Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 102 to 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 110Nominal IndexManjit Singh v/s State of Punjab, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 102Alam v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 103Saral Mobile Project Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 104Anil Sharma v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 105Hemant Kumar Mittal...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 102 to 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 110
Nominal Index
Manjit Singh v/s State of Punjab, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 102
Alam v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 103
Saral Mobile Project Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 104
Anil Sharma v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 105
Hemant Kumar Mittal v/s Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and others & Batch, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 106
Krishan Bhatia & Ors. vs. Virender Singh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 107
Sohan vs. The State of Haryana & Ors., and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 108
Samarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 109
Hardev Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 110
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Manjit Singh v/s State of Punjab
CRM-M-12246-2026 (O&M)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 102
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a former Secretary of Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) booked in an FIR over 328 missing sacred saroops (holy books) of the Guru Granth Sahib, observing that the allegations did not prima facie indicate any misappropriation by him.
In doing so the court further remarked that the FIR was lodged after a delay in 2025 wherein the incident had allegedly occured between 2011-2016, for which no explanation had been given.
Case Title: Alam v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
FAO No. 4610 of 2008 (O&M)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 103
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that mere absence of documentary proof of income cannot be a ground to deny just compensation to an injured claimant in a motor accident case. The Court observed that compensation must be assessed on a reasonable basis rather than denied for want of strict proof.
Justice Harkesh Manuja was hearing an appeal filed by the injured claimant challenging the award of ₹95,000/- passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident dated 22.11.2005 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate in view of the nature of injuries suffered. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly assess loss of income, future earning capacity and other heads of compensation.
Case Title: Saral Mobile Project Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
CWP-22231-2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 104
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the health concerns of residents of a particular locality cannot be treated differently from those of the rest of the State, and cannot justify the selective cancellation of permission for the installation of a mobile tower. The Court observed that such reasoning is manifestly baseless when similar installations exist across the State in comparable localities.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal was hearing a writ petition filed by Saral Mobile Project Services Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, whereby permission granted on 07.01.2025 for the installation of a mobile tower was cancelled on the ground of “public interest” following objections raised by the Residents Welfare Association. The cancellation was based on a communication issued by HSVP stating that residents of the locality were opposing the installation of the tower due to perceived health hazards, particularly for elderly persons. The respondents contended that the Deputy Commissioner was competent to cancel the permission in view of such objections and in the larger public interest.
Case Title: Anil Sharma v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Ors.
CRM-M-1885 of 2021 (O&M)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 105
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that where an adult woman voluntarily engages in sexual relations over a prolonged period, such conduct cannot be construed as arising from a misconception of fact so as to attract the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The Court observed that in such circumstances, the relationship reflects consensual conduct.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 376(2) IPC on the complaint of the husband of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner, who was a skating coach known to the family, had developed relations with the prosecutrix and later forcibly established physical relations with her and blackmailed her. The petitioner contended that the relationship between them was consensual. It was pointed out that both families were on visiting terms, that the prosecutrix had continued the relationship over a considerable period, and that no material was found during the investigation to substantiate allegations of blackmail.
Case title: Hemant Kumar Mittal v/s Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and others & Batch
CWP-17042-2025 and connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 106
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently directed the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) to handover vacant possession of various plots in Faridaad to 21 allottees within four months.
In doing so the court rejected the State's request to defer the matter over pendency of a 2009 connected petition where status quo was granted, remarking that no useful purpose would be served keeping the petitioners' petitions pending merely because there is a status quo in a 16-year-old plea plea.
A division bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Deepak Manchanda was hearing a batch of 21 petitions moved by various plot owners seeking directions to the HSVP–the state's urban development authority, to execute conveyance deeds in the petitioners' favour in respect of plots purchased in Faridabad which were allotted to them. The petitions also sought a direction to the authority to hand over peaceful, vacant and physical possession of the plots to its owners.
Case Title: Krishan Bhatia & Ors. vs. Virender Singh & Ors.
FAO-1774-2000 (O&M)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 107
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that the claimant died during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court observed that even if the death of the claimant is not established to be on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claim can still be continued by the legal representatives to the extent of loss caused to the estate.
Justice Deepak Gupta was hearing an appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original claimant, challenging the award dated 20.03.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the right to sue did not survive after her death. The claimant had sustained injuries in a road accident, following which she remained hospitalised and under treatment, but died during the pendency of the claim petition. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition solely on account of the death of the claimant, asserting that the death had occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident and that they ought to have been given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of this plea.
Case Title: Sohan vs. The State of Haryana & Ors., and connected matters
CWP-34752-2023 (O&M) and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 108
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities is a constitutional obligation and not a mere concession. The Court observed that failure to provide such relaxation defeats the mandate of substantive equality under the Constitution and renders the statutory protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act ineffective.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar was hearing a batch of writ petitions concerning recruitment to posts of Scientist-B and Assistant Environmental Engineer in the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, where the petitioners, persons with disabilities, challenged the absence of reservation and denial of relaxation in qualifying criteria. The petitioners contended that despite statutory provisions and government instructions requiring reservation and relaxation, no posts were earmarked in one recruitment and in another, uniform qualifying marks were applied, resulting in all candidates from the disabled category being excluded from further stages of selection.
Case title: Samarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and connected matters
CWP-1422-2026 and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 109
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the 1997 Service Rules mandating retiral benefits for employees of cooperative societies at par with government employees are ultra vires the parent statute and unenforceable. The Court observed that the State Government had no authority to further delegate its rule-making power to the Registrar, and such sub-delegation was neither expressly permitted nor implied under the governing Act.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by retired employees of cooperative societies seeking release of retiral benefits along with interest, as well as a petition filed by a cooperative society challenging directions to release such benefits. The employees contended that under the Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1997, they were entitled to gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits at par with Punjab Government employees, while the societies resisted such claims, citing financial incapacity and pending recoveries in certain case.
Case Title: Hardev Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and connected matters
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 110
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the process of delimitation of wards of Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations cannot be set aside merely on the ground of alleged violation of principles of natural justice. The Court observed that delimitation is a legislative function and once the prescribed procedure under the governing rules is followed, such exercise is not open to challenge on technical grounds.
A division bench of Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Vikas Suri was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging notifications issued by the Government of Punjab for delimitation of wards of various Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations. The petitioners contended that their objections to the draft notifications were not properly considered, that the draft notifications did not clearly describe ward boundaries, and that insufficient time was granted to file objections, thereby vitiating the entire process.