Civil Writ - Natural Resources – Tender-cum-Auction – Quarry Lease for Dunite – Cancellation of Tender – Successful bidders challenged cancellation of tender-cum-auction after being declared highest bidders and payment of EMD – Authorities cancelled tender on finding serious discrepancies in fixation of upset price leading to substantial loss to State revenue – Held: Allocation of natural resources is not a mere commercial transaction but a matter of public trust requiring maximisation of public revenue – State entitled to cancel tender where fixation of upset price was fundamentally flawed and against public interest – No vested right accrues merely by being declared successful bidder [Paras 15–18].

Tender Process – Upset Price – Fixation – Judicial Review – Enquiry revealed that only seigniorage fee was taken as upset price without considering actual market value and net profit of Dunite mineral – Resulted in potential loss of hundreds of crores to State exchequer – Held: When tender conditions or calculations are misapplied resulting in depletion of public revenue, courts must uphold corrective action by the State – Cancellation justified to protect public interest and revenue [Paras 8–10, 15–18].

Public Trust Doctrine – Natural Resources – Revenue Maximisation – State as trustee of mineral wealth obligated to secure best value for public resources – Reliance placed on Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. CEO – Tender cancellation upheld in furtherance of constitutional obligation to protect public wealth [Paras 16–18].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha – Principle reiterated that misinterpretation of tender conditions diminishing State revenue warrants judicial interference – Applied to uphold cancellation of tender involving mineral resources [Paras 17–18].

Refund – Earnest Money Deposit – Though writ petitions dismissed, petitioners entitled to refund of EMD with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of deposit till repayment – No direction for grant of lease [Para 19].

Environmental Protection – Mining Near Reserved Forest – Court directed that any future tender must strictly comply with Supreme Court directions prohibiting mining within one kilometre from reserved forest boundary as laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [Para 19].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Cancellation of tender-cum-auction upheld – Respondents directed to refund EMD with interest – Liberty granted to State to issue fresh tender in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to participate in fresh tender – No costs.

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Due Diligence Test – Scope and Applicability – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 inserted by 2002 Amendment does not have universal application to every amendment sought after commencement of trial – Court holds that applicability of due diligence test depends on nature of amendment sought and surrounding circumstances – Plain and rigid application of proviso would defeat main provision which retains phrase “at any stage of the proceedings” – Held: Proviso has limited role and cannot control main provision in all post-trial amendment applications [Paras 13–17, 29–31, 59–61].

Amendment After Commencement of Trial – Subsequent Events – Relief of Possession – Plaintiffs sought amendment 10 years after suit and post commencement of trial to plead dispossession during pendency of suit and seek possession – Such amendment based on subsequent events falls within recognised category where due diligence test need not strictly apply – Held: Amendment necessary to decide real controversy and avoid multiplicity of litigation [Paras 25(c), 25(d), 35–36].

Object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Avoidance of Multiplicity of Litigation – Main object of Rule 17 remains determination of real questions in controversy and avoidance of multiple proceedings – Proviso intended only to curb mala fide or dilatory amendments – Liberal construction still applies in deserving cases – Procedural law to be interpreted to advance justice [Paras 18–23, 31–33].

Delay in Seeking Amendment – Limitation – Delay of 10 years from filing of suit not fatal – Relevant test is whether relief sought by amendment is barred by limitation on date of application – Amendment seeking possession held within limitation under Articles 64 or 65 of Limitation Act – Mere length of delay cannot be sole ground for rejection [Paras 37–42].

Amendment Contrary to Admission – Effect – Amendment allegedly contrary to admission in cross-examination regarding date of dispossession – Court not required to examine merits or correctness of proposed amendment at amendment stage – Admission not conclusive and can be explained during trial – Amendment does not nullify admission; issue remains matter of evidence [Paras 43–49].

Nature of Suit – Change of Relief – Change from declaration and injunction to declaration and possession does not amount to change in nature of suit – Change in relief distinct from change in cause of action – Basic structure of suit remains intact – Amendment permissible even if relief changes, provided foundational facts remain same [Paras 50–56].

Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Even where due diligence test not satisfied, Court can invoke inherent powers to permit amendment in interest of justice to prevent abuse of process – Procedural provisions cannot limit inherent powers of Court [Para 34].

Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226 and 227 – Trial Court erred in treating proviso as absolute bar and in rejecting amendment mechanically on ground of delay and commencement of trial – Interference warranted to correct jurisdictional error [Paras 62–63].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 06.09.2025 rejecting amendment application set aside – Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.7,000/- by plaintiffs – Defendants permitted to file additional written statement – Issue of date of dispossession left open to be decided on evidence.

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of Alleged Original Document – Admissibility Denied – Petitioners sought to lead secondary evidence of a family consent letter allegedly lost or in possession of defendants – Trial Court rejected application under Section 65 Evidence Act for want of foundational facts – Held: Mere assertion of loss and submission of photocopy without showing when, how and by whom it was made from the original does not satisfy requirements under Section 63(2) or (3) – Application rightly rejected [Paras 4–10]

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Foundational Requirements – Not Optional – No pleading regarding how photocopy was obtained, date or process of copying, or comparison with original – Burden lies on party seeking secondary evidence to establish chain of custody, authenticity, and mechanical accuracy – Petitioners failed to discharge this burden [Paras 5, 9, 10]

Precedents – Secondary Evidence – Photocopies Admissible Only Under Strict Conditions – High Court relied on consistent precedents (Makhanlal v. Balaram, Ramrao Karuji Baghale v. Natthu, Anandram v. Gaura Bai, Aneeta Rajpoot v. Saraswati Gupta) holding that photocopies cannot be admitted without fulfilling statutory criteria – Secondary evidence is exception, not rule [Paras 11–12]

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing – Equitable Relief Denied – Petition filed 8 months after rejection of application, and only when matter was fixed for final arguments – Delay undermined bona fides of petitioners – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Para 3]

Constitutional Law – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court reiterates settled law that interference under Article 227 is justified only when there is grave miscarriage of justice – No error found in Trial Court’s view rejecting inadmissible secondary evidence – Petition dismissed [Para 13]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No case made out for interference under Article 227 – Trial Court rightly rejected secondary evidence application due to absence of factual foundation – Petitioners to bear costs.

Succession Law – Conflicting Wills – Probate – Registered Will vs. Unregistered Will – Two first appeals arising from a common judgment rejecting probate of unregistered Will dated 25.5.2002 and granting probate for registered Will dated 20.9.1996 – Trial Court held registered Will valid and subsequent Will fabricated – Held: Second Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, not proved in accordance with law, and judicial conscience not satisfied – Appeals dismissed [Paras 20, 56–72].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Later unregistered Will alleged to revoke earlier registered Will – Propounder took active role in preparation – Contradictions regarding place of execution – Delay and non-disclosure in mutation proceedings – Held: Suspicion surrounding execution of later Will not dispelled – Principles in Venkatachala Iyengar, Shivakumar, and Shashi Kumar Banerjee followed – Will rejected [Paras 49–53, 56–72].

Proof of Will – Attesting Witness – Credibility – DW-2 attesting witness admitted affidavit was not prepared on his instructions and he did not know contents – Found to be a beneficiary’s associate – Held: Witness unreliable – No credible attestation of Will dated 25.5.2002 – Will not proved under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act [Paras 66–68].

Mutation Proceedings – Non-disclosure of Will – Inference of Fabrication – Mutation application filed after death of testator based on inheritance, with no mention of alleged Will – Drafted by same advocate who allegedly prepared Will – Held: Conduct casts serious doubt on existence and genuineness of Will – Indicates Will was fabricated later to defeat probate of earlier Will [Paras 63–65].

Will – Revocation of Earlier Will – Reason Unconvincing – No Evidence of Fraud – Alleged revocation of earlier Will based on claim of fraud – No supporting evidence adduced – Testator was aged and bedridden, looked after by original beneficiaries – Held: Stated reason for revocation not credible – Revocation plea rejected [Paras 69–70].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Probate of unregistered Will dated 25.5.2002 rightly denied – Probate of registered Will dated 20.9.1996 upheld – Trial Court’s judgment affirmed [Paras 73–75].

Employees Provident Fund – Wage Splitting – Artificial Structuring to Evade PF Liability – 7A Determination Upheld – Respondent institutions restructured salary components to cap Basic plus D.A. at ₹6,500 while paying higher gross wages – Provident Fund Authority found deliberate design to avoid statutory contributions – Tribunal erroneously set aside the order on the sole ground that declared basic wages were within the ceiling – Held: Authority rightly applied substance over form test and found long-standing, uniform pattern of artificial wage structuring – Statutory contributions are payable on actual wages and not on labels assigned by employer [Paras 8–14].

Welfare Legislation – Purpose of PF Act – Interpretation in Favour of Beneficiaries – EPF Act is a social welfare legislation to ensure security of employees – Deferred wages cannot be denied through creative salary structuring – Regular allowances shown as exclusions cannot defeat statutory mandate – Employer’s conduct must be judged by effect, not form [Paras 9–11].

Section 7A Inquiry – Validity – Record-Based Assessment – Authority relied on statutory documents like Form 11, challans, Form 16, salary registers – Found consistent pattern of wage splitting across years and employees – Detailed, account-wise and employee-wise calculations revealed suppression of PF liability – Held: Tribunal failed to consider this material and adopted a narrow, ceiling-based approach without examining wage structuring [Paras 12–14].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Interference with Reasoned Administrative Orders – High Court held that the Tribunal failed to apply binding precedents including Regional PF Commissioner v. Vivekanand Vidyamandir – Found that employer’s conduct amounted to evasion of statutory obligation – Restored well-reasoned 7A order [Paras 5, 15–18].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Order of PF Appellate Tribunal dated 19.10.2016 set aside – Original order under Section 7A dated 30.10.2014 restored – PF dues of ₹2,91,765 upheld against respondent [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Law – Revision – Interlocutory vs Intermediate Orders – Petitioner sought direction for registration of FIR alleging conspiracy and murder of son – Magistrate rejected application under Section 156(3) CrPC holding that court itself could inquire into complaint – Revisional Court dismissed revision on ground that order was interlocutory – Held: Order rejecting application under Section 156(3) CrPC is not purely interlocutory as it affects valuable rights of complainant – Revision maintainable under Section 397 CrPC – Matter remanded for fresh decision [Paras 1-4, 13-23]

Police Investigation – Role of Magistrate – Complaint disclosed cognizable offence and warranted police investigation – Mens rea, conspiracy, and alleged tampering of evidence required custodial interrogation and collection of evidence by police – Magistrate erred in refusing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – Observed: In serious matters involving murder, procedural powers must be exercised to advance justice [Paras 7-10]

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Sessions Court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing revision mechanically without examining nature of impugned order – High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside the order and restore revision – Clarified that no opinion on merits of complaint was expressed [Paras 21-23]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order of Sessions Judge dated 09.08.2021 set aside – Criminal revision restored for decision on merits – No opinion expressed on merits of complaint [Paras 23-24]

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Suppression of Material Facts – Domestic Violence Proceedings – Overlapping Jurisdiction – Family Court dismissed wife’s maintenance petition solely on the ground that she suppressed the fact of receiving interim maintenance under the DV Act – High Court held that mere non-production of interim maintenance order cannot result in outright dismissal of a petition filed under beneficial legislation – At the highest, such conduct may invite costs but not rejection of claim [Paras 8–16].

Maintenance under Multiple Statutes – No Bar – Adjustment or Set-off – Wife is legally entitled to seek maintenance under different enactments such as Section 125 CrPC, DV Act and HMA – Law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha mandates disclosure and adjustment of amounts awarded in earlier proceedings – Held: Family Court erred in treating the filing of successive proceedings as impermissible [Paras 12–15, 22–27].

Duty of Court – Consideration of Evidence – Failure of Husband to Lead Evidence – Respondent-husband neither entered the witness box nor adduced evidence to establish wife’s independent income or inability to maintain her – Family Court failed to consider settled principle that an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of maintaining his wife – Findings held to be contrary to law [Paras 17–21].

Beneficial Legislation – Approach of Court – Maintenance provisions are social justice measures – Courts must adopt a pragmatic and humane approach rather than hyper-technical view – Non-disclosure of interim maintenance order should not defeat substantive rights of a deserted wife [Paras 15–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Improper Exercise by Family Court – Family Court gave undue weight to alleged suppression and failed to adjudicate entitlement and quantum of maintenance on merits – Such approach warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 28–29].

Decision – Revision application allowed – Impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for fresh consideration on merits with direction to adjust maintenance already granted in DV proceedings – Proceedings to be completed within stipulated time [Paras 29–31].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Disciplinary Authority – Disagreement with Enquiry Report – Natural Justice – Petitioner constable in Railway Protection Special Force terminated despite exoneration by Enquiry Officer – Disciplinary Authority disagreed with enquiry findings without issuing notice or giving opportunity of hearing – Held: Violation of principles of natural justice – Before recording contrary finding, Disciplinary Authority must give tentative reasons for disagreement and allow employee to represent – Termination order set aside [Paras 6–10].

Service Law – Right to Hearing – Rule 154.5 of RPF Rules – Interpretation – Rule allows Disciplinary Authority to differ from Enquiry Officer but does not exclude requirement of hearing – Subjective satisfaction under Rule 154.5 must be based on reconciliation of enquiry report, disagreement reasons, and employee’s response – Omission to hear employee before differing with report causes prejudice and renders decision unsustainable [Paras 7–9].

Remand – Departmental Inquiry – Scope – Appellate Court finds termination illegal for procedural lapse – Held: Appropriate course is to remand matter to Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh from stage where process was vitiated – Reference to Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari and LIC v. A. Masilamani – Matter remanded to provide hearing and pass fresh order within 3 months [Paras 12–14].

Constitution – Article 309 – Principles of Natural Justice – Applicability – Even where rules are silent, right to hearing must be read into the procedure where Disciplinary Authority proposes to overturn exoneration and impose punishment – Upholds fairness, transparency, and due process in service jurisprudence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Writ appeal allowed – Order of termination dated 29.03.2019 and subsequent departmental and writ court orders set aside – Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority to provide opportunity of hearing and pass fresh order within 3 months – No undue adjournments to be sought by parties – Proceedings to be concluded independently and expeditiously.

Civil Law – Decree on Admissions – Partition Suit – Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by appellant seeking summary decree of partition and rental income – Defendants had abandoned defence of oral family settlement and filed relinquishment deeds – High Court held that such documents did not amount to unequivocal admissions – No clear pleading regarding title in plaint – Significant factual disputes existed as to title, area of property, shares, heirs, and income – Held: Summary decree rightly denied – Full trial warranted [Paras 2, 15–22].

Partition – Requirement of Proof of Title – Plaintiff failed to plead title documents of parents from whom rights claimed – Prior judicial finding that plaintiff had not established that suit properties were part of intestate estate had attained finality – Relinquishment deeds of some defendants did not establish complete or uncontested ownership by parents – Held: In absence of foundational title pleadings, decree on admission cannot be granted [Paras 10, 15–18].

Admissions – Legal Standard – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Admissions must be unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional – Partition suits require detailed evidence on title, possession, and shares – Where disputes exist as to size of property, status of heirs, and rental income, matter not suitable for summary adjudication – Held: Appellant failed to demonstrate requisite admissions for decree [Paras 18–21].

Procedural Relief – Liberty to File Fresh Application – While dismissing appeal, Court granted liberty to file fresh and specific application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC if clear and unqualified admissions are identified – Any such application to be considered by learned Single Judge independently [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC declined – Appellant granted liberty to file a more detailed application identifying specific and unequivocal admissions – All pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24–26].