Criminal Law – Juvenile Justice – Regular Bail Petition – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 – Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Juvenile petitioner ordered to be tried as an adult. Court held that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile in conflict with law is entitled to bail irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the juvenile into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. Petition allowed as grounds for rejection of bail by the lower court were not found germane to Section 12 of the Act. [Paras 1-10]

Interpretation of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act – Conditions for Denial of Bail – Held, conditions such as vulnerability suggested by the Probation Officer and Clinical Psychologist’s opinion on cognitive development are not valid grounds under Section 12 for denying bail. The Court requires concrete material to believe that release would bring association with known criminals or expose to danger. Absence of such material in the present case results in grant of bail to the juvenile petitioner. [Para 7]

Decision – Grant of Bail – Petitioner's case did not fall under exceptions of Section 12 of the Act. Ordered to be released on bail with adequate surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. [Para 9-10]

Specific Performance – Joint Ownership – Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Appeal against decree granting recovery of earnest money instead of specific performance of an agreement to sell. The property was jointly owned by three sons and their mother. Held that each vendor is bound to execute the sale deed to the extent of their individual shares, even if the property is jointly owned. The vendee is entitled to seek partition and get their share demarcated. Questions of inheritance and title are beyond the scope of specific performance. Appeal allowed to the extent of the vendors' shares. [Paras 1-16]

Decree for Specific Performance – Joint Shares – Vendors' Obligations – Held that vendors are obligated to execute the sale deed for their respective shares, irrespective of the joint nature of the property and non-joinder of other co-sharers in the agreement. The vendee can seek partition of the transferred shares. Issues related to inheritance or title are not grounds for denying specific performance. [Para 13]

Decision – Modification of Decree – Appeals allowed; defendants ordered to execute the sale deed for their shares (1/4th each) within three months. Plaintiff entitled to enforce the sale deed through legal process if defendants fail to comply. Judgments and decrees of lower courts modified accordingly. [Para 16]

Property Tax – IT-ITES SEZ Property – Industrial vs. Commercial Rates – Petition challenging levy of property tax at commercial rates on IT-ITES SEZ property – Held, property tax to be levied as per actual usage of the premises – SEZ units cannot claim exemption or industrial rates solely based on SEZ classification – Notifications and statutory provisions mandate commercial rates for IT/ITES activities – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-53]

Statutory Interpretation – SEZ Property Tax – Applicability of Commercial Rates – Held – IT/ITES recognized as industry under Haryana Industrial & Investment Policy, 2011 does not override statutory provisions of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 – Commercial property tax rates applicable based on usage – SEZ classification does not grant blanket exemption from property tax. [Para 43]

Condonation of Delay – Revision Petition – Applicability of Limitation Act – Held – Section 5 of Limitation Act applicable as there is no express exclusion under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 – Delay of 53 days in filing revision petition by Municipal Corporation Gurugram condoned considering administrative procedures – Importance of deciding substantive issues over procedural delays. [Para 51]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Impugned order upheld – Property tax levied at commercial rates based on actual usage of SEZ property affirmed – Delay in revision petition condoned – No merit in the petition. [Paras 52-54]

Service Law - Seniority - Deputationists vs. Direct Recruits - Continuous Service- Seniority - Continuous Service in Parent and Borrowing Departments – Letters Patent Appeal challenging the seniority list dated 31.03.2018 – Held: Seniority inter se of members of the service must be determined by the length of continuous service on any post in the service, including service rendered in the parent department before absorption in the borrowing department. Ignoring such service for seniority determination is not proper. [Paras 29-34]

Deputation and Absorption - Counting Service for Seniority – Analysis – Held: When a deputationist is absorbed in an equivalent post in another department, the entire period of service rendered in the parent department must be counted for seniority in the borrowing department. This principle is established in Sub Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others, and applies to the present case. [Paras 35-39]

Equivalence of Posts - Service Jurisprudence – Consideration – Held: The equivalence of posts is determined by factors beyond pay, including duties, responsibilities, and qualifications. Therefore, drivers absorbed from other departments must have their previous service counted towards seniority in the Minister Car Section. [Para 36]

Decision: The appeals are dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld. The respondents should have their service in the parent department counted for the purpose of seniority in the Minister Car Section. [Para 46]

NDPS Act - Non-Compliance of Section 50 - Appeal against Conviction - Recovery from Cloth Bag - Section 50 not applicable to non-personal search - Conviction under Section 18 upheld. [Para 10]

Witness Credibility - Absence of Independent Witnesses - Statements of Official Witnesses - Genuineness of Prosecution Case - No false implication motive attributed - Testimonies of official witnesses reliable - Conviction upheld. [Para 11]

Leniency in Sentencing - Age and Duration of Proceedings - Appellant aged 68 years, facing trial/appeal for over 21 years - Recovery non-commercial in nature - Sentence reduced to period already undergone - Fine enhanced. [Paras 12-14]

Decision - Conviction Upheld - Sentence Reduced - Court upholds the conviction but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone, enhancing the fine to Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Lawyer's Family Welfare Fund within two months, with a default stipulation. [Paras 14-17]

Right to Information - Imposition of Penalties - Opportunity of Hearing - Non-Speaking Order-Imposition of Penalties - Right to Hearing – Civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the imposition of a penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 – Held: Penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act should only be imposed after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty was imposed without a hearing and through a non-speaking order, which is not proper. [Paras 1, 5, 10, 14]

Non-Speaking Order - Inadequate Justification – Analysis – Held: The order imposing the penalty did not provide adequate reasoning and failed to consider the petitioner's request for adjournment. The penalty was imposed solely because there was no response to the show-cause notice, without recording any finding that the delay was attributable to the petitioner. [Paras 13, 15]

Service Law - Unauthorized Absence - Termination of Services - Haryana Police – Regular Second Appeal against the order dismissing the civil suit and first appeal challenging the termination of the appellant's services – Appellant, a Head Constable, claimed unauthorized leave to attend a Public Police Samelan and alleged he was restrained from rejoining duty – Enquiry proceedings held, show cause notice issued, and reply filed by the appellant – Appellant failed to attend further enquiry proceedings – Termination ordered based on proven unauthorized absence – Appeal to Government not decided – Civil Suit filed after 12 years dismissed by Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Second Appeal filed on grounds of improper enquiry and wrongful restraint from duty – High Court held that failure to participate in enquiry negates claims of improper proceedings – Dismissal of Second Appeal. [Paras 5-15]

Civil Procedure - Delay Condonation - Applications filed for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing and 59 days in refiling the appeal – Allowed based on supported affidavits. [Paras 1-4]

Conduct of Enquiry - Analysis - Held - Employee’s non-participation in the enquiry disqualifies claims of procedural impropriety - No evidence presented proving wrongful restraint from duty - Findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld as non-perverse. [Paras 10-13]

Decision - Dismissal of Second Appeal - Appellant failed to establish any perversity in lower courts' findings or wrongful conduct in the enquiry proceedings - Second Appeal dismissed. [Para 15]

Civil Law - Correction of Date of Birth in Educational Records - Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact - Correction of date of birth in matriculation certificate - Held, a student's date of birth can be corrected if proven by valid evidence despite the absence of specific bye-laws allowing such correction - Appeal dismissed - In the present case, the student successfully proved that his correct date of birth was 20.02.2000, contrary to the recorded 13.10.1999. The court held that CBSE's rigid application of its bye-laws without considering valid evidence would cause undue hardship to the student. The CBSE's contention that there was no provision for changing the date of birth once recorded was rejected​​ .

Correction of Records - Absence of Fraud or Misrepresentation - Analysis - Held, in the absence of any allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, the student's date of birth can be corrected to prevent lifelong prejudice - The court emphasized that since there were no claims of fraudulent behavior, the correction was justified to avoid prejudice against the student's future educational and employment opportunities​​ .

Decision - Dismissal of CBSE's Appeal - The court dismissed the second appeal filed by CBSE, affirming the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court, which had directed the correction of the date of birth in the matriculation certificate. The court found no perversity or illegality in the lower courts' findings​​ .

NDPS Act - Post-Trial Disposal of Confiscated Articles - Sections 60-63 of the NDPS Act - Confiscation of Car - Police took possession of the car without a formal order of confiscation - Notice under Section 60 issued to the registered owner - Mandatory provisions of Sections 60 to 63 not complied with - Special Court erroneously declined to proceed as the trial had concluded - Impugned order set aside - Case remanded for compliance with Sections 60 to 63 - Confiscation order to be passed after hearing the registered owner. [Paras 9-10]

Procedure for Confiscation - Compliance Required - Notice and Hearing - Sections 60-63 mandate procedural steps for confiscation - Special Court failed to issue a formal confiscation order despite notice - Proper procedure involves notice, hearing, and determining the owner’s knowledge or connivance - Remand to trial court for due process. [Para 10]

Decision - Setting Aside Impugned Order - Case Remanded - Special Court's order set aside - Remand with direction for trial court to proceed with confiscation after compliance with Sections 60-63 - Notice to appellant and hearing on knowledge/connivance required - Expedited decision within six months directed. [Paras 10-12]