Civil Writ – Labour Law - Principles of Natural Justice – Failure to Supply Interim Reports – The petitioner challenged the impugned order, arguing that it was passed without providing copies of interim reports prepared by the Social Security Officer, which were relied upon by the respondent – Held: The failure to supply the interim reports and not providing an opportunity to respond to them amounted to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside on this ground [Paras 4, 10, 11].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternate Remedies – The respondent argued that the petitioner should have availed statutory remedies under Sections 45AA and 75 of the ESI Act – Held: While alternate remedies exist, the violation of principles of natural justice permits the High Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226, as established in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 [Paras 5, 14].

Remand for Fresh Consideration – The Court remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh disposal, directing that copies of the interim reports be provided to the petitioner and an opportunity to respond be given before passing a fresh order [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29th December 2023 is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the ESIC for fresh adjudication after providing the petitioner with copies of the interim reports and an opportunity to present their case [Paras 15, 16].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Writ petition challenging reassessment based on an admitted error in filing – Petitioner made a mistake in the tax declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, which led to a reassessment notice – The mistake was flagged to the authorities, including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), but the mistake was not corrected, and reassessment proceedings were initiated – Court finds no escaped income warranting reassessment – Held: Reassessment order set aside and quashed as it was based on a mistake [Paras 1-6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Respondent’s counsel contended that the order was appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence, the writ petition was not maintainable – Without prejudice, it was argued that the writ petition did not warrant interference – Court exercised extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the reassessment order due to clear error in assessment [Paras 4, 6].

Voluntary Disclosure Scheme – Erroneous Tax Declaration – Petitioner-assessee had mistakenly shown a tax installment paid under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme as tax paid under regular return filing – Court finds that the mistake was acknowledged by the Assessing Officer (AO), yet it was not properly addressed in the reassessment order – Held: The reassessment order failed to recognize the error and the corresponding communication, warranting quashing [Paras 2, 5-6].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Reassessment order for AY 2017-18 quashed – Petitioner discharged from liability arising from the mistaken reassessment [Paras 6-7].

Service Law – Seniority List – Promotion – Writ petition challenging the revised seniority list dated 14.3.2022, which placed the petitioner at a lower rank and affected his promotion prospects – Petitioner contended that his service should be reckoned from his date of regularization in 1998, not from his initial appointment in 1997, which was on a consolidated pay during the training period – Held: The seniority list based on the petitioner's 1997 appointment is valid, as the training period is considered a prerequisite for regularization – No illegality found in the seniority list or subsequent promotion of private respondents – Petitioner's claim for seniority from 1998 is unsustainable [Paras 9-19].

Date of Appointment – Regularization – Training Period – Petitioner argued that his initial appointment in 1997 was adhoc and his regular service began in 1998 – Court observed that regularization involves a prior period of service, and the training period in 1997 was a prerequisite for regularization in 1998 – The initial appointment in 1997 cannot be disregarded for seniority purposes – Held: Seniority should be calculated from the date of initial appointment in 1997, not from regularization in 1998 [Paras 13-16].

Adhoc Appointment – Applicability of Apex Court Ruling – Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of U.P., which distinguished between adhoc and regular appointments – Court distinguished the facts, noting that the petitioner's 1997 appointment was not adhoc but part of a regular process leading to his regularization – The judgment cited by the petitioner is inapplicable [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No illegality in the seniority list prepared by the fifth respondent or the promotions granted to private respondents – No costs [Paras 20-21].
 

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Application for Anticipatory Bail Post-Cancellation of Bail – Maintainability Challenged – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after the addition of a graver offence (Section 376 I.P.C.) during investigation. The State challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner should have either surrendered and sought regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. or filed a revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. after the bail was cancelled. Held: Once the accused participated in the proceedings, contested the cancellation, and suffered an adverse order, a subsequent application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The correct remedy would be to seek revision of the cancellation order [Paras 1, 2, 30, 31]. 

Cancellation of Bail – Addition of Graver Offence – Section 376 I.P.C. – The victim's complaint initially led to registration of a case under Sections 341, 417, 506, and 509 I.P.C. Subsequently, based on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecution sought to add Section 376 I.P.C. The trial court cancelled the petitioner’s bail after adding this graver non-bailable section – Held: Addition of a graver offence post-grant of bail requires the accused to either surrender and seek bail for the newly added offence or challenge the cancellation in revision. Filing an anticipatory bail application post-cancellation is not permissible [Paras 13, 30, 31]. 

Anticipatory Bail – Liberal Interpretation – Article 21 of the Constitution – The petitioner argued that anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted liberally in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, as held in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab – Held: While anticipatory bail protects personal liberty, it cannot be used as a recourse after bail cancellation following a contested hearing [Paras 9, 10, 26]. 

Procedure Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that any application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must comply with the procedure under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. The magistrate must ensure that the procedure is followed before directing investigation [Paras 7, 8]. 

Decision – The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not maintainable, as the petitioner had participated in the cancellation hearing and failed to seek anticipatory bail prior to the cancellation order. The petitioner is at liberty to seek other appropriate remedies in law [Paras 30, 31, 32]. 

Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Prayer for Further Investigation – Alleged Death by Burn Injuries – Dismissal of Application Challenged – The petitioner sought further investigation into the death of his niece, alleging that her husband (the accused) made a video call to a relative instead of rescuing her while she was ablaze – Investigation was initially directed under Section 304B I.P.C., but the court found Section 304B inapplicable as the death occurred after seven years of marriage – The Investigating Officer did not include charges under Section 302 I.P.C. despite the petitioner’s requests – The Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s application for further investigation – Held: The Court found that further investigation would not serve any fruitful purpose as the Investigating Officer was already permitted to continue investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and would file a supplementary charge sheet if necessary [Paras 1, 9]. 

Witness Statements – Conflicting Testimonies – Victim's Statement to Doctor Contradictory – The petitioner alleged that the accused’s conduct during the incident indicated his guilt, while the Investigating Officer relied on statements from doctors and witnesses suggesting the victim set herself ablaze due to marital discord – The attending doctor stated that the victim claimed to have set herself on fire, while other evidence suggested foul play – Held: Discrepancies in witness testimonies do not necessitate further investigation at this stage, but the trial court may consider invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine witnesses if needed during trial [Paras 6, 7, 8]. 

Consideration of Section 302 I.P.C. during Trial – Although the investigating agency did not add Section 302 I.P.C. in the charge sheet, the trial court is expected to consider all charges, including Section 302 I.P.C., based on the evidence produced during the trial – Held: The trial court shall be at liberty to amend charges if relevant evidence of murder surfaces [Para 10]. 

Decision – Criminal revision application dismissed – Further investigation not required as the Investigating Officer was allowed to continue the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – The trial court shall consider the applicability of Section 302 I.P.C. during the trial, and summon additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if necessary [Paras 9, 10, 11]. 

Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute Presented as Criminal Case – Sections 406 and 420 IPC – Petitioner alleged that the FIR registered by the complainant, claiming non-repayment of ₹70,00,000 lent as a loan, is a civil dispute being framed as a criminal offence – Petitioner contended that the FIR does not disclose fraudulent intent or breach of trust and that the complaint is aimed at recovering a time-barred loan through criminal means – Court held: The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, concerning non-repayment of a loan amount, which does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating without fraudulent inducement – FIR quashed [Paras 4-6, 14-18].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406 IPC – No Entrustment of Money – The law distinguishes between simple advancement of money and entrustment of money – Court held: In a loan transaction, there is no "entrustment" of money; therefore, no criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC is made out in the absence of such entrustment, even if the petitioner fails to repay the loan [Para 10-11].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – No Fraudulent Inducement – For an offence under Section 420 IPC, fraudulent inducement and mens rea must be present from the beginning of the transaction – Court held: The mere inability of the petitioner to repay the loan amount does not give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent intent can be demonstrated from the outset – No such fraudulent intent was evident in this case [Para 12-13].

Decision: FIR quashed – The court found that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings initiated were a misuse of the legal process, as the matter was purely civil in nature – Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 76/2018, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed [Paras 18-19].
 

Contractual Matters – Tender Process – Judicial Review – Petitioner challenges the award of contract for supply of Liquid Medical Oxygen (LMO) to respondent No.5, alleging that PGIMER unlawfully relaxed eligibility criteria for respondent No.5 – Respondent No.5, a startup MSME, was allowed relaxation of experience and financial turnover requirements as per General Financial Rules (GFR) 2017 and Government of India instructions – Court holds that relaxation was justified under public procurement rules for startups and there was no mala fide intention or arbitrariness – Financial savings to PGIMER and absence of disruption in oxygen supply were emphasized as factors in the decision-making process [Paras 21–22, 24–32].

Tender Relaxation for Startups – Exemption Clauses – The tender floated by PGIMER inadvertently excluded provisions for MSME startups, but exemption granted to respondent No.5 was consistent with GFR 2017 and prior government directives – Court noted that PGIMER’s technical committee evaluated respondent No.5's capacity to supply LMO and found no procedural malfeasance in the grant of relaxation – The bid from respondent No.5 resulted in substantial cost savings and maintained uninterrupted oxygen supply to PGIMER [Paras 25–26, 32–33].

Scope of Judicial Review – Limited Interference – Court reaffirms that in contractual matters, judicial review should focus on whether the process is arbitrary, biased, or mala fide – In this case, the decision to grant relaxation to respondent No.5 was based on public interest and conformed to legal norms – Interference is unwarranted as the decision-making process was transparent, and no fundamental rights were violated – Reliance on judgments clarifying that minor deviations in the tender process do not justify judicial intervention in the absence of mala fide intent [Paras 26–30].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court upholds PGIMER's decision to award contract to respondent No.5, stating that the process complied with the law and served the public interest – Minor procedural errors were found to be non-prejudicial and did not warrant judicial interference [Paras 32–35].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Scope of Court’s Discretion – Amendment Necessary for Proper Adjudication – The plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to add a prayer for possession after alleging that the defendants constructed shops and rooms on the suit property during the pendency of the suit for injunction. The Court held that at the stage of allowing an amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Court is not required to adjudicate on the correctness of the claims proposed to be added. The amendment was held necessary for determining the real controversy and to avoid multiplicity of litigation – Amendment upheld [Paras 5-7].

Effect of Amendment – No Prejudgment on Merits – Trial to Consider Evidence and Arguments – Allowing the amendment does not mean the Court has accepted the plaintiffs’ claims as true. The defendant’s rights remain protected, and they may file an amended written statement. The final determination will occur after considering the evidence during trial – No prejudice caused to defendants [Para 6].

Decision: Petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – CBI filed an appeal against the acquittal of accused Rakesh Kumar and Ravi Shankar by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patiala – Accused were charged under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC for involvement in a conspiracy to defraud the State Bank of India – CBI argued that the trial court had misappreciated evidence – High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, finding no evidence directly implicating Rakesh Kumar or Ravi Shankar in the fraudulent withdrawals or forgery [Paras 1-3, 13-14, 26-30].

Criminal Conspiracy – Forged Bank Accounts and Drafts – Accused were part of a conspiracy to open fictitious accounts and deposit forged demand drafts in Punjab National Bank to withdraw ₹55,25,784.20 – Convict Surjit Singh admitted in his disclosure statement to opening fake accounts under fictitious names, leading to the withdrawal of fraudulent money – Various recoveries of cash, drafts, and valuables were made pursuant to his disclosure [Paras 6-7, 21-22, 25].

Witness Testimony – Handwriting Evidence – Signatures on bank documents were compared with specimen signatures of the accused – The court noted that since the accounts were opened under fictitious names, the handwriting evidence had limited probative value – Despite this, the withdrawal of funds and recoveries substantiated the charges against Surjit Singh and others involved in the conspiracy [Paras 16-19].

Disclosure Statements – Incriminating Evidence – Convicts, including Surjit Singh, made detailed disclosure statements about the distribution of fraudulent funds and the purchase of assets like land, vehicles, and gold – Recovery memos corroborated these statements, strengthening the case against the accused who admitted to their involvement [Paras 21-22, 25].

Acquittal of Co-accused – Rakesh Kumar and Ravi Shankar – Rakesh Kumar, nephew of co-accused Ram Pal, had an Ambassador car recovered in his name, but no evidence showed his knowledge of the fraud – Ravi Shankar, allegedly involved in preparing fake demand drafts, had no incriminating recovery made against him – High Court found no direct evidence linking either to the crime, affirming their acquittal [Paras 26-29].

Decision – Appeal (CRA-S-643-SBA-1998) dismissed – Acquittal of Rakesh Kumar and Ravi Shankar affirmed – Conviction of Surjit Singh upheld in the connected revision petition (CRR-1410-2005) – High Court directed the execution of the sentence against Surjit Singh if he was on bail [Paras 30-32].