Public Tender – Blacklisting / Debarment – Perpetual Disqualification – Constitutional Validity – Tender condition stipulated that bidder “must not have been ever blacklisted or debarred” by any authority and that revocation of blacklisting is not permissible – Clause operated as a permanent embargo irrespective of duration or revocation of earlier blacklisting – Held: Such condition amounts to perpetual civil disability and creates permanent hindrance on right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution [Paras 7–9, 13–15].

Blacklisting – Doctrine of Proportionality – Civil Death – Blacklisting is a serious measure having civil consequences – Perennial or indefinite debarment tantamounts to “civil death” – Apex Court has consistently held that blacklisting must be for a limited and proportionate period – Permanent exclusion offends constitutional ethos and settled judicial precedents [Paras 9–12, 14–15].

Interpretation of Tender Clause – Use of Word ‘Ever’ – Expression “have been ever blacklisted or debarred” conveys disqualification for all time to come – Even a bidder blacklisted for a single day stands excluded permanently – Such blanket exclusion held arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional [Paras 8, 13, 15].

Judicial Review of Tender Conditions – Scope – While tendering authority has discretion to prescribe eligibility criteria to ensure discipline and efficiency, such discretion cannot transgress constitutional guarantees – Conditions resulting in permanent exclusion without proportionality are liable to judicial interference [Paras 6, 14–15].

Effect on Batch of Writ Petitions – Since tender itself quashed, other challenges relating to earlier tender or ancillary issues rendered academic – No further adjudication required on those grounds [Paras 17–18].

Direction to Authorities – Balasore Municipality directed to float a fresh tender in accordance with law and constitutional principles, keeping in view observations of the Court – Exercise to be completed within fifteen days [Para 16].

Decision: Impugned tender quashed and set aside – Batch of writ petitions disposed of – Liberty granted to Municipality to issue fresh tender consistent with Article 19(1)(g) and doctrine of proportionality.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof – Conviction Sustained – Accused, District Officer, Ground Water Department, demanded and accepted illegal gratification from PW1 and PW2 for providing employment as casual labourers and from another person for appointment as driver – Evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 consistently proved demand and acceptance – Held: Proof of demand and acceptance, being sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), stood established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 13–14, 25–27, 42].

Corruption Offences – Mode of Proof – Circumstantial and Oral Evidence – Absence of Trap – Demand proved through consistent testimony of complainant witnesses supported by surrounding circumstances and corroborative evidence – Held: Conviction can be sustained even without trap proceedings when demand and acceptance are otherwise proved [Paras 13–17, 26–27].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 PC Act – Non-examination of Sanctioning Authority – Effect – Sanction order produced through Investigating Officer – No objection raised at trial stage – Held: When sanction order shows application of mind, non-examination of sanctioning authority is not fatal unless failure of justice is demonstrated [Paras 33–40].

Sanction – Defect or Irregularity – Appellate Interference – Saving Clause – Section 19(3) PC Act – Mere omission or irregularity in sanction does not vitiate proceedings – Interference permissible only on proof of failure of justice – Held: No failure of justice established in present case [Paras 34–40].

FIR – Preliminary Enquiry – Vigilance Cases – Non-holding of preliminary enquiry – Effect – FIR registered based on vigilance enquiry report – Held: Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory; FIR does not suffer from illegality [Paras 29–32].

Recovery of Part Amount – Defence Plea – Agreement Showing Repayment – PW1 and PW2 admitted receipt of partial amounts but denied contents of agreement – Held: Disputed defence plea cannot negate prosecution case at stage of framing charge or conviction when demand and acceptance are otherwise proved [Paras 14, 41].

Section 420 IPC – Cheating – Acquittal – Trial Court acquitted accused of offence under Section 420 IPC – Said finding not interfered with [Para 6].

Sentence – Appellate Power – Modification – Considering long lapse of time and circumstances, sentence reduced while maintaining conviction – Rigorous imprisonment reduced from two years to six months (Section 7) and one year (Section 13) – Fine maintained – Substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 43–44].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act confirmed – Sentence modified – Accused directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence [Paras 44–45].

Civil Law – Title to Immovable Property – Exchange Deed – Res Judicata – Respondents claimed ownership on the basis of exchange/partition deed dated 22.07.1970 – Same exchange deed was relied upon and adjudicated in earlier suit for permanent injunction between same parties – Issue of ownership framed, evidence led and claim rejected by competent court – Judgment attained finality – Held: Subsequent suit for declaration on same basis barred by res judicata – Finding on title in injunction suit operates as res judicata when directly and substantially in issue [Paras 15–23].

Res Judicata – Injunction Suit – Finding on Title – Though earlier suit was for permanent injunction, specific issue as to ownership was framed and decided on merits – Parties led full evidence on exchange deed – Title adjudication was essential for deciding possession – Held: Principle of res judicata squarely attracted in subsequent declaratory suit [Paras 16–21].

Adverse Possession – Plea of Title and Adverse Possession – Mutually Inconsistent Claims – Respondents claimed possession under exchange deed and simultaneously pleaded adverse possession – Possession asserted through true owner till dismissal of earlier suit – No animus possidendi established – Held: Plea of adverse possession not maintainable and limitation did not commence till hostile assertion after 1983 – Mere long possession insufficient [Paras 12–14, 24].

Adverse Possession – Requirement of Hostility – Ajit Singh asserted ownership by sale deed dated 06.09.1979 – Appellants continued asserting title thereafter – Respondents filed injunction suit in 1980 claiming through exchange – Possession neither hostile nor uninterrupted for statutory period – Held: No acquisition of title by adverse possession [Paras 12–14].

Exchange Deed – Unregistered Document – Admissibility – Alleged exchange deed dated 22.07.1970 held to be compulsorily registrable and insufficiently stamped in earlier proceedings – Claim based on such deed barred by res judicata – Question of admissibility rendered academic in subsequent suit [Paras 19, 23].

Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Applicability of res judicata – Claim of adverse possession – Effect of unregistered exchange deed – All questions answered in favour of appellants – First Appellate Court erred in reversing well-reasoned trial court judgment [Paras 10, 24].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court dated 16.12.1993 set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 16.05.1992 restored – Suit of respondents dismissed – Suit of appellants decreed.

Labour Law - Employees’ Provident Fund – Scope of “Basic Wages” – Section 2(b) and Section 6 of the EPF Act – Principle of universality – Emoluments payable universally and ordinarily to all employees alone constitute basic wages – Allowances not earned by all employees or not paid by all establishments stand excluded unless specifically included by statute [Paras 12–17].

Special Allowance – Provident Fund Contribution – Special allowance paid at discretion of employer, not uniformly to all employees, varying by designation and not linked to cost of living – Tribunal failed to examine whether special allowance could be equated with dearness allowance – Held: Appellate Tribunal ignored binding principles laid down in Bridge & Roofs and Vivekananda Vidyamandir – Order suffers from patent illegality [Paras 18].

Tea/Canteen Allowance – Cash Value of Food Concession – Explanation 1 to Section 6 – Cash value of food concession deemed part of dearness allowance only if linked to rise in cost of living and satisfies test of universality – Allowance payable to a defined class of workmen and subject to withdrawal on provision of canteen facility – Not universally payable – Held: Tribunal erred in including tea/canteen allowance for PF contribution without proper legal analysis [Paras 19–22].

Overtime / Extra Wages – Section 2(b) EPF Act – Statutory exclusion – Overtime wages earned only by employees who work beyond scheduled hours and not by all employees – Respondent authority under Section 7A had excluded overtime wages – No appeal by Department against such finding – Held: Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to include overtime/extra wages in absence of departmental appeal [Paras 23].

Appellate Adjudication – Duty to Pass Reasoned Order – Appellate Tribunal passed cryptic order without considering settled law or contentions raised by petitioner – Failure to apply binding precedents of Supreme Court – Order set aside [Paras 18, 24].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Orders dated 24.12.2007 and 01.09.2011 set aside – Matter remanded to EPF Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law – Mandamus issued to decide matter within four months considering prolonged pendency since 2011 [Paras 24–26].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque issued for alleged discharge of third-party liability – Absence of proof of legally enforceable debt – Complainant alleged that accused undertook liability of borrower (third party) – No documentary or cogent oral evidence showing acceptance of such liability – Mere oral assertion insufficient – Held: Offence under Section 138 not made out [Paras 9–13, 15].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Principles reiterated – Appellate Court may reappreciate evidence but must respect double presumption of innocence in favour of accused – Interference permissible only in case of perversity, misreading of evidence or when only one conclusion of guilt is possible – Sessions Court’s view found to be a plausible view – No interference warranted [Paras 5–8, 16].

Partnership Firm – Vicarious Liability – Section 138 NI Act – Partners/Directors – Requirement of Specific Averments – Bald assertion that accused were responsible for day-to-day affairs of firm insufficient – Complaint must disclose specific role and responsibility of each accused – Absence of such pleadings and evidence fatal to prosecution [Paras 9–11, 14–15].

Cheque Amount – Discrepancy – Loan of Rs.56,50,000/- allegedly increased to cheque amount of Rs.78,00,000/- – No explanation regarding rate of interest or calculation – Serious doubt on existence of legally enforceable liability – Findings of Sessions Court upheld [Para 13].

Privity of Contract – No Financial Dealings – Evidence showed no prior financial relationship between complainant and accused – Liability, if any, was of third party – No privity of contract established – Conviction under Section 138 unsustainable [Paras 12–13, 15].

Decision – Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 31.01.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune affirmed – No perversity or illegality found in acquittal order [Paras 16–17].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Restrictive Arbitration Clause – Claims Exceeding 20% of Contract Value – Application seeking constitution of Arbitral Tribunal where estimated claim was Rs.3 crores against contract value of Rs.84.52 lakhs – Arbitration clause expressly restricted arbitrability to claims ≤ 20% of contract value – Held: No arbitration agreement exists for claims exceeding agreed threshold – Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 11 [Paras 1, 10–14, 41].

Arbitration Agreement – Party Autonomy – Scope – Parties free to agree that only specified disputes or claims of specified value shall be referred to arbitration – Arbitration not compulsory merely because contract contains arbitration clause – Held: Court cannot compel arbitration beyond scope of agreement [Paras 17–18, 38, 40].

Section 11 Jurisdiction – Examination of Validity of Arbitration Clause – Article 14 Challenge – Court empowered to test arbitral clause on anvil of constitutional validity while deciding Section 11 application – Reliance on Lombardi Engineering Ltd. – Held: Though Court can examine validity, restrictive clause in present case not arbitrary or discriminatory [Paras 20–22].

Arbitration Clause – Monetary Ceiling – 20% Limit – Discrimination and Arbitrariness – Plea that ceiling applies only to contractor and not Railways – Held: Clause applies to claims “between the parties”; allegation of discrimination speculative – No unreasonable restriction on legal remedies as civil suit remains available [Paras 15–16, 22–23].

Article 14 – Arbitrariness – Distinction from ICOMM Tele Ltd. – Pre-deposit clauses discouraging arbitration contrasted with clause excluding arbitration for higher-value claims – Held: Present clause does not deter or bar remedy; merely channels higher claims to civil court – ICOMM Tele principles inapplicable [Paras 24–25].

Section 16 Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Whether Arbitrator Can Decide Applicability of 20% Cap – Held: Where arbitration agreement itself excludes claims beyond threshold, Court at Section 11 stage must decide existence of arbitration agreement – Issue cannot be left to arbitrator [Paras 32–33].

Precedents – Railway Contracts – Validity of 20% Ceiling – Consistent judicial recognition of contractual clauses limiting arbitrability by claim value – Railtech Infraventure (Bom HC), Deepak Kumar Bansal (SC), Seth Mohanlal Hiralal Construction (MP HC) followed – Restrictive covenant upheld [Paras 32–36].

Decision – Section 11 Application – Dismissal – Estimated claim nearly 400% of contract value – Arbitration clause expressly excludes such claims – No arbitration agreement for subject dispute – Application dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 41–42].

Education Law – Private Unaided Schools – Fee Regulation – Constitutionality of Statutory Fee Fixation Committee – Amendments to J&K School Education Act, 2002 inserting Sections 20A–20J providing for constitution of Fee Fixation and Regulation Committee (FFRC) challenged as violative of autonomy of private unaided schools under Article 19(1)(g) – Held: Statutory framework aimed at preventing commercialisation and undue profiteering in education does not per se violate law laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Islamic Academy of Education and P.A. Inamdar – Regulatory oversight to curb profiteering permissible – Autonomy of schools to propose fee structure must ordinarily be respected – Committee should interfere only when conscience is shocked by magnitude of fee proposed [Paras 39–46].

Constitutional Law – Article 19(1)(g) – Occupation of Imparting Education – Reasonable Surplus – Imparting education is an occupation and not trade or business – No requirement of “no-profit no-loss” – Private unaided schools entitled to generate reasonable surplus for growth and development – What is prohibited is commercialisation and profiteering, not reasonable returns on investment – State regulation must balance autonomy with public interest [Paras 40–42].

Fee Fixation Committee – Composition – Independence – Quasi-Judicial Functions – Section 20A(2) permitting appointment of serving/retired Government officer of rank of Financial Commissioner or above as Chairperson of FFRC held contrary to mandate of Islamic Academy of Education and Modern School – Supreme Court expressly directed FFRC to be headed by retired High Court Judge nominated by Chief Justice – Executive dominance impermissible in body exercising quasi-judicial functions affecting fundamental rights – Section 20A(2) declared unsustainable – Direction issued to substitute provision so that Chairperson shall be retired High Court Judge nominated by Chief Justice of High Court of J&K and Ladakh [Paras 46].

Statutory Interpretation – J&K School Education Act, 2002 – Sections 20A–20J – Provisions read harmoniously to conclude that object of statute is limited to preventing undue profiteering and commercialisation – FFRC not intended to fix rigid uniform fee for all schools – Fee determination must be institution-specific having regard to location, infrastructure, expenditure, reasonable surplus and performance – Act and Rules provide sufficient guiding factors [Paras 33–45].

Fee Regulation – Scope of Scrutiny by FFRC – With thousands of private schools, FFRC cannot undertake intensive scrutiny of every institution – Committee must evolve rational mechanism to scrutinise only select cases, such as large urban schools or where complaints of profiteering are received – Ordinarily, proposed fee supported by material must be accepted – Detailed adjudicatory scrutiny warranted only in exceptional cases [Paras 43–45].

Transport Fee – Nature and Regulation – Transport facility not mandatory for recognition or affiliation of private schools – Transport fee ordinarily should not form part of regulated school fee – However, since Section 20E includes transport fee, FFRC may regulate it – Held: Transport fee fixation must be done with assistance of expert agencies including Transport Department and Consumer Affairs Department – Direction issued to constitute expert committee for framing broad guidelines – Till such exercise is completed, existing FFRC order dated 06.10.2022 to continue [Paras 47–48].

Judicial Review – Interim Regulatory Orders – Transport Fee Enhancement – Challenge to FFRC orders enhancing transport fee by 12% and 14% declined – Matter already under consideration by FFRC pursuant to earlier court directions – No interference warranted at this stage [Paras 47–48].

Directions to Government – Regulatory Framework – Government urged to revisit Fee Fixation Rules, 2022 and provide clearer parameters and uniform yardstick – Genuine private schools, especially in rural areas, not to be stifled by excessive interference – Jurisdiction of other authorities excluded in matters falling within FFRC domain [Paras 49–50].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Amendments upheld except Section 20A(2) relating to appointment of Chairperson of FFRC – Direction to substitute Chairperson with retired High Court Judge nominated by Chief Justice – Transport fee regulation to continue as per existing order until revised mechanism framed.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Acquittal – Appellant (husband) convicted by Trial Court for abetment of suicide and cruelty – On appeal, High Court finds absence of evidence establishing instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy as required under Sections 107 and 306 IPC – Mere allegations of harassment and abusive conduct without proof of mens rea or proximate link to suicide insufficient – Held: Conviction unsustainable – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Paras 13–16, 33–34].

Cruelty to Wife – Section 498A IPC – Essential Ingredients – Failure of Proof – Prosecution alleged mental and physical cruelty and dowry harassment – Key witnesses including parents of deceased failed to depose specific acts of cruelty attributable to appellant – Evidence largely hearsay and inconsistent – No proof of willful conduct of such nature as likely to drive deceased to commit suicide or cause grave injury – Held: Ingredients of Section 498A not established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18–24, 31–34].

Dowry Demand – Acquittal under Dowry Prohibition Act – Effect – Trial Court acquitted appellant and other accused of offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 304B IPC – High Court held that once dowry demand itself not proved, conviction for cruelty and abetment based on same allegations cannot be sustained – Inconsistent findings by Trial Court corrected in appeal [Paras 9, 31–32].

Evidence – Appreciation – Interested and Hearsay Witnesses – Father, mother and relatives of deceased did not provide direct or cogent evidence of cruelty or dowry demand – Independent witnesses and panch witnesses did not support prosecution case – Hostile witnesses further weakened prosecution version – Held: Conviction cannot rest on vague, omnibus and uncorroborated allegations [Paras 19–25, 34].

Medical and Circumstantial Evidence – Injury on Deceased – Inquest noted injury on back of head of deceased – No evidence linking such injury to appellant – No investigation or charge for homicidal offence – Trial Court’s presumption that injury supported case of cruelty or suicide held to be speculative and impermissible [Paras 26–27, 33].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – When evidence is deficient and prosecution story improbable, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction based on conjectures cannot be sustained [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.08.2014 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Bail bonds cancelled.

Service Law – Regularization – Commission-Based Engagement – Petitioners engaged through Blind People’s Association to issue/maintain case papers at Civil Hospital – Paid Rs.1 per case paper as commission – No fixed wages from State – Held: No master-servant relationship between petitioners and State – Claim for declaration as civil servants and regularization not maintainable [Paras 7.1, 7.4, 11].

Master-Servant Relationship – Essential Requirement – Engagement pursuant to agreement between State and Blind People’s Association – Appointment, supervision and remuneration arrangement through Association – Petitioners not appointed through recruitment rules nor against sanctioned posts – Held: Absence of employer-employee relationship disentitles petitioners from claiming permanency or regular pay scale [Paras 7.1-7.3, 11].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Commission Agents – Petitioners receiving commission per case paper and not daily wages or fixed remuneration – Not working against sanctioned posts – Held: Claim for minimum of regular pay scale and allowances beyond contractual terms – No parity with regular Government employees [Paras 7.5, 10].

Regularization – Scope of Article 226 – High Court cannot direct regularization unless appointment made through regular recruitment process against sanctioned posts – Sympathy cannot override constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16 – Reliance placed on Umadevi line of cases and Ilmo Devi – Held: No direction for absorption or permanent continuance can be issued [Paras 10-11].

Contractual/Outsourced Engagement – Control and Supervision – Mere requirement to follow instructions of Medical Superintendent does not establish direct administrative control amounting to employment – Functional supervision for hospital administration does not create service relationship [Paras 7.3].

Distinguishing Precedents – Decisions in Kanak Chandra Dutta, Chennai Port Trust and Dharam Singh not applicable – In cited cases, statutory control, sanctioned posts or daily wage engagement existed – In present case, petitioners are commission workers through third-party Association – Held: Facts materially different [Paras 8.1-8.3, 9].

Fundamental Rights – Articles 14, 16, 21 – Though petitioners physically challenged and vulnerable class, relief of regularization cannot be granted contrary to constitutional scheme governing public employment – Exploitation, if any, against Association to be agitated separately in accordance with law [Paras 11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No declaration as Government servants – No regularization, permanency, or regular pay scale granted – Rule discharged without costs.