Municipal Law – Computation of Period for Requisition of Meeting – Writ Petition against State Government’s disapproval of meeting convened by dissatisfied councillors – Section 25(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 interpreted to mandate meeting within 30 days from the initial requisition – Meeting held beyond this period deemed invalid – Petition dismissed – Held that the statutory period of 30 days must be strictly adhered to avoid misuse and potential for horse-trading – Failure to hold the meeting within the prescribed period invalidates the no-confidence motion passed in such meeting. [Paras 1-14]

No Confidence Motion – Requirements and Validity – Analysis – Held that the dissatisfied Municipal Councillors must convene the meeting within 30 days from the date of making the requisition – Period cannot be extended under any circumstance, including the non-availability of the appointed observer – The statutory phraseology "within a period of 30 days of the making of such requisition" must be strictly construed to ensure timely action and prevent misuse. [Paras 9-13]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court upholds the State Government’s decision to disapprove the meeting convened on 14.01.2022 – Reaffirms the necessity for strict adherence to statutory timelines – Writ Petition dismissed. [Para 14]

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Limitation Period - Insecticides Act - Petition for quashing complaint for misbranded insecticide—Complaint filed after limitation period of three years—Sample drawn on 13.07.2012, analyst report dated 30.07.2012—Application for sanction submitted on 13.08.2015, sanction granted on 01.11.2017—Complaint filed on 05.01.2018—Held, even excluding time for obtaining sanction, complaint filed beyond limitation period—Proceedings quashed as barred by limitation​​.

Limitation Period - Calculation and Exclusion - Requirements under Insecticides Act - Held, punishment under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act is two years, making the limitation period three years under Section 468 CrPC—Complaint must be filed within this period—Exclusion of time for obtaining sanction permissible, but entire period from the date of the first report to the filing of the complaint must be within limitation—Application for condonation of delay must be under Section 473 CrPC, not Section 5 of the Limitation Act—No explanation provided for delay between analyst report and application for sanction—Complaint quashed for being time-barred​​.

Decision - Complaint No. 92 dated 05.01.2018 and summoning order dated 05.01.2018 quashed—Complaint filed beyond the limitation period, despite excluding time for obtaining sanction—No valid cause shown for delay—Petition allowed to prevent abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Proclaimed Offenders - Acquittal of Co-Accused - Petitions by foreign citizens for quashing FIR and orders declaring them proclaimed offenders—Petitioners were unaware of FIR—Co-accused acquitted—Common allegations of cutting and taking away 40 trees in a land dispute—Evidence found insufficient to prove exclusive possession or commission of theft—Possibility of conviction deemed remote and bleak—Continuing prosecution considered an abuse of process of law—Petitions allowed, FIR quashed​​.

Land Dispute - Joint Possession and Allegations - Prosecution's Weak Case - Held, allegations of forcible cutting of trees and trespassing not substantiated—Co-sharers in joint possession—No evidence of exclusive possession by complainant—Previous complaint on similar issues found untrustworthy—Delay of nearly two months in lodging FIR—Continuation of proceedings against petitioners deemed unnecessary—Quashing FIR justified under Section 482 CrPC to prevent harassment​​.

Decision - FIR No. 96 dated 20.05.2006 registered under Sections 379, 447, 148, 149 IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed against petitioners—No useful purpose served by continuing prosecution—Petitions allowed to secure ends of justice​​.

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Misconduct – Regular Second Appeal challenging the Appellate Court’s decision that set aside the Trial Court’s judgment favoring the appellant and upheld his dismissal from service. The appellant, a Constable in the CRPF, was dismissed for misbehaving with a senior lady officer and being under the influence of liquor during duty hours. Held, the appellant’s actions warranted stringent punishment given the disciplined nature of his service. The punishment of dismissal was found to be commensurate with the misconduct proven. Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Disciplinary Actions – Proportionality of Punishment – The appellant argued that despite 17 years of service, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges. Held, as a member of a disciplined force, the appellant's misconduct was severe, involving indecent behavior towards a senior lady officer while under the influence of alcohol during duty hours. Such actions required a stringent response to set an example. The dismissal was neither disproportionate nor unjustified. [Paras 7, 16-17]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed. The Court found no grounds for interference with the Appellate Court’s judgment, which was neither perverse nor incorrect on facts or law. [Para 19]

Criminal Procedure - Release of Seized Vehicle - Sapurdari - Bank Guarantee - Surety Bonds - Release of Seized Vehicle - Idle Parking and Deterioration – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking release of a vehicle seized with illegal liquor – Held: Neither the State nor the owner benefits from the idle parking of seized vehicles. Unattended vehicles deteriorate, and their valuable parts may be stolen. The vehicle is better released to prevent substantial deterioration. [Paras 9, 10]

Substitute for Bank Guarantee - Financial Constraints – Analysis – Held: The petitioner, unable to furnish a bank guarantee or cash value of Rs. 5 lakh, can furnish surety bonds of twice the amount. Courts should not insist on bank guarantees in such cases. [Paras 11, 12]

Decision: The petition is allowed. The trial court's order is modified to the extent that the petitioner will furnish surety bonds of twice the amount instead of a bank guarantee or cash value of Rs. 5 lakh. Remaining conditions of the trial court's order remain intact. [Para 13]

Criminal Procedure - Bail Cancellation - Supervening Circumstances and Conduct of Accused - Petition for cancellation of bail in a heinous offence under Section 306 IPC—Difference between rejecting an application for bail and cancelling bail already granted—Court must find supervening circumstances not conducive to fair trial—Grounds for cancellation include violation of bail conditions, misuse of liberty, threatening the victim, tampering with evidence, or influencing prosecution witnesses—If two views are possible, bail once granted should not be cancelled—Re-appreciation of evidence not a ground for cancellation​​.

Long-Standing Dispute - Family Matters and Allegations - Consideration of ongoing disputes, mutual consent divorce, custody arrangements, panchayati compromises, property transfers, and remarriage—Accused being in custody for about a month along with minor daughter—No supervening circumstances presented—Challan filed and case fixed for framing of charges—Orders of grant of bail to the accused-respondents upheld​​.

Decision - Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed—No grounds for allowing the petitions as no supervening facts were present—Clarification that observations in the orders granting bail shall have no bearing on the merits of the case—Trial Court to proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in the bail orders and the current judgment​​.

Misuse of Maintenance Tribunal – Petitioner Sanjivani alleges misuse of Maintenance Tribunal by husband and his parents to evict her from the matrimonial home, infringing her rights under the Domestic Violence Act - [Para 1]

Matrimonial Discord – Ongoing matrimonial disputes, with complaints lodged by both parties, including a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act filed by Sanjivani - [Paras 2-4]

Tribunal's Order for Eviction – Maintenance Tribunal ordered eviction of petitioner and her husband from the flat owned by respondent no.1 (mother-in-law), also directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance - [Paras 5, 20]

Petitioner's Claim of Residence – Petitioner asserts her right to reside in the shared household under the Domestic Violence Act, challenging the eviction order by the Tribunal - [Paras 9, 10, 28, 29]

Senior Citizens' Perspective – Respondents (senior citizens) seeking eviction for peace in their older age, unrelated to son’s matrimonial disputes, claiming continuous disturbance and harassment in the shared household - [Para 11]

Legal Conflict – Examination of the interplay between the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act in the context of shared household rights - [Paras 21, 22, 35]

High Court's Judgment – Suspension of Tribunal's eviction order for 6 months, allowing petitioner to seek adjudication for interim relief under the Domestic Violence Act, stating petitioner's right of residence need not be in the same flat - [Paras 37, 38]

Service Law - Dismissal from Service - Writ Petition - Challenge to dismissal order affirmed by Appellate Authority - Petitioner, Incharge of Police Malkhana, found grossly negligent in duty leading to missing money - Held, Petitioner's actions constituted gravest misconduct - Authorities need not reproduce statutory language if allegations substantiate misconduct - Writ Petition Dismissed [Paras 2, 5].

Gravest Misconduct - Analysis - Held, Petitioner's negligence as custodian of Malkhana falls within gravest misconduct - Length of service considered but not mitigating in this context - Judicial review limited to procedural correctness and reasonableness of decision [Para 8].

Decision - Dismissal Upheld - Court upholds the dismissal, finding no infirmity in Appellate Authority's decision or procedural lapses [Para 12].

Land Law - Common Purposes Land - Ownership and Control - Implementation of Supreme Court Judgment - Executive instructions issued by Punjab and Haryana, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in State of Haryana v. Jai Singh and others, sought to transfer ownership of lands reserved for common purposes to Panchayats or Municipalities—Instructions quashed as they contravened statutory schemes and led to arbitrary cancellation of valid titles—Lands reserved for common purposes, whether utilized or not, shall vest in Panchayat or Municipality—Lands partitioned among proprietors under Consolidation Scheme do not vest in Panchayat automatically—Sale deeds in favor of bona fide purchasers remain unaffected unless set aside by competent courts​​.

Vesting of Common Purposes Land - Statutory Provisions and Judicial Orders - Held, executive instructions issued by Haryana and Punjab seeking to vest ownership of lands in Panchayats/Municipalities through administrative orders are invalid—Proper implementation of the Supreme Court judgment requires adherence to statutory provisions and recognition of judicial orders—Lands redistributed under Consolidation Scheme and not managed by Panchayats do not automatically vest in Panchayats—Directions issued to state governments for proper implementation of the judgment​​.

Decision - Executive instructions dated 21.06.2022 and 18.08.2022 issued by Haryana and 11.10.2022 issued by Punjab quashed—States directed to implement Supreme Court judgment in accordance with statutory provisions—Ownership of lands reserved for common purposes to vest in Panchayats/Municipalities only if not partitioned/redistributed among proprietors under Consolidation Scheme—Bona fide purchasers' rights protected unless annulled by competent courts​​.