Civil Procedure – Indigent Person – Application and Procedure – Respondent filed suit for damages and sought to sue as an indigent person – Civil Court relied on Tehsildar’s report – Petitioner's objection that application was not presented in person and without notice – Held, application to sue as indigent person must be presented in person as per Order 33 Rule 3 CPC – Notice to opposite party and Government pleader mandatory under Order 33 Rule 6 CPC – No such notice given – Order declaring respondent indigent without notice and personal presentation is illegal – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 1-16]

Application Presentation – Personal Appearance Requirement – Analysis – Held – Order 33 Rule 3 CPC requires personal presentation of application to sue as indigent person – Application presented by advocate without plaintiff’s presence invalid – Such defect cannot be cured by amendment – Mandatory rejection under Order 33 Rule 5(a) CPC. [Paras 9-12]

Notice Requirement – Indigency Inquiry – Analysis – Held – Court must issue notice to opposite party and Government pleader before declaring plaintiff indigent – No notice issued in this case – Declaration of indigency without notice is procedurally flawed and invalid. [Paras 8, 12]

Decision – Allowing Revision Petition – Court finds procedural violations in declaring respondent indigent – Impugned order set aside – Matter to comply with procedural requirements under Order 33 CPC. [Paras 14-16]

Contract Law – Marketing Discipline – Dealer Agreement – Petitioner, a dealer of petroleum products, faced cancellation of license due to allegations of tampering with the metering unit and short delivery – First inspection report showed no errors, but a second inspection on the same day found the seals broken – Held, cancellation order based on erroneous interpretation of guidelines and failure to consider technical explanations and defense evidence – Cancellation order quashed, dealership restored. [Paras 1-7]

Evidence and Administrative Procedure – Analysis – Held – Inspection showed no initial errors; subsequent report found broken seals due to rust and forceful inspectn – Technical report indicated seals not deliberately broken – Administrative action based on incorrect reading of guidelines and lack of consideration for the petitioner's defense – Authorities failed to examine critical technical evidence and circumstances. [Paras 4-5]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court quashes the impugned cancellation order and restores the petitioner's dealership – Finds administrative decision perverse and unsupported by evidence – Orders respondents to comply with guidelines properly in future inspections and decisions. [Para 7]

Police Service – Discharge During Probation – Absence from Duty – Respondent, a probationary police constable, discharged from service for unauthorized absences and habitual absenteeism under Rule 12.21 – Trial Court dismissed respondent's suit challenging discharge, but Additional District Judge set aside discharge for lack of regular inquiry – Held, Rule 12.21 allows discharge of a probationary constable without regular inquiry based on unauthorized absence and unsuitability – Constable’s repeated absences justified discharge – Appeal allowed, setting aside judgment of Additional District Judge. [Paras 1-16]

Probationary Service and Discharge – Analysis – Held – Probation period allows employer to assess work and suitability – Rule 12.21 empowers discharge of constables during probation without full inquiry for absenteeism – Respondent’s absences documented, censure warnings issued, but absences continued – Supervision and discretion of Commandant valid in discharging unsuitable probationary employees. [Paras 12-15]

Decision – Allowing Appeal – Court upholds discharge of respondent constable under Rule 12.21 – Additional District Judge's judgment overturned – Discharge for absenteeism and lack of suitability during probation confirmed – No requirement for regular inquiry in such cases as per applicable rules. [Paras 15-16]

Employees’ Compensation – Penalty and Interest – Pay and Recover – Truck driver employed by respondent No. 4 died in an accident – Insurance policy held by appellant covered legal liability – Commissioner awarded compensation, interest, and 25% penalty against insurance company – Appellant contended penalty liability rests with employer – Held, employer liable for interest and penalty due to failure to make provisional payment under Section 4-A(2) – Insurance company to pay initially and recover from employer on ‘pay and recover’ principle – Compensation to claimants protected, appellant can seek reimbursement from employer. [Paras 1-16]

Employer's Duty and Liability – Analysis – Held – Employer must pay compensation immediately under Section 4-A(1) – Provisional payment required under Section 4-A(2) if liability not accepted – Non-compliance leads to interest and penalty – Insurance covers legal liability but penalty remains employer’s responsibility – ‘Pay and recover’ principle applies, enabling insurance to pay claimants first and recover from employer. [Paras 7-9]

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – Court modifies Commissioner's order – Insurance company liable to pay compensation and interest from claim filing date till realization – Interest and penalty for pre-filing period recoverable from employer – Principal amount of ₹2,13,570 confirmed, insurance entitled to seek penalty and pre-filing interest from employer through execution proceedings. [Paras 16-17]

Land Law – Re-determination of Surplus Land – Death of Landowner – Petitioners challenged the orders declaring surplus land under the 1953 Act – Original landowner Chandgi's land declared surplus in 1959 – Financial Commissioner set aside the 1959 order and remanded the case – Allotments made in 1976 set aside by High Court – Fresh determination of surplus land in 1989 challenged – Petitioners contended that land was not vested in the Government and should be reassessed under the 1972 Act after Chandgi’s death and consolidation proceedings – Held, land not vested in Government as possession was not taken – Surplus area to be reassessed under the 1972 Act in light of consolidation and inheritance – Writ petition allowed. [Paras 1-24]

Consolidation and Inheritance Impact on Surplus Land – Analysis – Held – Consolidation can alter the area of land holdings, affecting surplus declarations – Death of landowner before final determination of surplus land reopens inheritance, necessitating reassessment – Land not vested if possession not taken prior to final determination – Surplus land declarations under previous acts to be reassessed considering new legal heirs and consolidated holdings. [Paras 13-23]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court sets aside the impugned orders – Directs authorities to reassess surplus land in the hands of legal heirs of Chandgi under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Acknowledges that possession was never taken by the Government – Orders re-determination considering consolidation and inheritance effects. [Paras 24-26]

Education Law – Bond Requirement – Return of Certificates – Petitioner gained admission in MD course in Physiology under the All India Quota and later secured admission in another institution – Government College, Patiala, refused to return original certificates, demanding ₹15 lakhs as per bond – Held, bond requirement for All India Quota students not stipulated in prospectus – No bond executed by petitioner – Payment demand unjustified – Certificates to be returned. [Paras 1-8]

Bond and Consideration – Analysis – Held – Enforceable obligation requires a written bond and consideration, such as stipend payment – Petitioner not paid any stipend – No bond executed at admission – Government's notification requiring bond not supported by actual bond execution or consideration – Demanding ₹15 lakhs invalid without these elements. [Paras 5-7]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court orders return of original certificates to petitioner – ₹40,000 tuition fee paid by petitioner to be forfeited – Respondents directed to return certificates within four weeks – Writ petition allowed on these terms. [Paras 7-8]

Service Law – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 16, 226 – Withdrawal of Service Benefits – Petitioners were deputed and granted benefits under the 'Next Below Rule' as per Rule 4.13 of Punjab Civil Services Rules – Benefits withdrawn without notice or hearing – Held, principles of natural justice violated – Actions of respondent authorities arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 – Writ petition allowed, impugned orders set aside. [Paras 1-20]

Principles of Natural Justice – Analysis – Held – Petitioners were not issued any show cause notice nor given an opportunity to be heard before withdrawal of benefits – Actions caused serious prejudice to petitioners – Respondents acted arbitrarily – Impugned orders violated basic principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. [Paras 8-12]

Judicial Precedents – Reference – Cited various judgments establishing the importance of natural justice and right to hearing in administrative actions affecting service benefits. [Paras 13-14]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court sets aside the impugned orders dated 5/18.11.1993 – Directs respondents to restore the service benefits within three months – Orders release of death-cum-retirement gratuity and leave encashment with 9% interest – In case of non-compliance, interest rate increased to 12%. [Paras 17-20]

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance and Limitation – Advocate's Liability – Appeal against acquittal of advocate accused of submitting false TDS certificates for a client's income tax return – Trial court acquitted advocate citing lack of direct involvement and limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Held, advocate submitted return based on documents provided by main assessee – No criminal liability on advocate for client-provided documents – Cognizance barred by limitation – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Role of Advocate and Limitation – Analysis – Held – Respondent, as an advocate, submitted the income tax return based on TDS certificates provided by the main assessee – Main assessee not prosecuted – Advocate not liable for criminal acts of client without evidence of complicity – Section 468 Cr.P.C. bars cognizance beyond one year for offences with maximum six-month imprisonment – Cognizance in this case barred by limitation, affirming acquittal. [Paras 14-16]

Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal – Analysis – Held – High Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with acquittal limited to cases of patent illegality or perversity – Trial court’s findings based on evidence and legal principles – No compelling reasons to overturn acquittal – Appeals against acquittal require substantial and compelling reasons for interference, which were absent in this case. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Dismissing Appeal – Court finds no merit in appeal against acquittal – No direct evidence against advocate and prosecution barred by limitation – Appeals dismissed, upholding acquittal with valid reasons. [Paras 17-19]

Civil Procedure – Withdrawal and Fresh Suit – Formal Defect – Petitioner's application to withdraw suit with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action was dismissed by the lower court – Suit inherently flawed with incurable defects – Held, court can permit withdrawal with liberty to file afresh if suit likely to fail due to formal defect – Plaintiff should not suffer for counsel’s lapse – Petition allowed, liberty granted to withdraw suit and file afresh on same cause of action. [Paras 1-23]

Formal Defect and Plaintiff's Rights – Analysis – Held – Defects in suit that cannot be cured by amendment necessitate withdrawal and fresh filing – Courts must prioritize substantive rights over technicalities – Mistakes by counsel should not penalize the party – Fresh suit allowed to address formal defects and present complete case. [Paras 19-23]

Decision – Allowing Petition – Court sets aside the impugned order, allowing withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action – Petitioner's application granted under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC – Costs of ₹20,000 imposed on petitioner, payable to opposite side as condition precedent. [Para 25]