Cancellation

Petitioner / contractor was aggrieved of change of nomenclature of project in question from "widening of road" to "scheme for construction of BT road and side drain"

Validity

Electronic bid of widening / improvement / rehabilitation of road in question was initially invited, bid opening date was fixed but the same was cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances

Thereafter bid was again cancelled after a few months due to the reason that it was not published on time

Third time after fixing a specific date, the bid was again cancelled / annulled due to unavoidable circumstances

Petitioner alleged that change of nomenclature was made without sufficient legal justification or adherence to rules

Authorities claimed that inhabitants' claim / objection over land led to halt in implementation of the scheme

High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction as factual controversy was involved in the matter

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Order issued by authorities did not address contentions of petitioner regarding M.Sc. in Hematology Technology was equivalent to M.Sc. in Medicine

Authority was ready to reconsider appeal of petitioner provided it would cure all its deficiencies and appoint staff, including quality control incharge and production incharge, having experience and qualifications required under Drugs (Licensing, Registering and Advertising) Rules, 1976

High Court set aside the order passed by authorities and remanded the matter for decision afresh

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Once a document is registered then it can only be cancelled by another registered document or through a declaration of competent court of law

One cannot be deprived of its ownership rights in respect of land lawfully owned and/or holding of its lawful possession except in due course of law.

Complaint filed by the petitioner in this regard before Anti-corruption Police, had been consigned to record being frivolous one

Registrar, after registration of document had no authority to cancel the same

Registrar had only powers to issue directions to the Sub-Registrar with regard to his ministerial functions and duties

No illegality had been committed while passing the impugned order

Proper forum for cancellation of gift deed was Civil Court

Writ petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.

Applicant-lease-holder moved application for referring the matter to the Referee Judge whereby he requested for payment and enhancement of compensation which was partly accepted

Validity

Lease holder was not owner of suit land and he had no right to claim compensation

Findings recorded by Referee Judge were against the statutory provisions

No notice was served upon the government who was owner of land in question

Judgment was passed against the government without affording an opportunity of hearing

Referee Judge had conducted proceedings against law

Referee Judge was bound to serve a notice upon government who was party in the line of respondents

Decree in favour of lease holder was nullity in the eye of law

Supreme Court could exercise inherent powers for doing complete justice without appeal by the government in the present circumstances

Lease holder had filed an undertaking that he would surrender the suit land in favour of government if it was required for a "public purpose"

Applicant-lease holder was not an aggrieved person to maintain a reference application

Reference application was not competent and decision/decree passed by the Referee Judge was nullity in the eye of law

Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.

Member (Land Utilization) Board cancelled grant of land while passing ex parte order against which appeal was filed which was dismissed in default

Suit for declaration was filed against the said order wherein application for rejection of plaint was moved and plaint was rejected being time barred

Validity

Impugned order was passed behind the plaintiff who was not party therein

Plaintiff was not heard who was owner of land in question

Order passed behind the plaintiff was against principles of natural justice which was null and void in the eye of law and therefore question of limitation did not arise

Limitation for such order would start from the date of knowledge

Article 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable in the present case as suit was for declaration as to ownership of land in question against the official orders of revenue officer as illegal, arbitrary, fanciful, null and void and of no legal effect and no prayer for setting aside such orders was made

Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1908 therefore was applicable in the present case

Plaint could not be rejected partially in presence of main prayer for declaration of ownership

Impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below were set aside

Trial Court was directed to dispose of the case on merits within six months

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Custodian of Evacuee Property dismissed review petition on the ground that limitation for filing the same was 30 days but writ petition was accepted by the High Court

Validity

If an application for review was filed before the Custodian of Evacuee Property then same had to be made within a prescribed period

If Custodian of Evacuee Property felt necessary to review his own order or the order of his predecessor at his own then he was at liberty to review the order at any time after giving notice to the concerned party and Rehabilitation Authority as the justice of the case might require

Limitation for filing review petition was 30 days

Review was not filed within limitation before the Custodian of Evacuee Property which was time barred and was correctly dismissed

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside and that of Custodian of Evacuee Property was restored

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Contention of petitioner was that lease was granted in his favour for 30 years but same had been cancelled and land had been resumed by the Government

Validity

Lease for 30 years was granted in favour of petitioner by the Government and he took possession of land in question after making payment of requisite charges by complying all the codal formalities

Neither any show-cause notice was issued or served upon the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided by the respondent-Government to enable the petitioner to explain his position with regard to the allegations of having violated the terms and conditions of lease

Neither the alleged report was prepared in presence of petitioner nor he had been confronted with such adverse report

Impugned order was false and baseless which was not sustainable in the eyes of law

Leasehold rights of a lessee who had not violated the terms of lease or grant could not be cancelled unless requirements of S. 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 were fulfilled or declaration for cancellation of such document of lease was sought from competent court of jurisdiction

Impugned order was illegal which had been issued in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner before passing the said order

Said order did not contain any valid reason and same was violative of provisions of S.24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 and was not sustainable which was set aside

Petitioner would be entitled to enjoy the benefit of lease till its expiry, however Revenue Authorities were directed to refund the amount which was paid by the private respondents within a reasonable period or compensate by alternate allotment of land on lease

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Custodian was a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction whose findings of facts could not be challenged through writ petition

Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner applied for Leave Preparatory to Retirement and after sanction, got the same cancelled and joined duty but authorities did not release his salary

Contention of authorities was that Leave Preparatory to Retirement could only be withdrawn by the officer next higher in rank who granted the same

Validity

Petitioner had a right to change his mind before maturity of date of superannuation

No order of retirement was passed, therefore, it was not necessary for petitioner to go before next higher authority

It was open to civil servant who had expressed his desire to retire from service and apply for Leave Preparatory to Retirement to withdraw his request and ask for cancellation of permission and he could be allowed to do so as long as he continued in service and matter of retirement was not finally decided

Even if appointment order of petitioner was found to be illegal or for any reason was suffering from some irregularity, once department had implemented the order, government servant was entitled to salary for the period he had served in the department

State was to ensure under Art.3 of the Constitution, elimination of all forms of exploitation and fulfilment of fundamental principle from each according to his ability to each according to his work

Petitioner was entitled to salary for the period he had worked in department on the basis of order cancelling Leave Preparatory to Retirement

Action of authorities withholding salary of petitioner was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect

High Court directed the authorities to make suitable arrangements for payment of salary to petitioner within two months

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Appointment of civil servants and their subsequent adjustment in their Home Markaz was called in question in Constitutional petition which was allowed by High Court declaring appointments of civil servants to be without lawful authority and ab initio void

Validity

Evidence on record had proved that civil servants were appointed by Competent Authority after observation of all formalities and not by order of Minister concerned as alleged by respondents

Record shad also shown that civil servants were fully qualified to be appointed for respective posts and it was nobody's case that they did not have merits to be appointed

Initial irregularities, in appointment, if any, having been rectified by Competent Authority, even before institution of Constitutional petition by respondents, cancellation of appointments of appellants, declaring ab initio void, through issuance of a writ, was not warranted

Order of High Court passed in Constitutional petition was set aside by High Court in Intra-Court appeal.

Appointments of civil servants as P.T.C. Teachers were subsequently cancelled by Authority after about four years of appointments simply on the ground that approval of appointment of civil servants had been found bogus

Civil servants who had been getting their salaries from the Department for the last, four years, their appointments had been cancelled without holding any enquiry in regard to genuineness or non-genuineness of their appointment and even without giving their names in the cancellation order

Validity

No-order which did not name civil servants whose services were being cancelled or terminated could be said to be an order in the eye of law

Civil servants, in circumstances, were declared to be in service and action of school authorities, stopping civil servants from performing their duties as P.T.C. Teachers on basis of said cancellation order, were also declared to be without lawful authority.

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 16 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497

Adultery

Bail

Cancellation

Husband of adultress making no grievance on her conduct

Background of enmity between adultress and her close relatives

Order of High Court admitting accused respondents to bail

Held, suffers from no such infirmity as might require interference by Supreme Court

Leave to appeal refused.

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Ration Depot-Cancellation-Many ration-card holders belonging to same community to which petitioner belonged unanimously supporting allegations made against him Inquiry made in presence of petitioner and objections raised by petitioner considered by Inquiry Officer-Petitioner appearing before Inquiry Officer with counsel and given opportunity to give further evidence if desired in support of his contentions but not furnishing any other evidence and submitting only his statement-Inquiry proceedings, held, neither mala fide nor held in denial of opportunity of hearing.

High Court aware of merits of case but taking due notice of delay taking place in trial about which no definite prospect indicated of being fixed within any reasonable time and accordingly in its discretion allowing bail

No fundamental error of law or procedure, held, committed in granting bail in circumstances

High Court having granted bail on ground of delay in commencement of trial, contention that Supreme Court having previously rejected bail application of respondents, High Court's order granting bail riot justified and bail in circumstances called for cancellation, held further, of no merit.

Bail-Cancellation of-Contention raised before Supreme. Court also raised by petitioner before High Court in connection with his earlier application and such contention rejected-Order of rejection having not been challenged contention now raised, held, cannot be challenged at leave to appeal stage-Respondents having not allegedly taken any active part resulting in death of victim of assault, Sessions Judge, held further, exercised his discretion in their favour and allowed bail and such order not interfered with by High Court-Petition dismissed, there being no compelling reasons for interference.

Delay-Grant of bail not found justified by Supreme Court on earlier application made by one of accused-Inordinate delay in submission of challan though could furnish valid ground for grant of bail yet High Court right in thinking that before delay could be accepted as a valid ground for grant of bail, Court ought to look into circumstances causing delay

Responsibility for delay at least partly falling on accused and partly on unexplained conduct of Court officials, Sessions Judge in circumstances, under duty, before enlarging accused on bail, to examine all circumstances preventing submission of challan to Magistrate during relevant period-Circumstances as analysed by High Court and as disclosed before Supreme Court during discussion lending support to conclusion reached by High Court on delay in submission of challan being not such as to justify grant of bail, High Court's order cancelling bail maintained.-[Delay].

Ss. 59 (3) (b) & 60 (1) (a) - Route permit - Cancellation - Regional Transport Authority quasi judicial body - Finding regarding breach of S. 59 (3) (b) must be sustained by legal evidence-Mere fact that vehicle was involved in accident-No proof of vehicle having been driven at speed not authorized by law.

No ground for cancellation.