Compassionate Appointment – Rejection of Application – Petitioner’s husband died in 2008 while employed with Food Corporation of India – Petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment soon after but faced rejection and subsequent delays in processing her applications – High Court held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a concession meant to prevent destitution – Given the substantial time elapsed and no exceptional destitution shown, petitioner’s claim held unsustainable – Relevant policy (2013) not retrospective to cover 2008 – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation – The claimant, a mechanic, was injured due to the negligent driving of another mechanic without a heavy vehicle driving license – Claimant sustained multiple injuries and sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000; awarded Rs. 3,40,000 by the Tribunal – The claim was contested on the grounds of alleged pre-existing conditions and delay in reporting the accident – Tribunal awarded based on evidence of rash and negligent act leading to injuries. [Paras 1-8]

Appeal by APSRTC – Disputed facts regarding negligence and the quantum of compensation – Appeal led to reduction in compensation from Rs. 3,40,000 to Rs. 2,15,000 based on scrutinized medical and other expenditure proofs presented – Tribunal’s findings on negligence upheld; adjustments made in compensation allocations. [Paras 9-22]

Negligence Established – Confirmed by the first respondent’s rash and negligent driving, supported by FIR and chargesheet – Tribunal’s conclusion based on substantive evidence of claimant’s injuries and related medical treatments [Para 14].

Compensation Breakdown – Final award included Rs. 50,000 for loss of earnings, Rs. 75,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000 for extra nourishment, Rs. 20,000 for transportation, and Rs. 50,000 for permanent discomfort [Para 21].

Reduction of Compensation – Court reduced total compensation due to lack of sufficient proof for some of the claimed expenses [Paras 19-21].

Medical Treatment Entitlement – Writ of Mandamus sought for advance payment of 90% of estimated costs for a lung transplantation, cited non-response to petitioner’s requests as illegal and unconstitutional – Petitioner, a school teacher with significant accolades, diagnosed with severe lung disease, requires transplantation; cited two Office Memorandums promising financial aid for such conditions – Court recognizes a mismatch in funds allocation by the respondent authorities, with only Rs. 20,00,000 approved against an estimated Rs. 70,00,000 from KIMS and Rs. 50,00,000 from Apollo Hospital [Para 2-11].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to several cases supporting state responsibility in providing health services under Article 21 of the Constitution – Mentioned Manoj M vs. State of Kerala, Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) vs. Union of India & Ors, and Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India to assert the state’s duty to finance rare disease treatments [Para 7-10].

Court’s Decision – Directed immediate issuance of additional funds totaling Rs. 45,00,000 inclusive of post-operative costs, aligning more closely with the lower estimate provided by Apollo Hospital – Emphasized the state’s responsibility to ensure adequate medical treatment without solely relying on state resources, suggesting possible supplementation through public and private contributions [Para 12-13].

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Cruelty – Allegation of False Dowry Complaint: The husband (Appellant) claimed that the wife (Respondent) lodged a false dowry complaint against him, constituting cruelty. However, the court noted that no evidence, such as a copy of the complaint, was provided to substantiate this allegation. Moreover, the wife’s complaint to the All Women Police Station was aimed at reconciliation and living together. Held, the filing of the complaint did not amount to cruelty. [Paras 13-14]

Desertion – Lack of Proof: The husband alleged that the wife deserted him by refusing to live with him and insisting on a separate living arrangement. The court found no sufficient evidence to support these claims. It was noted that the wife made several attempts to reconcile and live with the husband, which he refused. Held, the husband failed to establish ‘animus deserendi’ (intention to desert) on the part of the wife. [Paras 15-16]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The court upheld the Trial Court’s decision that the husband failed to prove cruelty or desertion by the wife. The original petition for divorce was rightfully dismissed. [Paras 16-17]

Sexual Harassment – Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) – Appellant challenged the fact-finding report and second show-cause notice issued by the ICC, leading to his dismissal – Court upheld the ICC's procedures, stating no violation of natural justice principles – ICC's findings treated as those of an inquiry authority under the Vishaka guidelines and subsequent legal framework [Paras 1-36].

Principles of Natural Justice – Fair Hearing and Procedural Fairness – Appellant alleged denial of fair hearing and procedural lapses – Court found appellant was given adequate opportunity to respond, cross-examine witnesses, and access complaint documents – Dismissed claims of procedural unfairness [Paras 24-26].

Binding Nature of ICC Report – Disciplinary Authority’s Role – Court emphasized ICC's report as binding and sufficient for disciplinary action – Rejected need for separate departmental inquiry following ICC's findings – Aligned with Supreme Court's stance in Medha Kotwal Lele case and others [Paras 27-35].

Compliance with Service Jurisprudence – Double Jeopardy and Due Process – Appellant contended double jeopardy and lack of formal charge memo – Court clarified ICC's role as per statutory guidelines and internal college procedures, affirming dismissal based on ICC’s findings without requiring additional departmental inquiry [Paras 23-33].

Decision:The Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are dismissed. The appellant's dismissal is upheld based on the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee. No costs were imposed.

Tender Process and Disqualification - Akash Construction appeals against orders qualifying S.B. Construction and Stone Concern Infrastructure as tenderers for road work - Electronic Notice Inviting Tender No. 12/2023-2024 for road widening and strengthening was contested due to technical disqualifications which were later overturned - Authorities initially disqualified the respondents at the technical bid stage, which was challenged and set aside by a Single Judge directing that they be treated as technically qualified - Appeal challenges the Single Judge's order for procedural irregularities and misinterpretation of eligibility criteria [Paras 1-7, 22-26].

Judicial Review in Tender Processes - Citing Supreme Court precedents, appellant argues for limited judicial interference in tender decisions unless marked by arbitrariness or illegality - Stresses that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and that the Single Judge improperly substituted the authority's interpretation of technical qualifications - Appeals contend the respondents did not meet specific experience criteria for ICBP work as per tender requirements, critical to the project's scope [Paras 9-10, 27-38].

Decision - Court allows appeals, setting aside the Single Judge’s rulings that qualified the respondents as technically eligible - Upholds the original disqualification by tender authorities, emphasizing adherence to stipulated technical criteria without undue judicial alteration of tender processes - Judicial review found to be overreaching in substituting administrative expertise and tender interpretation [Para 38].

Detention Order and Background – Petitioner, previously involved in three cases under the NDPS Act and various IPC matters, challenges the legality of his detention order – background includes previous acquittal and ongoing trials where the petitioner is either bailed or acquitted [Paras 3-7].

Authority’s Justification – Detaining authority’s order emphasized ongoing and planned illicit activities by the petitioner, deemed a continuous threat to national health and security; basis of detention scrutinized [Paras 8, 24].

Legal Challenge – Primary contention is the improper use of detention despite existing custody without adequate justification of future conduct or risk upon release; issues of past case acquittals and misuse of authority also argued [Paras 11, 27-28].

Court’s Analysis and Conclusion – High Court finds detention order unjustified given the petitioner’s existing custody and lack of concrete evidence or reasoning for imminent release and re-engagement in illicit activities; detention order and confirmation order quashed [Paras 22-30].

Suit for Declaration and Injunction – Plaintiff seeks declaration that share transfer to defendant under a Letter Agreement dated 03.12.2018 is void due to non-payment and to restrain defendant from rights over said shares – Agreement was for 1611 equity shares at ₹5,500 per share, wrongfully recorded as ₹31,516 per share in the agreement – Defendant recorded as owner in company’s register despite non-payment – Interim injunction sought to prevent defendant from alienating shares or exercising ownership rights. [Para 1]

Facts and Agreement Details – Plaintiff, a founder of a company that created BharatPe, transferred shares to defendant under pressure to clear way for U.S. investment due to past legal issues in the USA – Transfer was meant to be temporary with a call option for repurchase by plaintiff – Defendant has not paid for the shares, leading to the plaintiff declaring the agreement and share transfer form void and seeking legal reassertion of ownership. [Para 2, 5]

Defendant’s Response and Court’s Analysis – Defendant claims payment was made through alternative means like usage of property and cash, not directly traceable to the share purchase – Court finds prima facie case that the sale consideration was not paid, hence property in shares did not pass to defendant, leading to interim injunction granted against defendant preventing any transfer or creation of rights in the disputed shares until the disposal of the suit. [Para 3, 24, 28]

Decision – Interim Injunction Granted – Court finds prima facie case that share ownership did not pass to defendant No. 1 due to non-payment. Injunction issued against defendant No. 1 to prevent any transfer or creation of third-party rights in the disputed shares pending final resolution. [Paras 29-30]

Land Acquisition – Discrimination in land release – Petition against the High Powered Committee’s order and acquisition notifications – High Court dismisses petition finding no merit and no discrimination in the treatment of the petitioner compared to other similarly situated entities – Noted that development activities in the periphery of Chandigarh are restricted to the government or its agencies per policy – Petitioner’s request for release of land not considered compelling enough to warrant deviation from existing policies – Acquisition aimed at planned development overriding private development plans of the petitioner [Paras 1-48].

Application of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 held valid – Discussion on the legitimacy of the acquisition process and the petitioner’s failed attempts to obtain licenses for development – Judicial findings emphasize the state’s priority in public development over private expectations [Paras 2-48].

Rights and Expectations – Legitimate expectation and discrimination claims rejected – The court holds that the petitioner’s expectations for a license or release of land do not override the clear public interest and policy considerations that favor state-controlled development [Paras 11-17].

Judicial Review – The court upholds the policy decisions that restrict development in the periphery of Chandigarh to government agencies – Legitimate expectation not found reasonable when weighed against public interest and policy restrictions [Paras 13-27].