Railway Law – Refund of Freight – "Overcharge" vs. "Illegal Charge" – Section 106(3) of the Railways Act, 1989 – NRL booked petroleum products from Numaligarh Refinery Siding (NMGS) during April 2005 to July 2009 — Railways collected both "through distance" charges (9 km) and "siding charges" for the same railway service — Railways admitted the duplication vide letters dated 11.11.2008 and 08.07.2009 and the CGS/NMGS certified Rs. 2,98,22,483/- as refundable vide certificate dated 07.01.2013 — Railways resisted the claim on the ground that notice under Section 106(3) was not served within six months from the date of payment — Held: "Overcharge" means a charge in excess of prescribed rates; where the Railways themselves contend that the siding charges were legal and valid, the charge cannot simultaneously be described as an "overcharge" — a charge that is either illegal or subsequently admitted to be refundable does not attract the mandatory notice requirement under Section 106(3) [Paras 19–21].

Railway Law – Section 106(3) – Applicability Limited to Overcharges – Section 106(3) of the Railways Act, 1989 specifically applies to claims for refund of "overcharges" and uses the words "paid" and "date of payment" — if on the date of payment, the charge was not an overcharge, subsequent events cannot make it one for the purpose of triggering the limitation under Section 106(3) — a fine and clear distinction exists between an "overcharge" and an "illegal charge" — Section 106(3) has no application to claims for refund of illegal charges — Held: The mandatory notice requirement under Section 106(3) does not apply to the present claim [Para 19, relying on Union of India v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2024 INSC 242].

Railway Law – Challenge to Condonation Order Barred by Time – The Railway Claims Tribunal had condoned the delay in filing the claim application vide order dated 21.10.2016 — no challenge was preferred by the Railways against that order within the 90-day period prescribed under Section 23(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — Held: Challenge to the condonation order is hopelessly time-barred and stands repelled [Para 8].

Railway Law – Authenticity of CGS Certificate – Railways Cannot Disown Admissions of Authorised Officials – CGS/NMGS certified the refundable siding charges at Rs. 2,98,22,483/- in 2013 and reaffirmed the same through RTI response in 2017 — Railways sought to deny authenticity by claiming records could not be found — Held: Authenticity of the certificates cannot be disproved by a mere assertion that records are unavailable — Railways cannot abjure responsibility for the actions of their own authorised officials [Paras 25–28].

Railway Law – Interest – Enhancement Refused – NRL in cross-appeal sought enhancement of interest from 6%/9% to 12% per annum — identical issue decided against NRL by a Coordinate Bench in MFA 12/2009 in a similar matter — Tribunal had no specific statutory provision for interest and granted it in exercise of inherent powers — Held: Once the Tribunal has consciously exercised its discretion in granting interest, the same cannot be re-agitated in appeal unless perversity or patent illegality is demonstrated — cross-appeal dismissed [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed — MFA No. 142/2019 filed by Union of India (Railways) dismissed — MFA No. 82/2019 filed by M/s Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. dismissed — Railway Claims Tribunal's order directing refund of siding charges with interest at 6% per annum till date of judgment and 9% per annum thereafter on default, upheld — parties to bear their own costs.

Electricity — Disconnection — Possession — Civil Dispute Pending — Right to Life — Petitioner in possession of premises used for domestic and commercial purposes, holding two DISCOM service connections — Electricity disconnected at the instance of 7th respondent/decree-holder who claimed to be registered owner — Petitioner's application to set aside ex parte decree pending before Civil Court — Held: Till a person in occupation is evicted in accordance with law, electricity being a basic amenity and an integral part of right to life under Article 21 cannot be denied — Disconnection effected at the instance of a decree-holder, without actual eviction, cannot be sustained — Writ petition allowed with directions [Paras 8–15].

Right to Electricity — Basic Amenity — Article 21 — Occupant Not Yet Evicted — Electricity is a basic necessity and an integral part of right to life — It cannot be denied to a person in possession merely because title is disputed or a decree exists — All that the supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant is in occupation of the premises — DISCOM cannot refuse supply pending civil litigation in the absence of a court order restraining supply — Decree-holder's remedy lies in execution of decree in accordance with law, not in causing disconnection [Paras 9–14].

Alternative Remedy — Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum — Electricity Act, 2003 — Held: In cases of this nature involving fundamental rights and basic amenities, the alternative remedy before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum cannot be treated as an efficacious remedy — Writ jurisdiction maintainable [Para 14].

Directions — Reconnection — Conditions — Balance of Interest — Court strikes balance between interest of occupant/consumer and the apprehension of the decree-holder regarding electricity arrears — Directed: (1) Petitioner at liberty to apply for restoration of supply; (2) DISCOM to release supply within one week without insisting for NOC from 7th respondent; (3) Petitioner to deposit six months' average consumption charges (prior to date of disconnection) as condition precedent; (4) Current charges to be paid regularly — default for two continuous months entails forfeiture of deposit; (5) Reconnection after default only on fresh deposit of six months' average consumption charges; (6) Order without prejudice to rights of parties in civil litigation [Para 15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — DISCOM directed to restore electricity supply to the domestic and commercial service connections on compliance of conditions stipulated — No costs — All pending applications closed.

Criminal Law – Probation – Grant of Probation to First-Time Offenders – Prolonged Trial – Compromise as One Factor – Accused convicted by Trial Court under Sections 323, 452, 506 and 365 IPC for forcible entry into house and assault on elderly couple — Appellate Court, upon compromise by parties and on consideration of prolonged trial since 1998, no criminal antecedents and reformative purpose of sentencing, released accused on probation for six months — Revision filed on ground that accused failed to honour terms of compromise — Held: Compromise was one of several factors considered by Appellate Court and not the sole basis; other independent considerations including prolonged trial and first-offender status justified probation on legally sustainable grounds independent of the compromise [Paras 18–20].

Probation – Cancellation – Non-Compliance with Compromise – Compromise not Condition of Probation – Failure by convicted persons to comply with terms of a private compromise entered into at the appellate stage does not ipso facto entail cancellation of probation — Order of probation is governed by statutory provisions and judicial discretion and is not contingent on enforcement of private arrangements between parties — Once probation is granted on legally sustainable grounds, it cannot be withdrawn merely on account of alleged breach of compromise [Para 21].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Limitation on Interference – High Court in revision does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions — Interference warranted only where there is patent illegality, gross perversity, material irregularity or manifest miscarriage of justice — No such infirmity found in concurrent orders of courts below — Moreover, 11 years having elapsed since release on probation without violation, interference would be inequitable [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed — Order of the Appellate Court granting probation upheld — Copy of order directed to be sent to High Court Legal Services Committee [Paras 23–27].

Property Law – Forcible Dispossession by State – Road Construction on Private Land Without Acquisition – Compensation – Article 300-A – The respondents' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 240, 241 and 1051/438 measuring 0313-03 bighas situated in Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi was utilized by the State for construction of Karsog-Kunnu Road between 1993 and 1998 without resorting to any process of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and without payment of compensation – The trial court dismissed the suit but the First Appellate Court reversed and directed the State to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay appropriate compensation – Held: The State being a welfare State cannot forcibly dispossess a citizen of property without due process of law – Article 300-A guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law and the obligation to pay compensation is implicit in this provision – Defendants produced no document showing consent of plaintiffs for construction of road through their land – Concurrent findings of courts below affirmed [Paras 12–22].

Adverse Possession – State Cannot Plead Against Own Citizens – Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – The State contended that the suit was time-barred as it was filed approximately 35 years after construction of road, and pleaded principles of acquiescence and estoppel – Held: A welfare State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens so as to defeat the title of the owner – The cause of action arising from deprivation of property without legal sanction is a continuing one and delay and laches cannot defeat the claim of the landowner in such circumstances – No period of limitation can be prescribed to bar courts from doing substantial justice where the demand for justice is compelling – State's plea of limitation and laches rejected [Paras 13–16].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference Under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Held: The first appellate court is the final court of fact and the High Court exercising power under Section 100 CPC can interfere with findings of fact only where the finding is based on inadmissible evidence, is in ignorance of relevant admissible evidence, is based on misreading of evidence, or is perverse – None of these contingencies present in the instant case – Concurrent findings of both courts below based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23–27].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed — Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court affirmed — State directed to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay appropriate compensation as per law — Pending applications disposed of.

Motor Vehicles – Seizure – Authority – Competent Officer – Power to seize or detain a motor vehicle is vested only in officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Inspector of Motor Vehicles or officers of the Police Department not below the rank of Inspector of Police — Vehicle in question was seized by one Mr Ranjit, an officer posted at the Bangalore South office who was only part of a Special Checking Squad constituted under the supervision of the Regional Transport Officer, Mysore West — Official memorandum (Annexure R-11) only assigned the officer a limited duty of submitting a report and did not confer upon him independent statutory powers of seizure — Held: Officer acted beyond the scope of his authority — Seizure without jurisdiction and declared illegal [Paras 9, 11].

Statutory Power – Specific Officer – Delegation – Settled principle of law that when a statute confers a specific power upon a designated class of officers, the same cannot be exercised by any other person not expressly authorised — Any action taken in violation of such statutory limitation is liable to be treated as illegal and unsustainable — Scope of assignment was limited to investigation and reporting — Held: Action of seizure clearly exceeded the scope of authority [Para 9].

Registration Cancellation – Pendency of Writ Petition – Sub Judice – Conduct of respondent authorities in cancelling the vehicle's registration on 16.01.2026 during the pendency of the writ petition amounts to a flagrant disregard for Court proceedings — Any precipitative action by authorities affecting the subject matter of a writ petition once the Court has seized of the matter is wholly unwarranted — Held: Cancellation of registration during pendency of writ petition is legally untenable and cannot be sustained — Order of cancellation deserves to be set aside [Para 10].

RTO Officials – Public Duty – Officials of the RTO Department are not merely enforcers of statutory provisions but representatives of the State in their dealings with citizens — Their conduct has a direct bearing on public confidence in governance — They are expected to act with fairness, transparency, empathy, and a high sense of public duty [Para 12].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Impugned Investigation Report (Annexure-A) quashed — Order dated 16.01.2026 cancelling Registration Certificate quashed — RTO directed to restore registration of vehicle forthwith — Respondent authorities directed to release and hand over vehicle to petitioner forthwith — No order as to costs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2)(a)(ii) — Invalid Driving License — Liability of Insurance Company — Pay and Recover — Avoidance Clause in Policy — Deceased was traveling in a three-wheeler tempo when the offending tanker driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side collided with the tempo, causing his death — Driver of the tanker found to be holding driving license valid only till 9th September, 2004, the accident having occurred on 9th June, 2010 — Driver was also carrying hazardous chemical (Hydrochloric Acid) — Driver and owner chose not to appear before the Tribunal — Insurance company established its defence of invalid driving license through RTO certificate and driving license extract — Held: Defence under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of absence of valid driving license was duly established — However, considering the avoidance clause in the standard commercial vehicle package policy which provides that nothing in the policy shall affect the right of any person indemnified by the policy to recover amounts under the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the entire award to the claimants at first instance — Insurance company granted liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle in execution [Paras 14, 15, 18, 20].

Motor Accidents — Quantum of Compensation — Income of Deceased — Skilled Labourer — Minimum Wages — Conventional Heads — Pranay Sethi — Deceased was an idol-maker earning his livelihood through skilled craft — Tribunal had assessed income as Rs. 4,000/- per month in absence of direct proof — Held: In absence of direct proof of claimed income of Rs. 10,000/-, income to be fixed based on minimum wages for skilled labour prevailing at the time of accident i.e. Rs. 4,210/- per month — Deceased being self-employed, 25% addition towards future rise of income as per Pranay Sethi principles — Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses justified as deceased was survived by 5 dependents — Multiplier of 13 correctly applied for age group of 46-50 years as per Sarla Verma — Dependency loss redetermined at Rs. 6,15,732/- — Conventional heads enhanced applying 10% rise — Funeral expenses and loss of estate at Rs. 18,150/- each — Loss of spousal consortium Rs. 48,400/-, filial consortium for both aged parents Rs. 96,800/-, parental consortium for two major sons Rs. 96,800/- — Total compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,63,200/- to Rs. 8,94,032/- [Paras 21-27].

Decision: First appeal partly allowed — Cross objections allowed — Award enhanced to Rs. 8,94,032/- with interest at 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition — Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs. 3,30,832/- with the Tribunal within six weeks — Liberty granted to insurance company to recover amount from owner of offending vehicle in execution.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Perversity – Respondent contractor awarded a work order by ONGC in September 1995 for completion within one month six days — contract rescinded on 13.11.1995 by a letter which the respondent received only on 18.11.1995 — no inquiry conducted prior to rescission to verify the respondent's claim that 97% work was completed — trial court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed and decreed — in second appeal, question was whether the First Appellate Court committed perversity in holding that 97% work was completed ignoring the time stipulation — Held: Finding of First Appellate Court based on uncontroverted documentary evidence (Exhibits 8, 11, 21 to 527) and absence of any rebuttal evidence by ONGC is not perverse — a finding based on acceptable evidence, howsoever compendious, cannot be interfered with in second appeal [Paras 20–27].

Contract Law – Rescission of Contract – Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing – ONGC rescinded the contract alleging that the respondent had failed to start work, while the respondent had written letters on 10.11.1995 and 13.11.1995 informing about completion of 90-97% of work — notice calling for joint inspection sent on 16.11.1995 and contract rescinded by letter dated 13.11.1995 received by respondent on 18.11.1995, before he could respond — no inquiry conducted by ONGC to verify the extent of work done — Held: Contract rescinded without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and without verifying the respondent's claims — rescission illegal [Para 24].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Party Failing to Enter Witness Box – ONGC as defendant did not adduce any evidence to contradict the plaintiff's case — no witness was examined on behalf of ONGC — Held: When a party does not appear into the witness box and state its own case on oath, a presumption may be drawn that the case set up by it is not correct — uncontroverted evidence of plaintiff stands accepted [Para 17, relying on Vidyadhar v. Manikrao].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope – Probative Value of Documents – Questions regarding probative value of documents admitted in evidence are essentially factual — First Appellate Court is the final court on facts — in second appeal, this Court cannot re-examine factual findings unless perversity is established — questions regarding probative value not being substantial questions of law, not gone into [Para 28].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed with costs — Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Cachar, Silchar) in Title Appeal No. 35/2006 dated 29.08.2011 decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent, confirmed — records of trial court and First Appellate Court to be sent back along with copy of judgment.

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – CRPF – Absence of Departmental Enquiry – Petitioners, Constables (GD) in the 39th Battalion CRPF, dismissed w.e.f. 09.11.2009 by invoking Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27-CC(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, on the basis of FIR No. 12/2009 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B and 307 IPC – Disciplinary authority formed opinion that regular departmental enquiry was not reasonably practicable and no enquiry was held – No witness examined, no opportunity of hearing granted – Held: Procedure under Section 11 of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27-CC(ii) of the CRPF Rules not followed in its true spirit – Impugned orders of dismissal, appeal and revision set aside [Paras 3, 6, 11].

Natural Justice – Major Penalty – Mandatory Procedural Safeguards – Removal from service entails serious civil consequences – Delinquent employee must be afforded adequate opportunity at every stage including show cause notice, framing of charges, supply of documents, examination of evidence and cross-examination – Mere assertion that witnesses were unwilling to depose cannot justify dispensing with a full-fledged enquiry – Satisfaction recorded by disciplinary authority not supported by cogent or compelling material – Held: Imposition of major penalty without proper enquiry and reasonable opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained [Paras 12, 16, 21].

Criminal Acquittal – Effect on Departmental Action – Petitioners convicted under Section 323 IPC by Trial Court – Conviction set aside in Criminal Appeal No. 744/2012 vide judgment dated 15.05.2014 by this Court on benefit of doubt – Judgment of acquittal attained finality – Though departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres, once departmental enquiry itself was not conducted in accordance with law and criminal conviction also did not survive, foundation of impugned dismissal becomes unsustainable – Held: Basis of dismissal ceased to exist [Paras 13, 14, 22].

Discrimination – Similarly Situated Employees – Reinstatement – Co-delinquents dismissed by same order dated 09.11.2009 and subsequently acquitted were reinstated in service – Denial of same benefit to present petitioners whose conviction was also set aside amounts to manifest arbitrariness and hostile discrimination – Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Held: Discriminatory treatment not justified [Paras 15, 23].

Relief – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Petitioners entitled to reinstatement in service – However, back wages denied having regard to long period during which petitioners remained out of service – Period from date of removal till reinstatement to be treated as service for all other purposes including continuity of service and retiral benefits – No order as to costs [Paras 25, 26, 27, 28].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed — Orders of removal from service, appellate and revisional orders quashed — Petitioners directed to be reinstated in service — Back wages denied — Period of absence to count for continuity of service and retiral benefits.

Criminal Law – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope – Appreciation of Evidence Not Permissible – Petitioner (builder/developer) entered into construction agreements for two flats with the complainant in 2006 and received total payments of Rs. 12,90,000/- but failed to hand over the flats — FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC — charge sheet filed and case pending trial in CC No. 42 of 2017 — petitioner sought quashing — Held: High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to appreciate statements of witnesses, record findings on inconsistencies therein, or conclude that no prima facie case is made out — that exercise is for the trial court and the appellate court — petition dismissed [Paras 7–10].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing – Disputed Facts – Defence of Accused to Be Tested at Trial – High Court cannot record findings on disputed facts in quashing proceedings — defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial court during the trial — whether criminal proceedings are malicious is also not to be considered at the stage of quashing but at the conclusion of the trial — Held: Grounds raised for quashing cannot be entertained [Paras 8–10].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing – Test of Prima Facie Case – The Court at the stage of quashing must only see whether the allegations in the complaint form the basis for the ingredients constituting the offences complained of, and whether the preconditions for taking cognizance have been complied with — whether the accused can prove the allegations is a matter to be determined at trial — Held: Allegations in the complaint, if accepted in entirety, constitute the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust — no ground to quash [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal original petition dismissed — Petitioner at liberty to raise all grounds before the trial court — Trial court directed to complete the trial within three months from date of receipt of the order — Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.