Administrative Law – Suspension of Contractor’s Registration – Opportunity of Hearing Required – The petitioner challenged the suspension of his contractor registration with the MPPWD for a period of two years, arguing that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the suspension – Held: The suspension of registration for non-completion of work requires a separate show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing – The impugned order of suspension is unsustainable in law as no such opportunity was granted – Petition allowed, suspension order quashed [Paras 8-12].

Blacklisting or Suspension – Procedural Safeguards – Guidelines – The court referred to the Circular dated 24/03/2015 of the MPPWD and observed that before blacklisting or suspending a contractor’s registration, the competent authority must issue a show-cause notice and consider the seriousness of the alleged conduct – The procedural safeguards were not adhered to in the present case, rendering the suspension order void [Paras 9-12].

Debarment and Blacklisting – Harm to Public Interest and Contractor’s Rights – The court emphasized that blacklisting or suspension should only be invoked in serious cases affecting public interest and should not be readily imposed for ordinary breaches of contract where there is a bona fide dispute – Citing The Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2024), the court highlighted the severe consequences of debarment on a contractor’s ability to engage in future contracts [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed – The suspension order dated 03/02/2022 is quashed – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Civil Procedure – Executability of Decree – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – The petitioner challenged the execution of an ex-parte decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, arguing that the suit value of ₹9,00,000 exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction of ₹5,00,000, rendering the decree null and void – Held: A decree passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is not inherently void but voidable, and objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial or appellate court – The objection cannot be raised in execution proceedings [Paras 13-14].

Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Waiver and Estoppel – The court noted that no objection to pecuniary jurisdiction was raised by the judgment debtor during the trial or in appeal, despite the transfer of the case from the Senior Division to the Junior Division – Failure to raise such an objection earlier precludes it from being raised during execution – The decree is valid and executable as no failure of justice occurred [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The trial court’s decision to proceed with execution is upheld, as the objection to pecuniary jurisdiction is not permissible in execution proceedings [Para 15].

Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – The petition challenged the mutation of respondents' names in revenue records based on a will purportedly executed by Late Smt. Pyari Bai – Held: Revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate the genuineness of wills in mutation proceedings – Mutation orders based on unverified wills must be set aside, and such disputes must be resolved through civil court proceedings – Order of SDO restoring the petitioner’s name upheld, mutation by Tehsildar and Additional Commissioner quashed [Paras 1-3, 10, 17].

Wills – Requirement of Proof – Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – The will must be proved in a court of law before it can be relied upon in mutation proceedings – The genuineness of a will, especially when challenged, cannot be decided summarily by revenue authorities but must be adjudicated through civil litigation – Will execution must be proven through attesting witnesses, and suspicious circumstances must be satisfactorily addressed by the propounder [Paras 10-17].

Civil Law – Adjudication of Title – Competence of Civil Courts – The court reiterated that issues concerning title, including those based on wills, must be resolved by competent civil courts, not by revenue authorities – Revenue entries serve only fiscal purposes and do not confer or extinguish title – The petitioners were advised to seek remedy by filing a civil suit for declaration of title if desired [Paras 6, 10-17].

Decision: The petition is allowed – The orders of the Tehsildar and Additional Commissioner are quashed – The order of the SDO is restored, and the petitioner’s name is reinstated in the revenue records – Respondents are granted liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title, if desired – The mutation entry will be subject to the outcome of the civil litigation [Paras 18].

Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay – Administrative Lapses – The State sought condonation of a delay of 1679 days (4 years and 7 months) in filing a review petition – Court held: The State's reasons, including reliance on administrative procedures, COVID-19 pandemic, and rainfall in Kolhapur, were insufficient to explain the inordinate delay – Mere procedural formalities and bureaucratic inertia do not constitute "sufficient cause" under the law of limitation [Paras 6-9].

Review Petition – Change in Law – Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – The primary ground for review was the subsequent overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Solanki by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal – Court held: Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 bars review on the basis of a subsequent change in law – The review petition was therefore not maintainable even if the delay were condoned [Paras 11-14].

Finality of Proceedings – Judicial Efficiency – The Court emphasized that allowing review petitions based on changes in legal interpretation would undermine the finality of judgments and open a floodgate of litigation, disturbing settled rights – The principle of finality of judgments was upheld [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Review petition and all associated interim applications dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 19].
 

Service Law – Promotion – Notional Promotion on Acquittal – The petitioner sought notional promotion after his juniors were promoted in 2008 – His promotion was denied due to two pending charge-sheets and a criminal case, which were later dropped and resulted in acquittal – Held: The petitioner’s case for promotion should have been considered after his acquittal and dropping of the charges – The petitioner is entitled to notional promotion to the post of Senior Branch Officer with all consequential benefits [Paras 7-10].

Retiral Dues – Interest on Delayed Payment – The petitioner retired in 2012, but his retiral dues were delayed due to pending charge-sheets and criminal proceedings, which were eventually dropped – Held: The petitioner is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues from 01.10.2012, three months after his retirement, until actual payment [Paras 11-13].

Decision:  Writ petition allowed – The respondent directed to consider the petitioner’s case for notional promotion to the post of Senior Branch Officer with all consequential benefits – Interest at 6% per annum on delayed retiral dues to be paid from 01.10.2012 till the date of actual payment – Compliance to be made within three months [Para 14].
 

Motor Accident – Compensation – Appellants, wife and children of the deceased, challenged the compensation awarded by the Tribunal – The deceased died due to injuries sustained in a two-wheeler accident – The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident was self-inflicted and the insurance company was not liable – Held: The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the dismissal based on the delay in lodging the FIR and non-examination of the informant was incorrect – The appellants were awarded compensation [Paras 1-10].

Quantum of Compensation – The Court fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- in the absence of proof – Applying the Sarla Verma multiplier of 14 and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the Court awarded Rs.6,72,000/- for loss of dependency, along with amounts for loss of consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses – Total compensation awarded: Rs.8,32,000/- [Paras 11-15].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Compensation of Rs.8,32,000/- awarded with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition – The Insurance Company directed to deposit the compensation within four weeks.

Criminal Law – Murder or Culpable Homicide – Section 300 IPC – Conviction Modified – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for pouring acid on the deceased during a quarrel, leading to her death over a month later due to infection – The court observed that the incident occurred without premeditation, in the heat of passion, during a sudden quarrel – Held: The case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which reduces the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC – Conviction altered accordingly [Paras 9.1-9.3, 10].

Conviction Reduced – Sentence Commuted – The court considered the facts, including the absence of prior enmity or premeditation, and the time gap between the injury and death – The appellant's sentence was reduced to the period already served (13 years), which was deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to time served – Appellant to be released upon payment of the fine imposed by the trial court [Paras 14-15].

Civil Law - MACT - Power of Review – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Tribunal Lacks Power of Review – The Tribunal recalled its award and ordered recovery from the owner of the vehicle based on newly presented evidence – The Court held that the Tribunal has no inherent power of review under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and cannot review its orders unless there is fraud or misrepresentation – The application for review filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not maintainable as the Tribunal is not a Civil Court [Paras 13, 32-36].

Fitness Certificate – Deemed Valid for New Vehicles – Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Tribunal Erroneous in Ordering Recovery – The Tribunal's order to recover compensation from the vehicle owner based on the absence of a fitness certificate was erroneous – The Court held that under Rule 62, a newly registered vehicle is deemed to have a fitness certificate for two years from the date of registration – Since the vehicle was newly registered and the accident occurred within two years, the vehicle was deemed fit, and recovery from the owner was improper [Paras 37-38].

Decision:

The appeal is allowed, and the Tribunal's award dated 28.05.2020 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1042 of 2017 is set aside to the extent it orders the Insurance Company to recover compensation from the appellant-owner.

Election Law – False Affidavits – Misjoinder of Parties – The petitioner sought to annul the election of respondent No.1 and other candidates on grounds of submitting false affidavits with discrepancies in income and asset details – The court found no discrepancies in the affidavits filed by respondents No.1 and 2, who are husband and wife – Further, respondent No.2 was neither a contesting nor returned candidate, making her inclusion in the petition a misjoinder of parties, as per Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Paras 7-10, 12].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Frivolous Petitions – The court applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the election petition at the threshold – Held: The petition lacked any cause of action, and none of the reliefs sought by the petitioner could be granted as per law – The court emphasized that frivolous litigation should be curtailed early to prevent wastage of judicial resources [Paras 14-18].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The election petition was dismissed as it failed to disclose a cause of action and contained misjoinder of parties – The court rejected the plea for voiding the election and declaring the petitioner as the elected candidate [Para 19].