Right to Information Act, 2005 - Public Authority Definition – Letters Patent Appeal – Applicant must prove that the body falls within the definition of a public authority under Section 2(h) – Hospital neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the government – Appeal dismissed – Hospital not a public authority under the Act. [Paras 1-17]

Control and Financing by Government – Analysis – Hospital's control and finance by the government must be substantial – Mere regulatory oversight or minimal financial support does not suffice – Substantial evidence required to show government control over management and affairs – Financial assistance too minimal to establish substantial financing – Appellant failed to prove hospital as a public authority. [Paras 12-14]

Burden of Proof – Applicant’s Responsibility – Burden of proving that a body is a public authority under Section 2(h) lies on the applicant seeking information – Appellant failed to establish the hospital met the criteria – Definition of public authority involves substantial control or financing by government. [Para 15]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Single Judge’s order upheld – Hospital not proven to be a public authority – Applications for condonation of delay in filing/re-filing also dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Constitutional Law - Power of Judicial Review - Jurisdiction of High Courts - National Green Tribunal Act - Judicial Review – The petitioners, farmers, challenged the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) order dated May 19, 2016, which imposed a blanket ban on tree felling in Punjab, affecting the widening and lining of the Bist Doab Canal. The court held that the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by legislation. The NGT Act does not explicitly exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts. Thus, the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not barred by Sections 22 and 29 of the NGT Act. [Paras 1-23]​​

Maintainability of Writ Petition - Jurisdictional Overlap – Held, a writ petition challenging an NGT order is maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The court referred to the Madras High Court's decision in Kollidam Aaru Pathukappu Nala Sangam v. Union of India, which emphasized the constitutional power of judicial review by High Courts. [Para 23]​​

Execution of Public Interest Projects - Balance Between Environmental Concerns and Development – The petitioners' request to continue the Bist Doab Canal project, which required felling of trees, was considered essential for public interest, including irrigation and flood control. The court temporarily suspended the NGT's order to allow the state to proceed with the project while adhering to environmental guidelines. [Paras 24-26]​​

Decision - Temporary Suspension of NGT Order – The writ petition was disposed of by suspending the NGT's order for four months, enabling the Punjab government to continue the Bist Doab Canal project and other affected projects, with directions to approach the NGT for further orders. [Para 26]​​

Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - Jurisdiction of Authorities - Judicial Review – Petitioner, running a flour mill, challenged the assessment order and demand for theft of electricity and compound charges issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner also sought remedy against the dismissal of his appeal by the Additional District Collector (ADC) on grounds of locus standi and lack of evidence. The court held that the ADC erred in dismissing the appeal without proper hearing and that the correct remedy was under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. The court disagreed with a prior judgment that suggested only the Special Court under Section 154 could address such disputes, emphasizing that Section 127 provides an adequate remedy for consumers. The matter was remitted to the ADC for fresh adjudication. [Paras 1-15] ​​

**Remedies under Electricity Act - Applicability of Section 127 - Held, Section 127 is an appropriate remedy for challenging final assessment orders related to electricity theft. Section 145 bars civil court jurisdiction, ensuring no party is left remediless under the Act. The court differentiated its view from a coordinate bench which had limited the jurisdiction to the Special Court under Section 154, emphasizing that consumers can utilize Section 127. [Paras 7-13]​​

Decision - Remitting the Matter for Fresh Adjudication - The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the order of the ADC. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication by the ADC, providing both parties an opportunity to present evidence and arguments comprehensively. [Paras 14-15]​​

Constitutional Law - Powers of Registrar - Judicial Review – Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 22.01.2014 by the Registrar cancelling the registration of the society. The court held that the Registrar has ample powers under Section 5 of the Punjab Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, to refuse and cancel registration if material discrepancies, misfeasance, and mismanagement are found. The power to grant registration inherently includes the power to cancel it. The petition was dismissed as the Registrar's order was found to be legal and justified. [Paras 1-17]

Procedural Compliance - Notice and Hearing – Held, the Registrar's actions were within legal bounds despite claims of inadequate notice and hearing. The Registrar's decision followed an inquiry which revealed substantial issues including lack of proper notice for the general body meeting and fabrication of records by the society’s managing committee. The inquiry report was not challenged by the petitioners, affirming the legality of the cancellation order. [Paras 6-16]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Registrar's order for cancellation of the registration of Kansal Rural Self Supporting Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. due to discrepancies, misfeasance, and mismanagement found during the inquiry. [Para 17]

VAT Law - Applicability to Non-Goods Vehicle Transport - Judicial Review – Gold ornaments found in the appellant's possession while traveling by train were penalized for lack of proper documentation under Section 51(2) of the VAT Act. The Tribunal held that the term ‘person’ in the proviso to Section 51(2) included any person selling goods within or outside the State, regardless of the mode of transport. The court held that Section 51(2) and its proviso apply only to goods transported in a goods vehicle, as indicated by the definition and context within the Act. Penalty imposed for goods transported by train was set aside. [Paras 1-27]

Scope of Section 51(2) - Held, Section 51(2) of the VAT Act applies specifically to goods transported in goods vehicles, requiring specified documents. The proviso to Section 51(2), which requires additional declarations for inter-state trade, is also confined to goods vehicles. [Paras 18-19]

Interpretation of 'Person' - Held, the use of the term ‘person’ in the proviso does not extend the obligation to furnish declarations to individuals transporting goods by means other than goods vehicles. The rules and forms under the VAT Act, which require details related to goods vehicles, support this interpretation. [Paras 20-24]

Decision - Allowance of Appeal - The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The penalty imposed on the appellant was quashed, as the statutory provisions did not apply to goods transported by train. [Paras 26-27]

Tax Law - Rectification of Mistakes - Jurisdiction - The petitioner challenged the rectification order of the Tribunal which reversed its previous decision that had allowed a tax refund. The court held that the power to rectify a mistake must be exercised only when the mistake is patent and obvious, not one that requires extensive reasoning or debate. The question of whether an amendment to Rule 29(xii) was retrospective was a debatable issue and could not be rectified under Section 21A. The Tribunal's rectification order was set aside, and the earlier order was restored. [Paras 1-16]

Scope of Rectification - Held, the power to rectify mistakes applies to obvious and patent mistakes, not those requiring a long process of reasoning. An erroneous view of law or a debatable issue cannot be rectified as a mistake apparent from the record. [Paras 12-14]

Debatable Points of Law - Held, whether an amendment is retrospective or prospective is a debatable issue, thus not falling under the scope of rectifiable mistakes under Section 21A. [Para 14]

Decision - Allowance of Petition - The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's later order and restoring the earlier order favoring the petitioner. [Paras 15-16]

Rent Law - Bona Fide Requirement of Landlord - Judicial Review – The petitioner contested the eviction order on the basis that the landlord, who is 74 years old with health issues, lacked bona fide intent to start a business. The court held that the landlord's advanced age and health conditions cannot be grounds to question his bona fide needs. The landlord is the best judge of his needs, and the tenant cannot dictate the suitability of the accommodation. The eviction was justified based on the landlord's bona fide requirement to start a karyana shop. [Paras 1-8]

Landlord's Rights - Old Age and Health - Held, the advanced age and failing health of the landlord do not undermine his bona fide need to start a business. The landlord's requirement is evaluated from his perspective, not the tenant's. [Para 5]

Burden of Proof - Held, the tenant failed to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that the landlord had other vacant shops available. The assertion was rejected outright. [Para 4]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - The petition was dismissed, and the eviction order upheld. The landlord's need was found bona fide, and the tenant's arguments were not substantiated. [Paras 7-8]

Family Law - Divorce - Grounds of Cruelty and Irretrievable Breakdown - Judicial Review – The husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion. The trial court granted divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The appellate court held that 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' is not a statutory ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court's judgment was set aside, and the husband's petition for divorce was dismissed. [Paras 1-23]

Definition of Cruelty - Held, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cruelty includes conduct that is grave and eighty enough to make it impossible for a spouse to continue living with the other. Vague allegations and normal wear and tear of marriage do not constitute cruelty. Specific instances of cruelty must be proven with substantial evidence. [Paras 13-15]

Judicial Authority - Held, courts cannot grant divorce on grounds not provided by the legislature. Only the Supreme Court can grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 20-21]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree granting divorce, dismissing the husband's petition for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. [Paras 22-23]

Service Law - Selection Criteria - Validity of Appointment - Judicial Review – The appellant's appointment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) was challenged on the ground that he did not possess the required 60% marks as per the initial advertisement's qualification criteria. The Board's resolution to keep the existing rules in abeyance did not result in the approval of new rules, thus the existing rules continued to apply. The court held that the appointment was against the qualifications prescribed by the existing rules, as the amended rules were not formally approved. The appellant's appointment was set aside, and the Institute was directed to consider the respondent’s case for appointment subject to verification of experience and other formal requirements. [Paras 1-47]

Vacuum in Law - Application of Existing Rules – Held, when rules are kept in abeyance and new rules are not approved, the existing rules continue to apply to prevent a legal vacuum. The intention of the management in keeping rules in abeyance could not have been to create a void. Till the approval of new rules, the earlier rules must be applied. [Paras 32-39]

Decision - Setting Aside of Appointment - The appellant's appointment was set aside due to non-compliance with the existing qualification criteria. The respondent's eligibility and experience were to be verified before appointment. The appointment, if confirmed, would be with effect from the date of the appellant's initial appointment but without arrears of pay and allowances. [Paras 44-47]