Property Law – Title by Sale Deed – Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Validity of Successive Transfers – Appellant claimed 1/3rd share in suit land on the basis of a sale deed dated 08.12.2000 executed by Harjinder Kaur, who had purchased from Baldev Singh – First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of revenue records and prior sale deeds, found that Baldev Singh had already alienated 14 kanals 13 marlas out of his total share and retained only about 8–8½ marlas at the time of the impugned sale – Held: A vendor cannot convey a better title than he himself possesses; plaintiff's claim to 2 kanals 15 marlas based on a sale deed executed beyond the vendor's remaining share is not sustainable [Paras 7-8].

Mutation Entries – Evidentiary Value – Fiscal Entry Only – Contention that sanctioned mutation in favour of appellant conferred valid title – Held: Mutation does not confer title and is merely a fiscal entry for revenue purposes; the same cannot be treated as proof of ownership [Para 9].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Suit for Declaration – Other Vendees from Common Vendor – Plaintiff sought declaration regarding specific khasra numbers forming part of a joint holding without impleading other co-sharers and vendees whose rights were directly affected – Held: Any declaration in their absence would cast a cloud on their title and lead to multiplicity of litigation; suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties [Para 10].

Second Appeal – Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Findings of First Appellate Court based on proper appreciation of documentary evidence including certified copies of earlier sale deeds, sanctioned mutations and jamabandis – Findings neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence – Held: No substantial question of law arises; no interference warranted [Para 11].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga affirmed.

Public Procurement – Tender Conditions – Geographical Restriction – RBSN Food Items Supply – Petitioners challenged Clause A(1) requiring bidders to own manufacturing unit in Uttar Pradesh prior to tender floating date as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution – Respondents justified condition on grounds of timely supply, quality control, supervision, prevention of pilferage of subsidised raw materials (wheat and rice allocated by Government of India), short shelf life of three months, and compliance with Allahabad High Court directions in Shipra Devi case – Raw materials provided at subsidised rates on ex-godown basis from FCI depots in Uttar Pradesh – Held: Condition reasonable and not arbitrary – Formulation of tender conditions is prerogative of State – Courts interfere only if policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide – Physical supervision and inspection feasible when units located within State – Condition ensures permanency, timely delivery within 15 days of award, and uninterrupted supply to 16 million beneficiaries under National Food Security Act, 2013 [Paras 62-72]

Tender Conditions – Annual Turnover Requirement – Clause A(2) requiring minimum annual turnover of Rs.75 crores from THR supplies for each of last three financial years challenged as arbitrary – Total tender value approximately Rs.2,768 crores – State divided into 9 clusters with potential award of two clusters per bidder totaling approximately Rs.600 crores – Held: Turnover requirement rational and proportionate to ensure bidder possesses experience and financial capacity for large-scale uninterrupted supply – Not arbitrary or tailored to favour certain suppliers [Para 74]

Eligibility Criteria – Pending Litigation Disqualification – Clause A(12) disqualifying bidders with pending legal/criminal cases or disputes associated with THR supplies challenged as arbitrary and violating constitutional right to legal remedies – Petitioners had pending arbitration proceedings and recovery disputes with State of Uttar Pradesh – One petitioner had award in its favour with State having filed Section 34 petition – No blacklisting or debarment of petitioners – No adjudicated finding of deficiency against petitioners – Court observed prima facie merit in petitioners' submission that disqualification based solely on pendency without adjudicated findings of guilt or deficiency appears unjust – However issue became academic as petitioners failed to comply with mandatory Clause A(1) regarding manufacturing unit location [Paras 76-82]

Judicial Review – Tender Conditions – Scope of Interference – Courts cannot substitute their view for that of employer on what tender conditions should be – Courts interfere only if policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias – Tendering authority entitled to pragmatic adjustments based on particular circumstances – Greater latitude to be conceded to State authorities in formulating conditions for ensuring public welfare schemes – Public interest in timely fulfillment and quality of work must be safeguarded – Technical evaluation by courts impermissible – Principle of restraint to be followed when decision consonant with tender document purpose [Paras 71, 83]

General Financial Rules – Compliance – Petitioners challenged non-compliance with Rules 159, 160 and 161 of GFR 2017 regarding mandatory e-publishing on Central Public Procurement Portal and Government e-Marketplace – Court did not specifically adjudicate this challenge given dismissal on other grounds [Paras 19-21]

Decision: All three writ petitions dismissed – Tender conditions upheld as reasonable and not arbitrary – Pending applications also dismissed.

Crininal Law – Murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Culpable Honicide Not Anounting to Murder – Sudden Fight – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC for death of deceased caused by axe blow to the head during a dispute over stone-pelting on the previous night – Counter-case lodged by accused against deceased on the same day, and evidence of accused Prafulla having sustained injuries, lent weight to the defence plea of mutual assault – No pre-planned notive established; assault arose suddenly in the heat of the nonent during altercation – Held: Case squarely falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC; conviction of accused Prafulla nodified fron murder to culpable honicide not anounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC; sentenced to 7 years rigorous inprisonment with set-off [Paras 13, 15, 18–20].

Evidence – Onission in FIR – Names of Co-Accused Absent – Subsequent Inplication Doubtful – Informant/P.W.1 named only accused Prafulla in the written FIR and in his statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded on the very next day; names of accused Pratap and Pankaj conspicuously absent – In court, informant inproved upon original version to inplicate them – I.O. admitted the onission – Held: Onission of inportant facts affecting probabilities of the case is relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act; in absence of cogent explanation, subsequent inplication of co-accused is doubtful and cannot be accepted [Paras 16–17].

Defence Evidence – Standard of Appreciation – Preponderance of Probability – Trial court discarded defence evidence on surmises and conjectures without cogent reasons – Held: Defence evidence is to be appreciated on the principle of preponderance of probability and not on the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; court must consider whether a plausible defence has been made out – Counter-case and injury to accused Prafulla ought to have been given due inportance [Para 15].

Witness Credibility – P.W. 2 – Spot Map Discrepancy – P.W. 2 clained to be an eye-witness brushimg his teeth in front of his house when the assault took place – Spot map (Exhibit 9) showing all 14 house owners in the locality does not include the house of P.W. 2 – Held: His presence as an eye-witness becones doubtful and his testinony cannot be relied upon as that of an eye-witness [Para 11].

Weapon Discrepancy – Tangia vs. Farsa – Witnesses stated a Tangia was used; weapon sent for medical examination described as Farsa – Doctor described weapon as "Tangia (Farsa)" in Exhibit 4; I.O. also described M.O.1 as Tangia in Exhibit 6 – Held: Both Tangia and Farsa are sharp cutting weapons; discrepancy not material enough to discredit the prosecution evidence of assault by a sharp cutting weapon [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Accused Pankaj and Pratap acquitted; bail bonds discharged – Accused Prafulla's conviction nodified fron Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC; sentenced to 7 years rigorous inprisonment with set-off – Bail bonds of accused Prafulla cancelled; to be taken into custody forthwith.

Tenancy Law — West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 — Renewal of Tenancy — Mandatory Prerequisites — Section 3(2) Provisos and Rule 5 — Lease of respondent-tenant expired by efflux of time on 08.08.1998 and further terminated by notice under Section 3(1) — Renewal under the 1976 Act requires an application within the prescribed period along with simultaneous deposit of all arrears of rent with interest — Respondent never made any such formal application nor deposited arrears simultaneously — Request for issuance of monthly rent bills dated 05.05.2014 held not to constitute an application for renewal — Held: Respondents not entitled to renewal under the 1976 Act or the 1976 Rules for non-compliance with mandatory prerequisites [Paras 40–54].

1976 Act — Distinguished from Rent Control Laws — Government Premises on Different Footing — Argument that 1976 Act being beneficial legislation should be interpreted analogously to Sections 7 and 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Acts of 1997 and 1956 — Held: The 1976 Act operates on an entirely different premise; Government premises are treated distinctly due to administrative exigencies and public interest; the provisos to Section 3(2) are subservient to the main provision and no analogy with Rent Control laws is permissible [Paras 46–53].

Beneficial Scheme — Existing Allottee — Scope of Expression — Respondent applied for benefit of WBSIDCL Special Scheme dated 18.02.2021 (extended 25.08.2022) for conversion of short-term to 99-year long-term lease within the extended period — Scheme uses expression "existing allottees" and not "existing lessees" — Held: The deliberate use of "allottees" over "lessees" indicates that the Scheme was intended to benefit all allottees in occupation of the estate irrespective of whether any valid lease subsisted; respondent being in occupation as an allottee qualifies as an "existing allottee" — Application cannot be refused on the ground of absence of subsisting lease [Paras 55–63].

Scheme — Conditions of Withdrawal of Litigation and Payment of Arrears — Not Pre-conditions to Application — Appellants contended that pending litigation and non-deposit of arrears disentitled respondent from Scheme benefits — Held: Payment of arrears and withdrawal of litigation are conditions to be fulfilled after the application is considered and sanctioned in principle; requiring withdrawal of litigation as a pre-condition before any decision would leave the applicant remediless — Such interpretation cannot be countenanced under a beneficial Scheme [Para 64].

Article 14 — Discriminatory Treatment — Parity with M/s. Gravo Prints — M/s. Gravo Prints, whose lease had also expired and who was also a defaulter, was granted the benefit of the Scheme and treated as an existing allottee, with liberty to deposit arrears subsequent to application — Respondent stands on similar footing yet application was not even considered — Held: Once a privilege under a State Scheme is granted to one entity, all entities standing on similar footing acquire a right to similar treatment; refusal to consider respondent's application while extending benefit to M/s. Gravo Prints constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory State action violating Article 14 [Paras 68–75].

Legal Malice — State Action — Dispossession on Day of Filing of Writ Petition — WBSIDCL effected physical possession of subject-plots on 14.09.2023, the very date when respondents filed WPA 22402/2023, despite being served a copy of the writ petition and being informed that the matter would be taken up at 2:00 PM — Resumption order was also hurriedly passed immediately after WPA 4280/2014 was dismissed for default, before respondents could seek restoration — Held: Actions of appellant-authorities reek of legal malice; due process was merely paid lip-service; fairness must be read into due process — Element of legal malice manifest; impugned actions rightly set aside [Paras 76–82].

Decision: Appeals dismissed on contest — Impugned judgment dated 16.08.2024 affirmed — Possession of Plot Nos. K-10 and K-10/2, Behala Industrial Estate directed to be restored to respondents — WBSIDCL directed to extend benefits of the Scheme under Circular dated 18.02.2021 as extended on 25.08.2022 to respondents — No order as to costs.

SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 — Section 15A(3) — Mandatory Notice to Victim or Dependent — Bail Proceedings — Non-Compliance Renders Order Non-Est — Eight accused granted regular bail by Special Court after 25 to 43 days of custody in a case of mob lynching resulting in death of a Scheduled Caste member — Special Judge held that Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act would not attract as accused had no prior knowledge of victim's caste identity, and consequently dispensed with notice to victim's dependent — Held: When offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act are involved, even the question whether such offences attract or not cannot be decided unilaterally without issuing notice and hearing the victim or his dependent; issuance of notice under Section 15A(3) is mandatory in all proceedings under the Act including bail proceedings — Common order passed without hearing dependent of deceased is non-est in law and liable to be set aside [Paras 11–15].

BNS, 2023 — Section 103(2) — Mob Lynching — Graver Offence — New Provision — Section 103(2) of BNS, 2023 is a new provision introduced to address the menace of mob lynching; where murder is committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on grounds of race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language or personal belief, each member is liable to death or imprisonment for life — Legislature intended this offence to be treated as more serious than ordinary murder under Section 103(1) [Para 16].

Bail Cancellation — Premature Grant — Habitual Offenders — Mechanical Approach of Special Judge — Prima facie case of mob lynching at a primitive stage of investigation — Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 are habitual offenders with multiple criminal antecedents — Special Judge granted bail mechanically without considering: (i) availability of police custody during initial 60 days under Section 187 BNSS; (ii) statutory presumption of knowledge of caste identity under Section 8(c) of SC/ST (POA) Act; and (iii) adverse impact of premature bail on investigation — Held: Grant of bail was unsustainable; cancellation warranted [Para 17].

Mob Lynching — Constitutional Values — Rule of Law — Apex Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla observed that lynching is an affront to the rule of law and constitutional values; vigilantism undermines State institutions and, unless controlled, may lead to anarchy — State has a sacrosanct duty to protect citizens and curb such incidents — Hate crimes born of intolerance and prejudice cannot be tolerated [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Common order granting bail to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 set aside — Bail bonds cancelled — Respondents directed to surrender before jurisdictional court within three days — On failure to surrender, Investigating Officer at liberty to arrest — Respondents at liberty to file fresh bail applications; Special Court to adjudicate after providing notice and hearing to dependent of victim in compliance with Section 15A(3) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.

Medical Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — West Bengal Medical Council — Removal from Register — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Petitioner, a Gynaecologist, found guilty of infamous professional conduct by West Bengal Medical Council following death of patient post-caesarean section; name removed from register for two years under Section 25(a)(ii) of Bengal Medical Act, 1914 — Petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Section 26 before Principal Secretary, Health Department, which was dismissed — Petitioner thereafter moved National Medical Commission under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 — Writ petition filed challenging both orders — Held: Petitioner having exhausted statutory remedies including appeal before Appellate Authority and approaching the National Medical Commission, the matter attained finality through the statutory adjudicatory machinery — Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for further statutory remedies nor can the writ court act as an appellate authority for re-appreciation of evidence — Writ petition not maintainable.

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable — No order as to costs.

Service Law - Locus Standi – Third Party Appeal – Service Matter – Appellant, a co-employee, filed special appeal challenging Single Judge's order setting aside dismissal of writ petitioner/respondent – Both appellant and writ petitioner employed as Head Assistants in King George's Medical University, Lucknow – Appellant at serial no.118 in seniority list while writ petitioner at serial no.73 – Appellant not party to original writ proceedings – Appellant claimed appointment of writ petitioner was against statutory rules and affected his seniority and promotion chances – Held: Appellant lacks locus standi – Dispute between employer and employee is private dispute – No direct adverse impact or legal injury demonstrated by appellant – Vast difference in seniority positions negates any impact on appellant's promotion or seniority – Mere chance or potential future impact insufficient to confer right to inter-meddle – Appellant was complainant/informant but such role does not confer right to file appeal confined to aggrieved persons [Paras 28-55].

Aggrieved Person – Definition and Scope – Person aggrieved must have legal rights adversely affected or have suffered legal wrong – Legal right means entitlement arising from legal rules – Expression "aggrieved person" denotes elastic concept but cannot include person suffering psychological or imaginary injury – Right or interest must be adversely affected or jeopardized – Proximity of injury and impact of order must be examined – Legal injury complained must be real with nexus and proximity in time to issue at hand – Service jurisprudence may permit employees to challenge orders affecting entire cadre's seniority or promotion, but concept cannot be stretched to permit any employee to challenge order passed against specific employee directly impacted by such order – Appeal maintainable only when: (1) appealing party was party to original proceedings, (2) definitive conclusive ruling on rights of parties in dispute is subject of appeal, (3) party is person aggrieved adversely affected by determination [Paras 30-50].

Public Interest Litigation – Service Matters – PIL not maintainable in service matters except by writ of quo warranto – Dispute between employer and employee is private dispute kept out of PIL ambit – Concept of locus standi construed strictly in writ petitions to prevent misuse by intermeddlers – Locus standi diluted only in PIL for laudable causes relating to underprivileged sections who may be deprived of access to justice – Courts must maintain strict vigilance against abuse of process by meddlesome bystanders [Paras 34-40].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction – Writs issued in favour of person whose fundamental or legal rights violated by State – Existence of legal right is condition precedent for invoking writ jurisdiction – Legal right to be enforced must ordinarily be right of petitioner who complains of infraction and approaches court for relief – Court enforces performance of statutory duty by public body at behest of person having legal right to insist on such performance [Paras 32-36].

Condonation of Delay – Application for condonation of delay allowed – Delay of 63 days condoned – Delay explained on ground that employer institution should have filed appeal but failed to take proactive step during limitation period – Delay held unintentional and bonafide – Issue of delay separate from issue of locus standi [Paras 3-8].

Decision: Application seeking condonation of delay allowed – Application seeking leave to appeal dismissed – Special appeal held not maintainable at behest of appellant Niraj Kumar Singh for lack of locus standi – Court clarified it expressed no opinion on validity of appointment of writ petitioner/respondent – If employer chooses to challenge, present order will not come in its way – No order as to costs

Criminal Law — Attempt to Murder — Section 307 IPC — Sterling Witness — Injured Wife — Sole Testimony Sufficient — Appellant convicted for firing upon his wife Vimla Devi (PW-3) with a firearm within the matrimonial home causing multiple firearm injuries to her left leg and palm — Prosecution rested on sole testimony of injured wife — Held: The injured wife is a sterling witness; identification of her own husband as the assailant in their shared matrimonial home at midnight admits of no doubt; no question of misidentification arises — Her evidence is consistent, trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, statement of Investigating Officer and conduct of accused in not visiting wife at hospital — Quality of witness, not quantity, determines adequacy of evidence — Conviction affirmed [Paras 23–26, 48–51].

Evidence — Hostile Witness — Deposition Not Washed Out — PW-1 (Jethani of injured) turned hostile and resiled from her earlier statement recorded at Agra Hospital by the Investigating Officer — Held: Deposition of a hostile witness does not by itself wash out the entire evidence — Earlier statement recorded at Agra corroborated the prosecution version and was verified by Investigating Officer — Statement of hostile witness self-contradictory and not credible [Paras 15–17].

Evidence — Ocular versus Medical Evidence — Non-Recovery of Firearm — Absence of FSL Report — Minor discrepancies between ocular account of injured and medical evidence — Firearm not recovered — No Forensic Science Laboratory report — Held: Where ocular evidence is trustworthy, it is to be preferred over medical evidence; absence of ballistic expert report is not always fatal to prosecution case; non-recovery of firearm does not ipso facto discredit prosecution case — Minor discrepancies do not affect the basic prosecution case [Paras 31–37].

Motive — Immaterial in Cases of Direct Evidence — Appellant's demand for motorcycle as dowry, consistent maltreatment and illicit relations with other women established as background — Held: In cases based on direct evidence, motive is immaterial and its proof is not required; existence of motive in any event established from evidence of injured, father of injured and Investigating Officer [Paras 28–29].

Defence Evidence — Contradictory and Unreliable — DW-1 (accused's brother) deposed miscreants escaped from roof via ladder; DW-2 deposed they exited from the house — Mutually contradictory; defence version of miscreants entering and fleeing without taking any household articles not believable — Ladder found at spot had two broken steps rendering it impassable — I.O. confirmed presence of rumours and information pointing to accused — Defence evidence discarded [Paras 40–43].

Sentence — Accused on Bail Since 1985 — Age Approximately 60 Years — No prior criminal history — However, relationship between husband and wife not cordial; injuries permanent in nature leaving injured with a permanently ineffective leg; accused never visited injured in hospital or thereafter — Held: No ground to reduce sentence; seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 307 IPC affirmed [Paras 46–51].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence dated 20.02.1985/23.02.1985 affirmed — Bail of appellant cancelled; directed to surrender before trial court within fifteen days — CJM, Mainpuri directed to ensure arrest and lodging in jail on failure to surrender.

Contract Law – Government Contract – Delay in Performance – Extra Expenditure – Shared Responsibility – Plaintiff contracted for construction of MVIP Kuravilangad distributory; work delayed from agreed completion date of 07.10.2008 to actual completion on 31.07.2009 due to public agitation against blasting of rocks, Panchayat stop memo, police interference, and interim injunctions in OS 187/2008 and OS 231/2008 – Held: While plaintiff could not be wholly absolved of responsibility for delay, he could not be held solely responsible; defendants also failed to take any steps to ensure smooth execution of the work – On totality of facts, plaintiff entitled to one-half of extra expenditure assessed [Paras 8-9, 13].

Expert Report – Erroneous Calculation – Addition of Tender Excess to Market Rate – Expert assessed extra expenditure at market rates prevailing during 2008-09 but erroneously added 40% tender excess thereon; since the market rate already reflected the current period cost, addition of tender excess was impermissible – Decree of trial court based on such flawed calculation liable to modification [Para 10].

Supplemental Agreements – Execution Under Compulsion – Not Binding – Defendants relied on supplemental agreements wherein plaintiff undertook to carry out extended work at original contract rate – Trial court found that refusal to execute supplemental agreements would have resulted in termination of contract – Held: Agreements executed under compelling circumstances and threat of termination cannot be enforced to negate legitimate claims for additional expenditure incurred during extended period [Para 11].

Precedent Distinguished – General Manager, Northern Railway v. Sarvesh Chopra – Relied upon by defendants to contend contractor precluded from claiming enhanced rates after undertaking not to do so – Held: On facts of present case, pinning plaintiff to original 2004 schedule of rates for work completed during 2008-09 would be harsh and inequitable; judgment not applicable [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Decree of trial court set aside and modified – Plaintiff entitled to realise ₹24,53,677/- (comprising ₹20,09,108/- being one-half of extra expenditure and ₹4,44,569/- retained amount) with interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realisation – Plaintiff also entitled to proportionate costs throughout.