Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Definition of Shamlat Deh – Writ Petition – Land recorded as Shamlat Patti – No evidence of use for Panchayat's benefit – As per wajib-ul-arz, land managed by shareholders, fruits shared among those in possession – Collector and Commissioner’s orders ignoring wajib-ul-arz and records set aside – Petition allowed – Land not to be classified as Shamlat Deh. [Paras 1-5]

Revenue Records and Customary Practices – Analysis – Section 2(g)(5) defines Shamlat Deh as land used for common purposes – No material suggesting land’s use for village benefit – Wajib-ul-arz records land cultivated by shareholders – Management and benefits to possessors – Incorrect findings by authorities based on non-existent record – Land classified as Shamlat Patti, not used for common village purposes. [Paras 1-4]

Judicial Findings – Misinterpretation by Authorities – Commissioner’s findings on Banjar qadim land used for Bober grass incorrect – No record support – Conceded by respondents – Authorities ignored statutory definition and wajib-ul-arz – Petitioners' proprietary rights affirmed. [Paras 4-5]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned orders by Collector and Commissioner set aside – Land recorded as Shamlat Patti, not Shamlat Deh – Not used for village common purposes as per revenue records – Petitioners' rights upheld. [Para 5]

Mining Law - Auction Methods – Writ Petition – Change from reverse bidding to progressive bidding – State pre-determines costs in reverse bidding – Lowest bid wins contract – Progressive bidding removes cap on sale price – Bidders determine mine value – Higher revenue expected from progressive bidding – Petition dismissed. [Paras 4-5A]

Government Policy - Contract Terms – Executive Decision – Policy change to progressive bidding – Cabinet decision upheld – No restriction on executive power to amend contracts in public interest – Petitioners’ argument against contract change rejected – Petition dismissed. [Paras 21-23]

Public Interest - Directive Principles – Policy Decision – Objective to curb illegal mining, reduce prices, maximize production, and increase revenue – Policy aligned with Articles 39(a) and 39(b) – Action in public interest – Petition dismissed. [Paras 28-30]

Opportunity of Hearing - Statutory Provisions – Right of hearing not vested unless termination involved – Policy change applies to ongoing contracts – No termination, thus no hearing required – Petition dismissed. [Paras 34-35]

Legitimate Expectation - Doctrine – No promise that contract terms would remain unchanged – Doctrine does not provide enforceable right – Public interest prevails – Petition dismissed. [Paras 37-38]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Existing mining contracts subject to policy changes – State's decision to shift to progressive bidding upheld – Policy in public interest – No requirement for hearing as contracts not terminated – Legitimate expectation doctrine not applicable. [Paras 21-38]

High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 - House Rent Allowance – Writ Petition – Entitlement to benefits as admissible to a sitting Judge – Petitioner, retired judge and President of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, denied official residence – Held, entitled to HRA @ Rs. 6000/- per month – Respondent's failure to provide accommodation violated Section 22-A – Petition allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Directions issued for payment of HRA and no salary deductions. [Paras 1-15]

Housing Allowance for Retired Judges – Analysis – Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A mandates rent-free official residence for High Court Judges – In absence of such residence, allowance payable – Petitioner repeatedly sought official accommodation – Non-provision led to entitlement to HRA – Precedent and Government decision upheld for allowance amount. [Paras 6-12]

Judicial Treatment – Government Correspondence – Examination of official communications showed arbitrary treatment – Instructions and decisions regarding allowances for other retired judges applied to petitioner – Recovery attempts and HRA denial unjustified. [Paras 10-14]

Decision – Petition Outcome – Petition allowed – Directions for HRA payment at Rs. 6000/- per month from office assumption date, adjusted for revisions – No deductions from petitioner's salary – Quashing of contrary orders – Cost made easy. [Paras 12-15]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Customs Act, 1962 - Section 18 - Major Ports Trusts Act, 1963 - Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 - Illegal detention of imported goods - Petitioner imported defective/secondary cold rolled coils - Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) directed to put the consignment on hold - Despite reminders, no action taken for provisional assessment and release of goods - Writ petition filed - Chartered Engineer's inspection report confirmed goods as cold rolled coils with minor variation in thickness - Laboratory tests showed conflicting results - Held, goods were not prohibited - Detention was illegal, and petitioner was not liable for detention and demurrage charges. Responsibility lies with Customs Department. [Paras 55-89]

Held:

Illegal Detention and Demurrage Charges - Liability:

Goods were not prohibited.

Petitioner not liable for detention and demurrage charges due to illegal action of Customs Department.

Customs Department responsible for bearing the costs demanded by the Port Trust and Shipping Line​​.

Inspection and Testing:

Initial inspection by Chartered Engineer confirmed goods as cold rolled steel.

TCR Engineering Services' conflicting report did not justify continued detention.

Fresh samples tested at Bokaro Steel Plant confirmed cold rolled steel.

Customs' inaction and delay led to avoidable litigation and financial burden on petitioner​​.

Provisional Release:

Despite confirming reports, Customs delayed provisional release.

Provisional assessment should have been done to avoid demurrage charges.

Customs directed to take immediate steps for testing and provisional release in future cases to avoid similar issues​​.

State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 - Remuneration Fixation – Writ Petition – Retired Chief Manager appointed as Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – Claimed remuneration based on last pay drawn minus pension – State Bank of Patiala held as an extended arm of the Government within the term “Corporation” – Bound by Government circular – Petition allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Directions to fix honorarium as per last pay drawn minus pension. [Paras 1-18]

Remuneration of Retired Employees - Definition of Corporation – Analysis – State Bank of Patiala, a subsidiary of State Bank of India established under a Central statute, falls within the term “Corporation” – Employees of such Corporations covered under Government circular for remuneration fixation – Petitioner's claim for remuneration as per last pay drawn minus pension valid. [Paras 8-15]

Government Policy - Clarification of Terms – Circular by Government of Punjab – Remuneration of Members from judicial or government jobs – Includes those from Corporations and Public Sector Undertakings – Petitioner's appointment and remuneration fixation fall within the clarified terms – Compliance required. [Paras 5-7, 15]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Orders declining remuneration fixation set aside – Directions to release financial benefits based on last pay drawn minus pension – Action to be taken within three months. [Paras 16-18]

Employment Law - Prescribed Qualifications – Writ Petition – Employer's right to prescribe qualifications for a post – Applicants cannot claim the benefit of equivalent qualifications unless explicitly stated – Court not to sit in appeal over expert opinions on qualifications – Advertisement and statutory rules stipulate recognized qualifications – Petitioners' qualifications from ISO certified institutions not equivalent to those prescribed – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-26]

Expert Opinion on Qualifications – Analysis – Qualification equivalence and recognition fall within the domain of experts – Courts to avoid interference unless clear statutory violations – Expert committee findings upheld – Qualifications from ISO certified institutions not recognized as equivalent to government-approved diplomas. [Paras 18-20]

Statutory Rules vs Advertisement – Prevailing Criteria – Statutory rules prescribe qualifications from government-recognized institutions – Advertisement stipulating recognized university or institution must align with statutory rules – Petitioners' failure to show equivalence to government-recognized diplomas – No right to compel recognition of ISO-certified qualifications. [Paras 19-21]

Alleged Discrimination and Equal Treatment – Equitable Argument – Instances of other candidates with similar qualifications being treated as eligible do not justify perpetuating irregularities – Courts cannot mandate equality in illegality – Each case evaluated on its own merits within statutory framework. [Paras 23-25]

Decision – Petition Outcome – Petitioners ineligible based on statutory qualifications – No merit found in pleas for equivalence or discrimination – Petitions dismissed. [Paras 25-26]

Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 - Forfeiture of Amount – Writ Petition – Section 45(3) as amended in 2013 – Petitioner surrendered plot – 10% forfeited under amended provisions – Allotment letter issued prior to amendment – Held, Section 45(3) is a substantive provision – Amendment operates prospectively – Forfeiture under pre-amended Section 45(3) set aside – Matter remanded to determine appropriate quantum of forfeiture. [Paras 1-16]

Substantive Law vs Procedural Law – Analysis – Section 45(3) imposes financial implications on bidders – Substantive provision affects rights and obligations – Amendments to substantive provisions apply prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise – No retrospective application intended for amended Section 45(3). [Paras 9-11]

Contractual Obligations – Bidders' Expectations – Financial bids structured based on forfeiture provisions – Substantive changes impact financial decisions – Bidder considerations include forfeiture risks – Authorities must consider facts of each case to determine appropriate forfeiture under pre-amended provisions. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Petition Outcome – Impugned orders forfeiting 10% of the amount set aside – Case remanded to Revisional Authority – Authorities to determine quantum of forfeiture based on facts and circumstances – Petitioners to be heard. [Paras 16]

Electricity Act, 2003 - Erection of Power Transmission Towers – Writ Petition – Non-opportunity of hearing – Held, no hearing contemplated against laying of lines – Decision to mark route for electric lines is highly specialized and technical – Route may run through various lands, making individual hearings impractical – Only right available to landowners is to receive compensation and damages, if any, sustained – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Land Use and Compensation – Analysis – Laying of power transmission lines under specialized and technical decisions – No acquisition of land; only right of user – Hearing not required under the Indian Telegraph Act – Landowners entitled to compensation for any damage – Project progress and infrastructure development prioritized. [Paras 7-9]

Judicial Precedents – Application – Reference to Division Bench judgment of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court – Consistent judicial stance on non-requirement of hearing for laying power lines – Owners' right limited to compensation – No judicial interference in ongoing infrastructure projects as per precedents. [Paras 7, 9]

Decision – Petition Outcome – Technical and specialized nature of power line routing upheld – Practicality of hearing landowners for extensive routes dismissed – Petition without merit and dismissed. [Para 9]

Industrial Disputes - Reinstatement – Appeal – Workman reinstated with 50% back wages – Conviction for embezzlement and misconduct concealed – Management cannot be compelled to retain dishonest employee – Serious charges and conviction – Award of Tribunal and Single Bench judgment set aside – Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-13]

Employment Law - Concealment of Conviction – Analysis – Workman concealed conviction during proceedings – Misled Tribunal and Court – bligation to disclose all relevant information – Concealment shows disrespect for legal process – Plea for equity by workman unfounded. [Paras 7-8, 11]

Decision – Appeal Outcome – Conviction of workman upheld by higher courts – Employer not liable to retain dishonest employee – Impugned orders of reinstatement with back wages set aside – Appeal allowed. [Paras 12-13]