Contempt of Court – Pay Scale Disparity – Assam Rifles – Redesignation of Operator Radio and Lines (ORL) – Petitioners, retired personnel from Assam Rifles, sought pay parity with counterparts in other Paramilitary Forces based on a Gauhati High Court judgment (Annexure R1(f)) – Original Writ Court directed respondents to consider representations in light of the Gauhati HC judgment and grant benefits of upgradation/restructuring – Respondents redesignated Petitioners from Rifleman/ORL to Havildar/ORL in the scale of Rs. 3,200–4,900 – Petitioners alleged contempt, claiming entitlement to rank of Warrant Officer and scale of Rs. 4,000–6,000 based on counterparts in CRPF/BSF – Held: The direction in the original judgment was specifically to extend the benefit of the Gauhati High Court judgment in Savendra Singh Chauhan. Perusal of the Gauhati judgment reveals it directed redesignation of Rifleman/ORL to the rank of Havildar to remove disparity. The higher scale (Rs. 4,000–6,000) and rank of Warrant Officer applied only to Havildar/Radio Mechanics or Havildar/Cipher, not Rifleman/ORL. Respondents have demonstrated compliance by granting the specific benefits flowing from the referred judgment. No wilful disobedience established. [Paras 13, 16-19, 22]

Contempt Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Power to revisit original issues – Respondents challenged interim orders passed in contempt proceedings which had prima facie found them guilty – Supreme Court in SLP granted liberty to respondents to demonstrate compliance before the final hearing – Held: While a subsequent Single Judge cannot normally revisit a finding of contempt made by a predecessor, the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annexure-VIII order permits the Court to examine compliance dehors previous interim findings. Furthermore, it is a settled principle that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself the power to decide original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the original judgment. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to grant reliefs not prayed for or granted in the original Writ Petition. [Paras 10, 11, 13, 15, 21]

Civil Contempt – Wilful Disobedience – Standard of Proof – Held: To constitute civil contempt, it must be established that the disobedience is wilful, deliberate, and with full knowledge of consequences. If two interpretations are possible and the action of the respondent is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding is not maintainable. In the present case, respondents’ interpretation of the original judgment aligned with the Gauhati High Court's directions which were the foundation of the Writ Court's order. The claim for further upgradation to "Warrant Officer" was an afterthought not supported by the original declarations. [Paras 11, 20-22]

Contempt Procedure – Affidavit by Third Party – Personal Liability of Contemnor – Affidavit filed by an Officiating Staff Officer on behalf of the Respondents – Held: Contempt of Court action is a personal action against the respondent impleaded in their personal capacity. The allegations must be personally answered. An affidavit filed by a third party on behalf of the contemnor cannot be accepted or looked into. However, the case is decided on merits based on the demonstration of compliance via the record. [Paras 10, 15]

Decision: The Respondents have demonstrated compliance with the directions contained in the Annexure-I common judgment. Consequently, all Contempt Cases are dismissed.

Writ Jurisdiction – Hiring of Hotel for Protected Persons – Non-Payment of Verified Dues – Hotel hired by Divisional Commissioner and later by Deputy Commissioner for accommodation of protected political persons and security forces – Bills raised for boarding and lodging – Government constituted Bill Verification Committee which drastically reduced claim and released nominal amount – Held: Where hiring and occupation are admitted and premises remained under control of protectees and security forces, respondents cannot dispute liability at belated stage – Committee proceedings vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice – Petition allowed [Paras 21-23, 28-33].

Pleadings – Specific Denial – Admission by Non-Traverse – First Claim Period – Respondents failed to specifically deny hiring of petitioner Hotel for period w.e.f. 18.11.2020 to 05.10.2021 – In terms of Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC, absence of specific denial amounts to admission – Admission is substantive evidence and need not be proved in view of Section 58 Evidence Act – Held: Petitioner entitled to relief for first claim period [Paras 23-25].

Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admission – Court empowered to pass appropriate order where admission of fact is evident from pleadings or circumstances – Reliance placed on Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279 – Held: Admitted hiring and occupation justify grant of relief [Para 24].

Contractual / Pecuniary Claim – Maintainability in Writ – Though writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked for disputed contractual claims, where material facts regarding hiring, occupation and State control over premises are admitted and denial is arbitrary, writ court can intervene to prevent unjust withholding of legitimate dues [Paras 16-18, 28-32].

Bill Verification Committee – Distinction from Fact-Finding Committee – Principles of Natural Justice – Committee constituted months after de-hiring to verify bills – No opportunity afforded to petitioner to participate or justify claim – No indication of verification of petitioner’s occupancy records – Rejection/reduction of claim on ground of inflation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – Held: Ex parte report unsustainable and liable to be quashed [Paras 30-32].

Occupation and Control of Premises – Effect – Hotel premises guarded round the clock by security forces – Two rooms under continuous occupation of security personnel – Keys remained with protectees – Petitioner had no control or liberty to commercially exploit premises otherwise – Held: Respondents cannot later contend that rooms were not in actual occupation or deny liability after benefiting from exclusive reservation of accommodation [Paras 28-29, 32].

Delay in Constitution of Committee – Afterthought – Premises de-hired on 01.06.2022 – Committee constituted on 05.11.2022 and report submitted on 02.02.2023 – Held: Belated verification without associating petitioner and without examining whether accommodation was reserved exclusively for State protectees renders report arbitrary [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 05.11.2022 constituting Bill Verification Committee and ex parte report dated 10.02.2023 quashed – Respondents directed to liquidate petitioner’s claims within eight weeks – In default, interest @ 6% per annum payable.

Compromise Decree – Bar under Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC – Scope – Plaintiffs not party to earlier compromise decree of 1975 – Suit filed for declaration that decree obtained by fraud, collusion and suppression and is void ab initio – Held: Bar under Rule 3-A applies where plaintiff was party to compromise or claims through party bound by decree – No absolute prohibition against independent suit by stranger alleging fraud – Separate suit maintainable [Paras 12-13, 22, 24].

Stranger to Compromise – Right to independent suit – Plaintiffs and their mother were not parties to earlier partition suit – Not claiming through parties to earlier decree nor transferees pendente lite – Right asserted by inheritance – Held: Authorities including Triloki Nath Singh distinguishable – None lay down that stranger is precluded from filing substantive suit challenging compromise decree on ground of fraud – Independent suit is appropriate remedy [Paras 11-13, 22-24].

Fraud – Effect – Allegation that compromise decree was obtained by suppression and collusion – Law settled that fraud vitiates all proceedings and decree obtained by fraud is non est – Such challenge involves mixed questions of fact and law requiring full-fledged trial – Not amenable to summary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 24-25, 28].

Limitation – Knowledge of decree – Plaintiffs pleaded lack of knowledge of 1975 decree until paper publication dated 17.12.2022 – Suit filed thereafter – Held: Limitation is mixed question of fact and law dependent on evidence – Cannot be decided at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 25].

Partial Rejection of Plaint – Impermissibility – Present suit concerns two properties whereas earlier compromise related to one property – Defendant No.8 sought rejection of plaint in respect of property covered by development agreement – Held: Partial rejection of plaint not permissible – Reliance on Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain – Application under Order VII Rule 11 rightly rejected [Paras 26-27].

Successive Applications – Order VII Rule 11 – Successive applications (Exh.24 and 65) filed without specifically pleading bar under Rule 3-A of Order XXIII CPC – Held: No perversity or illegality in Trial Court’s refusal to reject plaint – Revisional interference unwarranted [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Order refusing rejection of plaint upheld – Observations prima facie in nature – Suit to proceed to trial [Paras 31-32].

Railways Act – Untoward Incident – Accidental Fall from Train – Deceased allegedly fell from running train between Daya Basti and Shakur Basti – Journey ticket recovered during jamatalashi – Tribunal dismissed claim on conjectures regarding journey duration and nature of injuries – Held: Findings based on surmises – Recovery of valid ticket establishes prima facie bona fide travel – Burden shifts to Railways to rebut – Impugned order set aside [Paras 9–12, 17–18].

Bona Fide Passenger – Proof – Journey ticket bearing No. m-43449854 recovered from deceased – Recovery not disputed – Tribunal erred in presuming expiry of journey time based on scheduled train chart without evidence of actual train timings (TSR) – Reliance on scheduled timings unsustainable [Paras 9–10].

Commercial Circular No. 5/2016 – Validity of Ticket – For distance up to 199 km, journey to commence within three hours of issue or departure of first train, whichever later – No evidence that deceased travelled contrary to circular – Benefit of doubt to claimants [Paras 11–12].

Medical Evidence – Tribunal Drawing Own Conclusions – Tribunal inferred injuries indicated “hit by train” and not fall – Simultaneously noted absence of loco pilot report or contemporaneous record of run-over – Such self-contradictory reasoning unsustainable – Court held Tribunal erred in substituting medical opinion without expert basis [Paras 13–15].

Standard of Proof – Beneficial Legislation – Proceedings under Railways Act not akin to criminal trial – Hyper-technical approach impermissible – Once basic facts of travel and accidental fall established, burden shifts to Railways – None of the exceptions under proviso to Section 124-A attracted [Paras 16–17].

Delay in Discovery of Body – Not Conclusive – Mere delay in recovery of body in mid-section between stations does not negate travel or accidental fall – Cannot defeat statutory claim absent cogent rebuttal evidence [Paras 8, 12].

Appellate Interference – Tribunal’s Findings Based on Conjecture – High Court justified in setting aside dismissal where conclusions contrary to settled law laid down in Rina Devi and Leela Devi [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 22.05.2019 set aside – Matter remanded to Railway Claims Tribunal for awarding compensation in accordance with law – Compensation to be disbursed within two months – Copy of judgment directed to be sent to Tribunal.

Cultivating Tenant – Entry in Tenancy Rights Register – Mere inclusion of name in tenancy records does not confer statutory tenancy unless other requirements are satisfied – Plaintiff failed to prove details of lease, period of tenancy, rent paid or landlord’s title – No adangal or revenue records produced to prove possession – Relief of injunction rightly refused [Para 8].

Permanent Injunction – Proof of Possession – Plaintiff seeking injunction must establish lawful possession on date of suit – Reliance only on tenancy registration order (Ex.A1) insufficient – Defendants established title and possession through sale deeds, adangals and kist receipts (Ex.B1 to B18) – Courts below justified in dismissing suit [Para 8].

Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 – Sections 3(8) and 39 – Recording of tenancy by Tahsildar does not automatically establish continuous possession – Entry not conclusive proof of cultivating tenancy in absence of supporting evidence [Paras 5, 8].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 22.03.2019 in A.S. No.12 of 2012 confirming dismissal of O.S. No.370 of 2000 upheld – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Rent Control – Repossession – Failure to Enter Written Tenancy Agreement – Section 21(2)(a) TNRRRL Act – Landlord sought repossession on ground of absence of written agreement – Tenant contended that in absence of written rental agreement, petition itself not maintainable – Core issue held to be purely legal and capable of decision on arguments without additional evidence – Held, additional documents unnecessary [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Civil Procedure – Production of Additional Documents – Application filed after filing counter – Trial Court dismissed petitions seeking to receive documents not filed along with counter – High Court held that Rent Court need not receive documents which are irrelevant to core issue – No enabling provision under the Act permitting belated production of documents after pleadings – No error in Trial Court’s order – Revision dismissed [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Relevancy of Documents – Arbitral Order – Police Complaint – FIR – Municipal Notice – Order passed in arbitral proceedings need not be marked and can be relied upon without formal proof – Documents such as police complaint, FIR direction and notice to Corporation not relevant to legal issue involved in main RLTOPs – Production rightly refused [Para 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Interference warranted only in case of patent illegality or serious error – No serious error found in impugned orders of Rent Court – Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 6, 7].

Decision: Both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – No order as to costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Habeas Corpus – Illegal Arrest – Non-supply of Written Grounds of Arrest – Arrest memo merely mentioning crime number and sections without disclosing specific grounds – Separate sheet of “grounds of arrest” not forming part of arrest memo and not attested as required under Section 36 BNSS – Held: Non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (2026) 1 SCC 500 – Arrest and consequential remand rendered illegal – Petitioner entitled to release [Paras 20-26, 33-34].

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Constitutional safeguard not a procedural formality – Grounds must be furnished in writing in a language understood by arrestee – Failure to supply written grounds within stipulated time vitiates arrest and remand – Remand order cannot cure foundational illegality of arrest – “Once the edifice goes, the superstructure collapses” [Paras 19-23, 27, 33].

Criminal Procedure – Remand under Section 187 BNSS – Mechanical Remand – Magistrate obliged to apply judicial mind to legality of arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards – Failure to notice non-conformity of arrest memo and absence of duly attested written grounds – Remand held to be passed in a mechanical manner – Habeas corpus maintainable notwithstanding remand [Paras 28-30].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus after Judicial Remand – Writ lies where remand order suffers from absolute illegality or is passed mechanically – Distinction between judicial review remedies and writ of habeas corpus – Habeas corpus is writ of right granted ex debito justitiae in case of unlawful detention – Petition maintainable despite pendency of criminal proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Arrest of petitioner declared illegal – Remand order dated 29.01.2026 set aside – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Liberty granted to respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

Motor Vehicles Act – Fatal Accident – Grievous Head Injuries – Death after prolonged treatment – Deceased sustained severe head injuries and multiple fractures and underwent three major surgeries – Continuous hospitalization till death – Held, death directly attributable to injuries sustained in accident and not due to intervening cause – Medical expenses rightly awarded and confirmed [Paras 12].

Contributory Negligence – Non-wearing of Helmet – Absence of Driving Licence – Vehicle without Registration and Insurance – Admissions by P.W.1 and Ex.A4 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report established violations – Though accident primarily caused by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, non-wearing of helmet had direct nexus with fatal head injuries – Fixing 25% contributory negligence on deceased held just and reasonable [Paras 13, 14].

Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Survival of Claim – Claims for pain, suffering and personal injuries do not survive upon death of injured – Award of Rs.2,00,000/- under said head set aside – Tribunal’s award modified accordingly [Para 15].

Quantum of Compensation – Loss of Income – Medical Bills – Filial Consortium – Funeral Expenses – Attender Charges – Tribunal’s assessment under various heads except pain and suffering confirmed – Total compensation reduced from Rs.33,57,696/- to Rs.31,57,696/- – After 25% deduction towards contributory negligence, compensation reduced from Rs.25,18,272/- to Rs.23,68,272/- [Para 16].

Appeal and Cross Objection – Insurer’s Appeal Partly Allowed – Award Modified – Cross objection seeking enhancement rejected – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partly allowed – Award modified by deducting Rs.2,00,000/- granted towards pain and suffering – Total compensation payable fixed at Rs.23,68,272/- with applicable interest – Cross Objection dismissed – No order as to costs.

PIL - Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Scope of Interference – Petitioner challenged the closure of fresh registrations and the fixation of age-related eligibility criteria (21 to 60 years) under the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Art. 14 – Held: Judicial review of a policy decision is limited to examining its legality, not its wisdom. Courts do not substitute their opinion for that of experts in policy matters. A policy decision can only be interfered with if it is unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide, or dehors the provisions of a statute. The fixation of the date for commencement and closure of a scheme, as well as the determination of the age of entitlement, falls squarely within the executive domain of the State. The court found no arbitrariness in the State’s exercise of discretion regarding the implementation and continuation of the policy. [Paras 9, 10, 11]

Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Equality before Law – Hostile Discrimination – Allegation of arbitrary exclusion of newly eligible women from a welfare scheme – Held: The State has the discretion to decide the implementation period and the scope of beneficiaries for a welfare policy. Stoppage of fresh registrations from a specific date does not, per se, constitute hostile discrimination. The fixation of minimum and maximum age limits for entitlement is a policy matter within the domain of the State Government and does not warrant judicial interference unless proven to be manifestly arbitrary. [Paras 10, 11]

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Locus Standi – Enhancement of Financial Benefits – Petitioner sought a direction to enhance the amount provided under the scheme as per alleged promises – Held: The petitioner is admittedly neither an aspirant nor a beneficiary of the scheme. Claims regarding the enhancement of financial benefits under a social welfare scheme cannot be entertained at the instance of a third party in a PIL. Such matters pertain to the discretionary executive functions of the State. [Para 12]

Ratio Decidendi: The Court’s power of judicial review over executive policy is restricted to assessing whether the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, or ultra vires the powers of the delegatee. The determination of eligibility criteria, including age limits and registration timelines for a welfare scheme, is a matter of administrative policy within the State's domain and does not attract judicial interference under Art. 226 unless it is demonstrated to be palpably arbitrary or malafide.

Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.