation by the officer who registered the FIR, provided there is no demonstrated bias. [Para 10]

Search and Seizure Procedure - Compliance: Section 50 NDPS Act requires strict compliance but allows some discretion regarding procedural specifics - The offer for search before a gazetted officer or Magistrate was sufficiently communicated - Any procedural irregularities regarding the precise wording of the offer are to be evaluated during the trial - No substantial non-compliance found at the bail stage. [Paras 8, 9]

Decision - Bail Application Dismissed: Given the commercial quantity of the narcotic involved and statutory restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act, the Court denied bail - Emphasis placed on statutory compliance and the seriousness of the offence. [Para 11]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - Eviction - Bona Fide Necessity: Petition challenging eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity under Section 13 of the Act - Age of landlord (75 years) not a bar for seeking eviction for personal use - Landlord's ability to handle business upheld in absence of evidence of physical infirmity - Tribunal and Appellate Authority's findings of bona fide necessity affirmed. [Paras 1-11]

Assessment of Necessity - Landlord's Properties: Landlord provided details and status of properties owned - Stated intention to start cycle spare parts business in demised premises located in main cycle spare parts market - Existing properties unsuitable for proposed business - Petitioner's claims of landlord's sufficiency of other properties and rental income dismissed due to lack of evidence and credibility. [Paras 13-19]

Judicial Review - Revisional Powers of High Court: High Court's revisional jurisdiction does not allow reappreciation of evidence - Interference only warranted if findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice - Findings of bona fide necessity by lower courts found legally sound and not perverse - No ground for interference. [Paras 25-26]

Decision - Petition Dismissed: Revision petition dismissed - Tenant granted time till December 31, 2018, to vacate premises, subject to conditions including payment of arrears and regular future payments - Undertaking to this effect to be furnished within three weeks. [Para 27]

Tender Law - Rejection of Technical Bid - Clause 5(b)(II) MTF - Authority to Bind Firm - The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid by FCI for non-compliance with Clause 5(b)(II) of the MTF, which required the Digital Signature Card (DSC) holder to produce a Power of Attorney stating he has the authority to bind the firm in all matters pertaining to the contract. The Power of Attorney uploaded by the petitioner did not contain this specific wording [Paras 12, 14].

Interpretation of Tender Documents - Essential Condition - No Deviation Allowed - The court emphasized that the language of Clause 5(b)(II) of the MTF was clear and unambiguous. The inclusion of the word "shall" indicated that compliance with the clause was mandatory. Any deviation or relaxation from this essential condition was not permissible to protect the integrity of the tender process and the interests of the FCI [Paras 14, 15].

Judicial Review - Limited Interference - Respecting Employer's Interpretation - The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidance on limited interference by constitutional courts in the interpretation of tender documents. The court must defer to the employer's understanding and interpretation of its tender documents unless there is evidence of mala fides or perversity [Paras 10, 15].

Decision - Petition Dismissed - Validity of Bid Rejection Upheld - The petition was dismissed, and the rejection of the technical bid by the FCI was upheld. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, as the petitioner failed to meet the clear and essential requirements of the tender clause, and there was no allegation of mala fides or perversity in the FCI's actions [Paras 16, 17].

Civil Procedure - Withdrawal and Fresh Suit - Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC - Error in Granting Permission to File Fresh Suit - The court held that the trial court committed a grave error by allowing the respondents to file a fresh suit without recording any finding in the impugned order. The petitioner was made to litigate for 17 years, and the order did not provide the required specific findings on the formal defect that warranted withdrawal and refiling of the suit. The order was thus set aside to the extent it granted permission to file a fresh suit [Paras 15, 16].

Prolonged Litigation - Prejudice to Petitioner - Absence of Specific Findings on Formal Defect - The trial court failed to appreciate the prejudice caused to the petitioner, who litigated for 17 years. The mention of an incorrect genealogy in the plaint could not be considered a formal defect, and the respondents should have sought amendment rather than withdrawal and refiling. The impugned order was deemed unjust and prejudicial to the petitioner [Paras 9, 10, 13, 15].

Decision - Revision Petition Allowed - Fresh Suit Permission Set Aside - The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order to the extent of granting permission for a fresh suit. The suit was to be treated as dismissed as withdrawn, and the respondents were not given any right to move for amendment of their plaint in future applications [Paras 16, 17].

Tenancy Law - Unauthorized Sub-letting - Expiry of Lease - Section 13 East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - The court held that the stipulation in the lease deed allowing sub-letting ceased to be effective after the lease expired. Sub-letting by legal heirs of the tenant without landlord's permission post lease expiry is unauthorized, warranting eviction [Paras 18, 35, 39].

Effect of Withdrawal of Ejectment Petitions - Legal Recognition of Sub-tenants - Compromise and Ratification - Withdrawal of earlier ejectment petitions by the landlord indicated compromise and ratification of sub-tenancies existing at that time. Sub-tenants inducted before withdrawal were recognized as authorized tenants, but further sub-letting without landlord's permission remained unauthorized [Paras 25, 35].

Statutory Tenancy and Legal Heirs - Limitation on Sub-letting Rights - The legal heirs of the original tenant, having statutory tenancy, could not sub-let without landlord's consent after lease expiry. Sub-letting post lease expiry without such consent is illegal, resulting in eviction orders for both the sub-tenants and the legal heirs [Paras 19, 35, 39].

Decision - Partial Allowance of Revision - Validity of Sub-tenancies Recognized Under Compromise - The revision petition was partly allowed, maintaining eviction orders against legal heirs and unauthorized sub-tenants, while validating sub-tenancies established before the lease expiry and recognized under compromise or withdrawal of ejectment petitions. Proportionate rent was to be paid for recognized sub-tenancies, and eviction rights for these sub-tenants were reserved for lawful grounds under the Rent Act [Paras 42, 43].

Property Law - Adverse Possession by State - Article 300A Constitution of India - Requirement of Due Process for Property Deprivation - The court held that the State cannot claim ownership of land by adverse possession. Article 300A stipulates that property deprivation must be by authority of law, not by executive fiat. The State's action of constructing a road on the plaintiffs' land without compensation or following legal procedures was arbitrary and unfair [Paras 18, 19, 30].

Evidence - Revenue Records and Ownership - No State Ownership Recorded - Failure to Prove Adverse Possession - The revenue records showed the plaintiffs as owners in possession, and there were no entries indicating State ownership or consent for road construction. The State failed to provide evidence of when the road was constructed or under what scheme, negating its claim of adverse possession [Paras 18, 19].

Legal Principles - Doctrine of Eminent Domain - Compensation and Legal Process - The court emphasized that the State must follow the due process of law for land acquisition, including compensation to the landowners, as stipulated by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State's arbitrary appropriation of land without compensation violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights [Paras 28, 29, 34].

Decision - Appeal Accepted - Judgments and Decrees Set Aside - The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, recognizing them as the owners of the suit land and entitling them to vacant possession. The State was given three months to decide if it required the land, in which case it must pay compensation according to law; otherwise, the land must be returned to the plaintiffs [Paras 36, 37].

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].