Taxation Law - Works Contract - Tax Deduction at Source - APVAT Act 2005 - Section 22 - Discharge of primary tax liability by contractor - Petitioner company engaged a registered works contractor for construction of a hotel and paid consideration without effecting TDS under Section 22 of APVAT Act 2005 - Revenue issued show cause notice and passed impugned demand order for TDS amounting to Rs.7908309 - Contractor had already discharged its entire tax liability by filing VAT returns and assessment order was passed by the jurisdictional officer - Petitioner challenged demand as arbitrary and amounting to impermissible double taxation - Revenue contended statutory obligation to deduct TDS was independent of contractor discharging liability - High Court held that TDS is merely a collection mechanism and not an independent tax liability - When principal tax liability is fully discharged tax authorities have no jurisdiction to recover TDS from deductor - Impugned demand set aside - Held - Writ petition allowed - [Paras 1-21].

Taxation Law - Recovery of TDS - APVAT Act 2005 - Section 22(3) - Pari materia with Income Tax Act 1961 - Sections 200 and 201 - Deduction of tax at source does not create an independent or additional tax liability distinct from the contractor's own liability - Deductor cannot be compelled to pay TDS when primary assessee has fully discharged tax liability - Collecting TDS amount where tax has already been paid and refunding it later is circular and devoid of purpose - Held - Revenue has no jurisdiction to recover tax twice over on the same works contract - [Paras 14-19].

Administrative Law - Non-application of mind - APVAT Act 2005 - Section 22 - Revenue ignored documentary proof showing full discharge of tax liability by contractor as well as arithmetical errors in computation - Tax administration cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise of raising demands in wholesale disregard of unrebutted material - Held - Impugned demand order is unsustainable and quashed - [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned demand order dated 22.09.2009 demanding TDS of Rs.79,08,309/- from the petitioner set aside – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Maintainability - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Sections 27 and 27A - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Alternative statutory remedy - Execution proceedings initiated against petitioner builder for non-compliance with District Forum order directing rectification and delivery of completion certificates - District Forum convicted petitioner under Section 255(2) CrPC for offence under Section 27 of 1986 Act and sentenced him to two years imprisonment with fine - State Commission in first appeal reduced sentence to six months - Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction contending statutory appeal under Section 27A was exhausted and that appeal abated due to non-substitution of deceased complainant legal heirs - Held - Hierarchical appellate structure under Section 27A(1)(b) allows appeal before National Commission against State Commission order - An aggrieved party cannot jettison statutory appeal framework or approach High Court under Article 226 without demonstrating exceptional circumstances - Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach National Commission - [Paras 1-22 and 30-32].

Civil Law - Abatement in Execution - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXII Rules 3 4 and 12 - Non-abatement of execution proceedings on death of decree holder - Complainant died during pendency of first appeal before State Commission - Petitioner builder argued that proceedings abated since legal heirs were not brought on record - Held - Order XXII Rule 12 CPC expressly excludes application of Rules 3 4 and 8 to execution proceedings - Execution petition remains pending for the benefit of decree holder and legal representatives can continue proceedings - First appeal arising out of execution application is in continuance of execution and does not abate on death of complainant - Alleged defaulter cannot use death of complainant to invalidate proceedings - [Paras 22-29].

Consumer Law - Appellate Hierarchy - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 27A - Statutory appeal mechanism - Section 27A envisages a structured hierarchy of appeals from District Forum to State Commission to National Commission and to Supreme Court - Disposal of appeal by State Commission does not divest National Commission of its appellate jurisdiction - Aggrieved party who failed to comply with orders cannot claim remedy under Section 27A is exhausted to bypass statutory forum - [Paras 12-21].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach National Commission by 31.08.2026 – Sentence of imprisonment of six months suspended till 01.09.2026 subject to further orders of National Commission – Fine of Rs.10,000/- sustained.

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958 - Rule 16 - Imposition of penalty based on ministerial interference - Petitioner charged for not inviting a local M.L.A. to an inauguration - Departmental authorities after inquiry recorded that the lapse was unintentional and proposed dropping proceedings - Penalty was subsequently imposed solely on the basis of a remark by the Hon’ble Minister without any independent application of mind by the competent disciplinary authority - Held - Penalty order is arbitrary and unsustainable as it ignores departmental exoneration and succumbs to extraneous influence - Writ petition allowed and penalty order quashed - [Paras 3-17].

Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958 - Rule 16 - Scope of Ministerial interference - Competent authority initially proposed to drop charges after finding petitioner not guilty - Impugned order issued only after ministerial remark contrary to findings of the departmental note-sheets - Held - Disciplinary authority must act independently and cannot be dictated by political executives to impose penalties where the inquiry has cleared the delinquent employee - [Paras 7-15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Penalty order dated 27/06/2023 quashed and set aside – Respondents directed to accord all consequential benefits to the petitioner within six weeks.

Service Law - Promotional Scale - Constitution of India 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Grant of 23 years promotional scale - Petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk on 29.08.1980 and retired on superannuation on 31.01.2010 - Claimed entitlement to 23 years promotional scale w.e.f. 29.08.2003 - Approached Court for the first time in 2022 via CWP No. 19357 of 2022 which was disposed of with directions to consider claim - Empowered Committee rejected claim vide order dated 11.06.2026 on grounds of failure to pass departmental exams and being already placed in higher pay scale after time bound promotional scales - Challenged rejection order and prospective application of circular dated 01.10.2018 - High Court observed claim was raised after unexplained delay of 19 years from accrual of cause of action and 12 years from superannuation - Held - subsequent consideration and rejection pursuant to court direction cannot revive a stale claim or extend limitation - petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25000 - [Paras 1-14].

Writ Law - Delay and Laches - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Discretionary relief - Belated claim by retired employee - Direction to consider representation does not constitute adjudication on merits nor does it furnish a fresh cause of action to resurrect a dead claim - Equality under Article 14 cannot be claimed belatedly - Law assists only the alert and vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights - Held - unexplained and inordinate delay of 19 years in claiming service benefits after retirement disentitles petitioner to discretionary relief under Article 226 - [Paras 7-13].

Service Law - Retrospectivity of Circular - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 14 - Employer policy - Prospective operation of circular dated 01.10.2018 granting relaxation for promotional increments - Settled law that circulars or regulations are presumed prospective unless specifically made retrospective by express provision or necessary implication - Financial implications are relevant for government policy decisions - Held - employer possesses discretion to make circular prospective and retired employee cannot claim retrospective application as of right - [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund within two months, failing which the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala is directed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue.

Service Law - Mandamus for payment of salary - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Appointment validity and entitlement to salary from public exchequer - Petitioners filed writ petition in 2005 seeking payment of arrears and regular salary as Principal and Assistant Teachers in a recognized and aided Sanskrit Pathshala - Interim order granted in 2005 directing payment of salary pending writ petition - Petitioner No 1 claimed appointment as Principal on 08 07 1992 through an amendment moved after 16 years altering the originally pleaded date of 08 07 1989 - Original appointment order not produced before the Court - University had refused approval on 05 10 1993 and directed fresh selection which was never conducted - Petitioner was allegedly underage and lacked requisite educational qualifications at the time of initial appointment made during his father's tenure as Manager - Intervening litigations with rival claimant and inquiry reports relied upon by petitioners - High Court held that mandamus for salary from State exchequer cannot be claimed merely on basis of prolonged continuance or discharge of duties unless appointment is proven to be made in accordance with statutory rules - Interim payment of salary creates no vested right - Dismissal of rival claimant's challenge does not validate petitioner's appointment - Held - Petitioners failed to establish the foundational legality of the appointment and essential legal right - Writ petition dismissed and interim order merged in final order - [Paras 1-96].

Service Law - Long continuance in service - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Defective or unauthorized appointment - Petitioner claimed entitlement to regular salary from State exchequer based on 32 years of service and administrative recognition - Held - Length of service cannot substitute statutory requirements of a valid appointment made under prescribed procedure - Doctrine of long continuance cannot be invoked to compel State to pay salary from public funds where foundational legality of appointment remains unestablished - Sympathy or long continuance does not confer legality upon an appointment lacking statutory approval - [Paras 57-67, 83-85].

Service Law - Effect of interim order - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Payment of salary under interim direction - Petitioners received salary pursuant to interim order passed in 2005 - Held - An interim order passed at an initial stage does not amount to final adjudication on legality of appointment nor confers any substantive or vested right upon a person whose appointment lacks foundational legality - Payments made under interim orders are subject to final outcome of proceedings and do not create estoppel against the State - [Paras 26, 79-82, 92, 95].

Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Existence of legal right and public duty - Petitioners sought writ of mandamus for release of salary from public exchequer - Foundational appointment order withheld - Subsequent disapproval by University not cured through fresh selection - Inconsistency in date of appointment materially affecting qualification and eligibility - Held - Mandamus lies only upon establishing an existing legal right and a corresponding public duty - Mere administrative communications or favorable inquiry reports cannot override statutory non-compliance or cure initial lack of approval - Petitioners failed to establish legal entitlement - [Paras 61, 84, 91, 93].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Interim order dated 08.02.2005 stands merged in the final order and creates no independent or vested right – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 61(2) 316(2) 318(4) 336(3) 338 and 340(2) - Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act 1999 - Section 5 - Petitioner-accused No.3 husband of proprietor accused No.1 sought quashing of FIR on the ground that dispute was purely civil and commercial arising from investment and profit-sharing in uniform business - Anticipatory bail applications filed earlier by petitioner were dismissed by Sessions Court and High Court - Complaint and investigation revealed petitioner and co-accused created fabricated purchase orders and fake vendor firms inducing complainant to transfer Rs.73 Crores which was siphoned into personal and allied firm accounts - Total fraud exceeded Rs.100 Crores across 40 victims with multiple criminal cases pending against petitioner - Accused persons executed signed declaration acknowledging fabrication of work orders - Investigation was under progress - High Court held specific allegations disclose active role criminal conspiracy and prima facie cognizable offences - Petition not falling under rarest of rare cases for quashing - Held - Criminal petition dismissed - [Paras 1-8 15 17-24].

Criminal Law - Cheating and Breach of Trust vs Civil Dispute - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 316(2) and 318(4) - Distinction between pure breach of contract and criminal offence with dishonest intention at inception - Petitioner contended transaction was commercial financing not attracting criminal liability - High Court distinguished precedents where initial dishonest intention was absent - Record established accused induced investments based on fabricated work orders and forged invoices with intention to defraud from inception - Held - Allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences under BNS and cannot be termed a mere civil dispute - [Paras 9-15 22].

Criminal Law - Corporate and Personal Criminal Liability - Vicarious Liability - Mens Rea - Petitioner contended criminal law does not recognize vicarious liability merely on account of being husband of prime accused - High Court held petitioner not prosecuted merely due to relationship but on specific allegations of actively participating in business inducement creating fake entities and receiving diverted funds into his firms and personal account - Principle barring vicarious liability inapplicable when individual personally perpetrates offences with requisite mens rea - Held - Specific overt acts and active role sufficient to maintain prosecution - [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law - Scope of Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - High Court exercising quashing jurisdiction cannot act as trial or appellate court by appreciating evidence - Police have statutory power to investigate cognizable offences - Court must apply tests whether allegations taken at face value constitute an offence and are not inherently improbable - High Court held FIR cannot be scuttled at nascent stage when cognizable offences are prima facie established - Held - Quashing declined - [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS not exercised – FIR No.104 of 2025 maintained – Miscellaneous applications closed.

Service Law - Post-Retirement Medical Benefits - Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS) Medical Attendance Rules 2009 - Rule 8 - Respondent-employee resigned after serving for 28 years and sought post-retirement medical facilities - Appellant-employer denied the benefit citing an Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2010 deleting the word resignation from Rule 8.4 - Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed extension of medical facilities holding the deletion unauthorised - Division Bench upheld the Single Judge view finding that the Managing Director alone lacked competence to amend the rules without approval of the Governing Council or Executive Committee - Held - respondent entitled to post-retirement medical facilities as the resignation occurred prior to any valid amendment by the competent authority - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-40].

Administrative Law - Rule-Making Power - Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS) Rules and Bye-laws - Competent Authority - Alteration of service conditions and medical rules requiring approval of the Governing Council on recommendation of the Executive Committee - Unilateral deletion of resignation clause from medical rules approved solely by Managing Director - Held - such executive instruction by-passing statutory procedure is void and unenforceable - [Paras 23-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge affirmed – No order as to costs.

Election Law - Rejection of Election Petition - Representation of the People Act 1951 - Sections 83, 86, 87, 100(1)(d)(iv) and Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(a) - Non-disclosure of cause of action - Petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate alleging non-issuance of statutory notification under Section 61A for using EVMs - Non-compliance with Rule 49B of Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 - Commission of corrupt practice under Section 123(7) due to post-election refusal of RTI information - Improper addition of 2943 voters in supplementary voter list - Returned candidate filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of petition for failure to disclose material facts and cause of action - High Court found Section 61A mandates specification not notification and press note issuance was sufficient compliance - Allegations regarding EVM non-compliance and voter list additions were bald assertions lacking material particulars without demonstrating that the election result was materially affected - Non-furnishing of RTI information post-declaration of results did not constitute corrupt practice under Section 123(7) - Held - In absence of material facts and particulars showing election result was materially affected the petition fails to disclose any cause of action - Election Petition rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - [Paras 1-33].

Election Law - Voting Machines - Representation of the People Act 1951 - Section 61A - Specification versus Notification - Petitioner contended that absent a specific notification under Section 61A voting by EVM was void - Held - A plain reading of Section 61A does not mandate issuance of any notification - The provision only requires the Election Commission to specify that giving and recording of votes would be by voting machines - Issuance of press note setting out election program constitutes sufficient compliance with Section 61A - [Paras 16-21].

Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Representation of the People Act 1951 - Section 123(7) - Assistance of government servants - Non-supply of information under RTI Act - Application for information under RTI Act filed after declaration of election results was rejected - Petitioner alleged corrupt practice for furthering prospects of returned candidate - Held - The essence of corrupt practice under Section 123(7) is procuring assistance during election process for furtherance of candidate prospects - Non-supply of information under RTI Act after declaration of election results cannot constitute assistance for furthering election prospects of returned candidate - Pleading fails to establish cause of action - [Paras 25-26].

Election Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Representation of the People Act 1951 - Sections 83 and 100(1)(d) - Material facts and particulars - Vague and omnibus pleadings regarding EVM handling and supplementary voter lists - Held - It is not merely non-compliance with rules or addition of voters that invalidates an election - Petition must plead concise material facts demonstrating how non-compliance or improper reception of votes materially affected the result of the returned candidate - In absence of specific material particulars returned candidate cannot be subjected to agony of trial - [Paras 22-31].

Decision: Application allowed – Election Petition rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for non-disclosure of cause of action – Resultantly Election Petition dismissed.

Writ Law - Unauthorized Construction Regularization - Control of Building Operations Act 1988 - Section 7 - J&K Unified Building Bye-Laws 2021 - Appendix D - Quantum of Compounding Fee - Petitioner granted building permission for basement and three floors raised construction with excess area within the plot envelop - Demolition notice issued under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1988 - Special Tribunal regularized the excess construction subject to payment of five times the compounding fee prescribed under Appendix D Part B.B. of UBBL 2021 - Petitioner challenged the imposition of five times compounding fee before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution - Housing and Urban Development Department issued Government Order No. 157-JK(HUD) of 2026 prescribing Uniform Building Permission Fee Schedule during pendency of petition - Held - direction requiring petitioner to deposit five times the prescribed compounding fee cannot be sustained - impugned order modified directing payment of compounding and regularization charges in terms of Government Order No. 157-JK(HUD) of 2026 - [Paras 1-11].

Municipal Law - Building Regulations - Jammu and Kashmir Unified Building Bye-Laws 2021 - Appendix D Part B.B. - Government Order No. 157-JK(HUD) of 2026 - Compounding charges - Supersession of previous notifications and schedules by uniform government notification - Held - competent authority directed to take consequential steps for regularization of commercial construction in accordance with law upon payment of applicable charges under the revised uniform fee schedule - [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Impugned order of the Special Tribunal modified – Petitioner directed to pay compounding and regularization charges as per Government Order No. 157-JK(HUD) of 2026.