Tender Law – Blacklisting / Debarment – Perpetual disqualification clause – Constitutionality – Clause in municipal tender barring participation of any bidder who had ever been blacklisted or debarred by any authority – Clause providing that revocation of blacklisting would not be recognised – Held: Use of expression “ever blacklisted or debarred” amounts to permanent and perpetual disqualification – Such clause creates a civil death for contractors and service providers – Violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India [Paras 8, 13–15].

Fundamental Rights – Article 19(1)(g) – Right to trade and business – Proportionality – Blacklisting affects the right to livelihood and to enter into contractual relations with the State – Perennial or indefinite debarment impermissible – Test of proportionality to be applied – Permanent exclusion from tender process held unconstitutional and arbitrary [Paras 9, 11, 12].

Blacklisting – Nature and scope – Limits on executive power – Blacklisting recognised as a legitimate tool to ensure discipline and eliminate defaulting contractors – However, it cannot be used as a punitive measure resulting in lifelong exclusion – Even a one-day blacklisting resulting in permanent ineligibility held unreasonable and excessive [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Review of Tender Conditions – Scope – Courts can interfere where tender conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory or infringe fundamental rights – Clause 15 of the impugned tender found to be contrary to settled law laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts – Tender quashed on constitutional grounds [Paras 6, 15–16].

Precedent – Perpetual blacklisting – Disapproved – Reliance placed on State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject Limited – Supreme Court held that indefinite blacklisting amounts to civil death and restricted debarment to a fixed period – Followed by Orissa High Court in Artatran Bhuyan v. State of Odisha – Same principle applied to tender eligibility clause [Paras 10–12].

Public Tender – Consequential directions – Entire tender set aside due to unconstitutional eligibility condition – Liberty granted to Balasore Municipality to issue a fresh tender consistent with constitutional principles – Direction to float fresh tender within 15 days [Para 16].

Academic Issues – Non-adjudication – Other challenges raised to the tender held to be academic in view of quashing of tender itself – No findings recorded on ancillary grounds [Paras 17–18].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – Impugned tender quashed and set aside – Balasore Municipality directed to issue a fresh tender within fifteen (15) days in accordance with law and constitutional principles.

Service Law – Recruitment – Reservation for Ex-Servicemen – Horizontal vs Vertical Reservation – Illegality in Applying Vertical Reservation – Recruitment notice dated 19.02.2014 issued by MCL for 303 posts of Security Guard – 24.5% reservation for Ex-Servicemen applied as a separate vertical category – Cut-off marks for ESM-General fixed substantially lower than General category – Resulted in total reservation exceeding 50% – Held: Reservation for Ex-Servicemen is a special reservation under Article 16(1) and must operate horizontally cutting across vertical categories – Application of ESM reservation as vertical held contrary to constitutional principles and settled law [Paras 2, 4, 7, 11].

Reservation Law – Horizontal Reservation – Principles Reiterated – Horizontal reservation intended to be interlocking in nature and to be adjusted within respective vertical categories without disturbing overall reservation percentages – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India and subsequent judgments – Held: ESM candidates must be adjusted against their respective social categories unless selected on merit in open category [Paras 7–11].

Selection Process – Participation Without Protest – Estoppel – Not Applicable in Case of Patent Illegality – Appellants contended that writ petitioners participated in selection with knowledge of ESM reservation – Held: Participation does not bar challenge when selection process itself is contrary to constitutional mandate and statutory rules – Illegality in reservation structure goes to the root of the matter [Paras 3–4, 7].

Relief – Protection of Appointed Ex-Servicemen – Creation of Supernumerary Posts – Long lapse of time and continued service of appointed ESM candidates considered – Held: Appointments of ESM candidates already appointed should not be disturbed – Directions of Single Bench to regularize such appointments by creating supernumerary posts upheld – Writ petitioners to be considered afresh against available vacancies and granted seniority over supernumerary appointees [Paras 4–6, 12–13].

Judicial Review – No Interference in Well-Reasoned Single Bench Judgment – Appellants conceded error in applying vertical reservation to Ex-Servicemen – No infirmity or illegality found in directions issued by Single Bench – Appeals found devoid of merit – Writ appeals dismissed [Paras 5, 13–14].

Decision: Writ Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Single Bench dated 17.12.2024 upheld – Directions for fresh consideration of writ petitioners and protection of Ex-Servicemen appointments affirmed – No costs.

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.

Motor Accident Compensation – Doctrine of Election – Section 167 Motor Vehicles Act – Bar against Dual Remedies – Claimants initially filed claim petitions before MACT under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and received compensation pursuant to awards passed by MACT – Thereafter, claimants again approached the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for the same accidents – Held: Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates an election of remedies – Claimant may opt either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen’s Compensation Act but not under both – Subsequent claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act after availing remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act are not maintainable [Paras 9–11, 18].

Doctrine of Election – Estoppel by Conduct – Abuse of Process of Law – Once a claimant consciously chooses one statutory forum and receives compensation, he is estopped from invoking another forum for the same cause of action – Courts cannot be treated as bargaining forums for enhanced compensation – Successive claims amount to abuse of the process of law [Paras 11, 17, 19].

Employer Liability vs. Vehicle Liability – Distinction Rejected – Argument that MACT claim was against offending vehicle and WCC claim against employer rejected – Held: Nature of liability does not dilute statutory bar under Section 167 – Identity of accident and cause of action is determinative [Paras 5, 17].

Adjustment of Compensation – Impermissibility – Submission that compensation awarded by MACT could be adjusted against compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act rejected – Held: Law does not permit adjustment when the second claim itself is barred – Claimant cannot pursue parallel remedies sequentially [Paras 5, 17].

Precedents – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Judgments – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bidami – Coordinate Bench judgment permitting dual compensation stood set aside by Supreme Court – Held: Law is settled that double compensation under both enactments is impermissible [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned awards dated 10.12.2012 and 29.08.2011 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioners quashed and set aside – Claim petitions under the Workmen’s Compensation Act held not maintainable – Claimants directed to refund compensation amounts received with usual interest – All connected applications disposed of.

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].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Locus of Complainant – Cheques drawn in favour of “Hotel Paradise” – Complaint filed by M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner – Trial court initially questioned locus but later summoned accused holding Hotel Paradise to be a unit of complainant firm – Held: Complaint under Section 138 NI Act can be filed only by payee or holder in due course – Third party has no locus [Paras 3, 6, 8–9].

Cheque Dishonour – Section 142 NI Act – Cognizance – Mandatory Requirement – Statute mandates that cognizance can be taken only on complaint by payee or holder in due course – Any deviation strikes at the root of jurisdiction – Summoning order passed ignoring this statutory mandate is illegal [Paras 9, 13–14].

Payee and Holder in Due Course – Interpretation – Payee is person named in cheque – Holder in due course must derive lawful title for consideration – Authorized representative can file complaint only on behalf of payee/holder and not in own name – Complaint by stranger or third party not maintainable [Paras 10–13].

Distinguishing Precedent – M/s Naresh Potteries Case – Supreme Court decision relied upon by complainant held distinguishable – In that case, complaint filed by payee entity through authorized person – In present case, complainant entity itself not the payee – Ratio held inapplicable [Para 12].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Trial court failed to consider earlier objection regarding locus while passing summoning order – Error apparent on face of record – Revisional Court justified in quashing proceedings at threshold [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/07/2013 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1091 of 2012 quashed – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act held not maintainable for want of locus – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 15–17].

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.

Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Second Complaint – Maintainability – Applicant sought quashing of summoning order and complaint proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.188 of 2017 – Earlier FIR lodged on the same incident pursuant to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application – Police submitted Final Report – Protest petition filed by complainant rejected – Final Report accepted by Magistrate – Criminal Revision against acceptance of Final Report dismissed – Held: Filing of a criminal complaint on the same set of facts amounts to a second complaint and is not maintainable when the earlier proceedings culminated in acceptance of Final Report on merits [Paras 2–5, 14–21].

Second Complaint – Same Cause of Action – Bar under Judicial Discipline – Supreme Court in Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury v. State of Assam reiterated that where the core allegations in both complaints are identical and the first complaint/final report was rejected on merits after considering protest petition, the second complaint is barred – Held: Present case squarely covered by the ratio of Subrata Choudhury and Magistrate could not have entertained the subsequent complaint [Paras 14–16, 20].

Final Report – Acceptance after Protest Petition – Effect – Magistrate accepted the Final Report holding that investigation did not suffer from infirmity – Revisional Court affirmed the order – Held: Acceptance of Final Report after hearing the complainant attains finality and bars re-agitation of identical allegations through a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. [Paras 3–5, 21–22].

Distinction between Exceptional Circumstances and Re-litigation – Reliance placed by opposite party on Mahesh Chand and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari distinguished – Held: Second complaint is permissible only in exceptional circumstances such as manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or new facts not earlier available – No such exceptional circumstances pleaded or established in the present case [Paras 17–20].

Abuse of Process of Court – Complaint filed after failure of FIR, protest petition, and revision – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Application allowed – Summoning order dated 10.01.2020, order issuing bailable warrant dated 01.04.2021, and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.188 of 2017 quashed – Liberty reserved to complainant to seek appropriate remedy against revisional order dated 01.08.2023 in accordance with law.

Mining Law – Dead Rent – Non-operational Quarry Lease – Petitioners challenged demand of dead rent for the period during which mining operations could not commence allegedly due to non-handover of possession and absence of environmental clearance – Held: Dead rent is payable irrespective of actual mining operations so long as lease subsists [Paras 4–5, 25–28].

MMDR Act, 1957 – Section 9-A – Nature and Scope – Dead rent is an independent statutory liability and not merely an enabling or ancillary provision to Section 9 (royalty) – It operates as a minimum guaranteed payment during the subsistence of lease, even if no mineral is extracted [Paras 21, 27].

Royalty vs. Dead Rent – Distinction – Royalty depends on quantity/value of minerals extracted – Dead rent is a fixed minimum annual payment based on leased area, payable whether mine is worked or not – Dead rent serves as minimum guarantee to the lessor – Lessee liable to pay whichever is higher between royalty and dead rent [Paras 19–20, 25].

Quarry Lease – Renewal – Deemed Renewal – Petitioners’ leases were cases of renewal and not fresh grants – Failure to obtain environmental clearance or commence mining does not absolve lessee from liability to pay dead rent during renewed lease period [Paras 3, 13–14].

Environmental Clearance – Effect on Liability – Mere inability to operate lease due to lack of statutory or environmental clearances does not discharge lessee from obligation to pay dead rent – Responsibility to obtain clearances lies upon lessee – Suspension or non-operation does not suspend liability under Section 9-A [Paras 14, 22].

M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 – Rule 30 – Non-commencement of Mining – Lessee entitled to apply for declaration of lapse or extension where mining could not commence for reasons beyond control – Failure to invoke Rule 30(7)–(10) results in continuation of lease and corresponding liability to pay dead rent [Paras 23–24].

Central Government Circular dated 09.10.2001 – Applicability – Circular relied upon by petitioners does not override statutory provisions post amendment of Section 9-A and framing of State Rules – Held not applicable to present cases governed by amended law [Paras 7–8].

Precedents – D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat – Supreme Court affirmed power of State Governments under Section 15(1) MMDR Act to levy dead rent and royalty – Law no longer res integra [Paras 10–17].

Decision – All writ petitions dismissed – Demand and recovery of dead rent upheld – Interim protection vacated – Directions issued to place copy of judgment in all connected matters [Paras 29–31].