Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court stated that the Water and Air Rules empowered the State to appoint a single- or three-member body as the Appellate Authority. Thus, if the State, vide the impugned notifications, opted for a single-member Appellate Authority, then the power exercised by the State was within the four corners of the said enactments.
“Since there exist adequate statutory frameworks for redressal of these grievances, including the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, there arises no occasion for the Court to entertain the petition under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.”
The Court held that the offence of illegal mining in rivers needed to be taken seriously despite less punishment prescribed under law.
“To permit nearly four decades to elapse without any discernible, substantive action flowing from a statutory declaration is, to put it mildly, an affront to the principles of effective governance and a manifest failure at the end of concerned officers, both statutory and constitutional.”
“It is one thing for this Court to hold that the original assessment is infirm to such an extent as to warrant reevaluation; it is quite another and indeed impermissible for it to delve into the academic merit of an answer and render its own evaluative opinion thereon.”
‘Deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded since it erodes the power of the employer to assess work, conduct, and behaviour of the probationer.’
The Court held that the issue of declaration of a particular place as a Memorial, or naming it differently, or the declaration of deceased persons as Martyr/ Shaheed was within the exclusive domain of policy decision of the State.
On 01-05-2025, allegedly, Punjab forcibly took control of the operations and management of the Bhakhra Nangal Dam and Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices by deploying a large number of police personnel with the ultimate object of forcibly preventing the Bhakra Beas Management Board from releasing water to Haryana.
The Court rebuked the State for pursuing litigation mechanically and indifferently without any application of mind while imposing a cost of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs on HPSC.
“The invocation of equitable jurisdiction does not confer upon the Court an unfettered prerogative to render orders in complete defiance or in oblivion of the established tenets of the law of the land.”
The petitioners’ case was that since the allegations of recruitment scam turned out to be misfounded and petitioners were acquitted of the same, hence, they deserved to be appointed.
The petitioner answered the question correctly but was not awarded marks, even though other candidates were awarded marks for the same answer.
The Court noted that the report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner was also without granting him an opportunity of being heard.
“Though the Constitutional Courts are the sentinels of justice, however, this power of judicial review is required to be exercised with due care and caution and interference at the stage of investigation is made in rare and exceptional cases.”
“In matters of recruitment to services, interference to the process of recruitment when otherwise conducted in a transparent, fair and reasonable manner with no allegation of malafides cannot be gone into in the limited power of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
It appears that the grievance of noise pollution is a continuous one and will have to be monitored from micro to macro level by the authorities concerned including executive authorities under the State of Haryana.