Public Works Contract – PMGSY – Price Variation/Escalation – Closure of Designated Quarry – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Petitioner awarded PMGSY road work on the basis of NIT and estimates showing Kupari Quarry as lead source for minor minerals – Kupari Quarry stood closed by NGT order prior to tender but fact not disclosed in NIT – Contractor compelled to procure minerals from alternative quarry about 80 km away – Representation seeking price variation rejected relying on Clause 13.4 of Standard Bidding Document – Held: Clause 13.4 in the governing NIT restricts only “rate of sand prices” and not other minor minerals – Reliance on generic Standard Bidding Document impermissible when specific NIT formed part of agreement – Rejection order based on misreading of contract terms and non-application of variation clause – Decision and order dated 09.06.2022 set aside – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 6–9].

Tender Conditions – Interpretation – Specific NIT vs. Standard Bidding Document – Opposite parties contended Clause 13.4 bars any price adjustment – Court held that governing document is the NIT forming part of executed agreement – Expression “rate sand prices” consciously used in Clauses 13.2 and 13.4 of NIT – No pleading or corrigendum to show typographical error – Standard Bidding Document only “similar to” NIT and cannot override specific contractual terms – Contra proferentem rule applied against employer as author of tender – Restriction confined to sand alone [Paras 7.2–7.15].

Price Variation – Clause 35 & 36 of General Conditions of Contract – Applicability – Variation clause empowers Engineer to order and compensate variations within scope of work – Closure of designated quarry constituted supervening circumstance beyond contractor’s control – Additional transportation distance directly attributable to employer’s failure to disclose non-operational quarry – Absolute prohibition on variation not contemplated under contract – Committee failed to consider Clause 35 while rejecting claim – Non-consideration vitiates decision [Paras 8–8.4].

Estimation and Quarry Lead – OPWD Code – Employer’s Obligation – OPWD Code mandates approved quarry lead to be provided in estimates – Detailed estimate and lead statement showed Kupari Quarry as source with carriage and royalty factored in – Employer aware of NGT restraint yet retained Kupari Quarry in estimates – Misrepresentation established – Employer cannot shift burden to contractor under site visit clause [Paras 8.5–8.7].

Doctrine of Impossibility – Lex non cogit ad impossibilia – Contractor could not be compelled to perform work on quoted rates when procurement from designated quarry became impossible due to legal restraint – Escalation caused by circumstances beyond contractor’s control – Law does not compel performance of impossibility – Equitable adjustment warranted [Paras 8.8–8.10].

Administrative Decision-Making – Arbitrariness – Non-Application of Mind – Committee and Superintending Engineer relied mechanically on Clause 13.4 without examining governing NIT, variation clause, OPWD Code, or factual matrix – Decision held irrational and legally unsustainable – Judicial interference justified [Paras 9–9.3].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Decision of Committee dated 09.06.2022 and Order of Superintending Engineer dated 09.06.2022 set aside – Superintending Engineer directed to reconsider petitioner’s representation dated 11.01.2022 afresh in light of Court’s observations and variation clause – Fresh decision to be communicated within six weeks – No order as to costs.

Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Allegation of Loan Transaction – Dismissal of Second Appeal – Defendant contended that agreement of sale dated 13.08.2004 was fabricated and intended only as security for loan – No contemporaneous complaint or reply to legal notice disputing execution – Silence of defendant for years held fatal – Held: Findings of trial court and first appellate court based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity warranting interference [Paras 4–14].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Scope – Questions raised relating to alleged loan transaction, family property and sister’s share – Concurrent findings of fact against defendant – No substantial question of law arising – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9–14].

Specific Performance – Family Property – Agreement Executed by One Co-sharer – Defendant failed to establish that suit property could not be subject matter of agreement of sale – Mere plea of sister’s share without supporting evidence insufficient – Agreement extent consistent with pleadings and evidence [Paras 5–7, 10].

Evidence – Conduct of Party – Silence After Legal Notice – Defendant failed to reply to notice seeking execution of sale deed and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fabrication – Conduct weighed against defendant – Adverse inference drawn [Paras 10–13].

Execution Proceedings – Challenge under Article 227 – Consequence of Dismissal of Second Appeal – Sale deed executed and possession delivered pursuant to decree – Civil Revision Petitions challenging execution and delivery warrant rendered infructuous – No ground for interference once decree upheld [Paras 15–16].

Civil Revision – Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – Executing court acted in accordance with decree – No jurisdictional error or material irregularity shown – Revisions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – Decree for specific performance confirmed – No costs – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Enhancement – Change in Circumstances – Divorced wife suffering from schizophrenia sought enhancement of maintenance – Husband, a Chartered Accountant employed in Dubai, earning substantial income – Wife unemployed, dependent on parents, and medically unfit to sustain herself – Held: Education does not equate to employability, particularly where mental illness is established – Husband who secured divorce on ground of wife’s mental illness cannot deny maintenance by asserting her earning capacity – Change in financial capacity of husband and rise in cost of living constitute valid grounds for enhancement [Paras 21–26, 34–36].

Maintenance – Quantum – Overseas Employment – Assessment of Income – Husband contended high cost of living in UAE and multiple liabilities – Court held voluntary liabilities such as personal loans and EMIs cannot override statutory obligation to maintain dependent spouse – Only mandatory deductions relevant – Cost of living abroad relevant but cannot be used to defeat wife’s right to dignified sustenance – Maintenance enhanced from ₹15,000/- to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 [Paras 29–36].

Maintenance – Date of Effect – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Wife claimed enhancement should relate back to earlier Section 127 petition filed in 2007 which was dismissed on technical grounds – Held: Once earlier petition dismissed, even with liberty to file afresh, subsequent petition cannot relate back – Enhancement rightly granted from date of fresh application i.e. 13.01.2011 – No illegality in Family Court’s approach [Paras 37–45].

Execution Proceedings – Interpretation of Maintenance Order – Dispute whether maintenance was enhanced to ₹9,000/- or by ₹9,000/- per month for period prior to 12.07.2017 – Plain reading of operative portion showed substitution of amount, not addition – Family Court correctly held that ₹9,000/- per month was payable from 13.01.2011 till 12.07.2017 and ₹15,000/- thereafter – Execution rightly closed as satisfied with excess payment [Paras 46–51].

Conduct of Litigant – Frivolous Re-interpretation of Orders – Petitioner accepted interpretation of maintenance order for years and later took inconsistent stand during execution – Attempt to reopen settled issues deprecated – Revision challenging execution order held frivolous [Paras 52–54].

Decision: CRL.REV.P. No. 950/2017 partly allowed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 – No interference with date of enhancement fixed by Family Court – CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021 dismissed – Execution order upheld – Costs of ₹10,000/- imposed, payable to Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

Taxation Law – Andhra Pradesh VAT Act – Appeal – Rejection at Admission Stage – Delay in Filing Appeal – Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected appeal filed with delay of 2 years 4 months and 20 days against consequential assessment order – Petitioner pleaded non-service of show cause notice and assessment order – Held: Explanation not satisfactory – Rejection of appeal justified [Paras 5, 9–13].

Service of Notice – Presumption of Knowledge – VAT Proceedings – Show cause notice and assessment order sent by registered post and through departmental staff – Returned with endorsement “no such assessee” and premises found locked – Petitioner failed to intimate closure or change of address – Held: Service procedure under Rule 64 AP VAT Rules duly followed – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected [Paras 6, 10–12].

Delay and Laches – Writ Jurisdiction – Assessee sleeping over statutory remedy – Petitioner had earlier pursued appellate remedy diligently but failed to explain prolonged inaction after remand – Receipt of demand notice dated 14.09.2017 unexplained – Delay held fatal – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 10–12].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Alleged Violation – No Merit – Assessment passed after following statutory procedure – Non-participation by assessee attributable to its own conduct – No violation of principles of natural justice established [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Limited Interference in Fiscal Matters – Order rejecting appeal on limitation neither arbitrary nor illegal – No perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Order dated 12.12.2017 upheld – No costs – All pending interlocutory applications closed.

Companies Act – Financial Statements – Non-disclosure of Specified Bank Notes – Criminal Prosecution – Quashing – Complaint under Sections 129/448 Companies Act filed against Director alone without impleading company – Held: Company is principal offender – Proceedings against director alone not maintainable [Paras 48–56].

Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability – Directors of Company – Requirement of Arraigning Company as Accused – Liability of directors under Section 129(7) Companies Act presupposes contravention by company – Without prosecuting company, directors cannot be fastened with criminal liability – Complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party [Paras 49–57].

Companies Act – Offences – Section 439(2) – Locus of Deputy Registrar – Interpretation of “Registrar” – Definition under Section 2(75) includes Deputy Registrar – Complaint by Deputy Registrar held maintainable on this count [Paras 42–43].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Applicability – Offences under Sections 129 and 448 Companies Act punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years – Bar of limitation under Section 468 CrPC not attracted – Objection as to limitation rejected [Para 44].

False Statement – Mens Rea – Section 448 Companies Act – Scope – Mere non-disclosure or omission in balance sheet does not ipso facto amount to “false statement” – Requirement of deliberate falsity and knowledge not prima facie made out – Allegations vague and general [Paras 45–47, 58].

Accounting Standards – Related Party Transactions – Criminal Liability – Allegations pertain to preparation of balance sheet and accounting treatment – Primarily attributable to company – No specific role or overt act attributed to petitioner-director [Paras 54–55, 58].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Continuation of criminal proceedings against director alone despite absence of company as accused and lack of specific allegations would cause oppression – Proceedings liable to be quashed to secure ends of justice [Paras 58–59].

Precedent – Consistency – Coordinate Bench Decision – Identical allegations quashed earlier against similarly placed directors – No distinguishing feature shown – Present complaint also liable to be set aside [Para 32, 59].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Complaint Case No. 44 of 2019 quashed insofar as petitioner concerned – All consequential orders set aside – Interim orders vacated [Paras 60–61].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appeal – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for stabbing the injured with a knife – Trial Court sentenced appellant to five years’ rigorous imprisonment – On appeal, High Court finds serious doubt regarding identity of assailant – Injured and eyewitnesses admitted no prior acquaintance with appellant and disclosed that appellant’s name and identity were revealed by police – Identification of accused at hospital by showing photographs impermissible – Arrest and site plan bearing signatures of complainant contradicted by his own testimony – Held: Prosecution failed to establish identity of appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 30–46].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Reliability – Injured witness admitted that he came to know name of appellant from police officials and was shown photograph at hospital – No Test Identification Parade conducted – Appellant not previously known to injured or eyewitness – Manner of arrest after seven days creates serious doubt – Contradictions between testimonies of PW1, PW2 and Investigating Officer – Identity not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 32–41].

Investigation – Non-Recovery of Weapon – Effect – Alleged knife used in offence not recovered – No serious effort made to recover weapon even when offence initially registered under Section 324 IPC – Disclosure statement without recovery has no evidentiary value – Non-recovery of weapon weakens prosecution case [Paras 43–44].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Appreciation – PW5 hostile and did not support prosecution – PW1 and PW2 contradicted police version regarding arrest, site plan and identification – Trial Court erred in ignoring material contradictions and admissions – Burden of proof always on prosecution and not cured by absence of suggestions in cross-examination [Paras 18, 42, 45].

Section 307 IPC – Intention or Knowledge – Requirement – To sustain conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution must prove intention or knowledge to cause death along with overt act – In present case, doubtful identity of assailant and infirm investigation render prosecution version unreliable – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 20, 46].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Where two views possible and prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 41–46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2024 and order on sentence dated 07.01.2025 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 307 IPC – Pending applications disposed of.

Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Registered Consent Decree – Scope of Jurisdiction – Revenue authorities deleted mutation entry despite existence of registered Consent Decree passed by High Court – Held: Mutation proceedings are fiscal and administrative – Authorities under Sections 149 and 150 MLRC have no jurisdiction to adjudicate title, testamentary succession or validity of civil court decrees – Once a registered civil court decree subsists and is not set aside, revenue authorities are bound to give effect to it for mutation purposes [Paras 58–63, 78].

Civil Court Decree – Binding Effect – Revenue Authorities Cannot Sit in Appeal – Impugned orders examined validity of vendors’ title, probate, succession, prohibitory orders and legality of registration of Consent Decree – Held: Such exercise amounts to sitting in appeal over civil court decree – Impermissible and without jurisdiction – Decree continues to bind authorities until set aside by competent court [Paras 62–75].

Mutation – “Person Interested” – Locus Standi – Respondent claimed locus as lessee and objected to mutation – Mere bald assertion of possession or tenancy without foundational documentary proof insufficient – “Person interested” cannot be expansively construed to allow obstruction of mutation based on unsubstantiated claims – Independent rights, if any, to be established before civil court [Paras 67–68, 85].

Mutation vs Title – Well-settled Law – Entries in revenue records do not confer, extinguish or declare title – They are maintained for fiscal purposes – Revenue authorities can examine documents only to see whether they disclose acquisition of rights, not whether such rights are legally valid – Title disputes lie exclusively within civil court jurisdiction [Paras 59–60, 69–70].

Probate and Testamentary Succession – Effect in Mutation Proceedings – Absence of probate or letters of administration may be relevant in civil proceedings – Cannot justify refusal or deletion of mutation when claimant relies on a subsisting civil court decree – Questions of succession and representative title cannot be reopened by revenue authorities [Paras 69–72, 88].

Prohibitory / Restraint Orders – Effect on Mutation – Alleged prohibitory orders restraining transfer relied upon by objector – Held: Revenue authorities cannot examine legality or consequences of such orders to declare civil court decree ineffective – Validity and effect of restraint orders must be decided in appropriate substantive proceedings [Paras 73–74, 87].

Delay in Registration – Stamp and Registration Issues – Long delay in registration of Consent Decree and stamp duty objections raised – Held: Once decree stands registered and registration remains undisturbed, revenue authorities cannot refuse mutation on ground that registration was illegal or time-barred – Such issues fall outside mutation jurisdiction [Paras 76–77].

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Concurrent findings by statutory authorities normally not interfered with – However, where authorities act beyond statutory competence and commit jurisdictional error, High Court must interfere under Article 226 to prevent manifest injustice [Paras 81–82, 89].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 14.05.2009, 29.03.2010 and 30.11.2011 quashed and set aside – Mutation Entry No.2248 restored in favour of Petitioner – Clarified that mutation is for fiscal purposes only and does not confer or determine title – No order as to costs [Paras 90–95].

Education Law – Student Discipline – Rustication – Conditions imposed by Writ Court – Validity – Learned Single Judge set aside rustication order but imposed multiple conditions including requirement to carry a placard admitting misconduct and stand at university gate for 30 minutes daily for 30 days – Division Bench held that while the High Court can mould relief under Article 226, directions must be reasonable, proportionate and non-stigmatic – Direction compelling student to publicly carry a placard was humiliating, punitive in nature and capable of casting a permanent scar on character – Such direction held wholly unjustified and liable to be set aside [Paras 9–11].

Education Law – Judicial Discretion under Article 226 – Humanitarian considerations – Scope – Directions relating to minimum attendance, affidavit of good conduct, written apology and deployment of anti-romeo squad upheld as reasonable and corrective – Court observed that appellant had poor attendance history and indulgence granted by Single Judge was justified – However, discretion cannot extend to imposition of degrading or shaming penalties [Paras 9–10].

Procedure – Delay in Filing Appeal – Condonation – Delay of 57 days – Sufficient cause shown by affidavit – Delay condoned in the interest of justice [Paras 4–7].

Relief – Consequences of setting aside stigmatic direction – If rustication was again imposed solely due to non-compliance with the quashed direction, appellant entitled to one opportunity to comply with remaining valid directions – On compliance, rustication to stand set aside – Appeal partly allowed and disposed of [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Direction No. (II) issued by the learned Single Judge set aside – Remaining directions upheld – Matter disposed of with consequential relief.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Prosecution Sanction – Refusal by Competent Authority – Subsequent Grant by Another Authority – Validity – Petitioner, Assistant Grade-II in Municipal Council, faced prosecution under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) PC Act – President-in-Council, being competent authority under Section 19(1) PC Act, refused sanction – State Department suo motu set aside refusal and Commissioner granted sanction relying on amended Rule 51 – Held: Once competent authority refuses sanction, same cannot be reviewed or overridden in absence of express statutory power – Subsequent sanction held without jurisdiction [Paras 11–15].

Municipal Law – Section 323, M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 – Scope and Limitations – Power under Section 323 confined to suspension or prohibition of unlawful municipal resolutions – Does not confer power of review or reversal of an order refusing prosecution sanction under a Central enactment – State cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders passed under Section 19 PC Act – Impugned order passed in excess of statutory authority [Paras 12–14].

Special Act vs. State Legislation – Prevailing Effect of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – PC Act being a special Central legislation prevails over State Municipal law – Orders under Section 19(3) PC Act cannot be nullified by invoking Section 323 of the Act of 1961 – Sanction regime under PC Act held exclusive and exhaustive [Paras 12–14].

Service Rules – Amendment with Prospective Operation – No Retrospective Sanction Power – Amendment to Rule 51 dated 15.12.2022 enlarging sanctioning authority – Cannot be applied retrospectively to overturn refusal already made by competent authority – Commissioner lacked competence to grant sanction de hors earlier refusal [Paras 14–15].

Administrative Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Non-delegable Function – Grant or refusal of sanction is an administrative act requiring independent application of mind – Sanction cannot be granted on directions of another authority nor on the basis of a report – Concurrent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to nullify an earlier valid decision [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed – Orders dated 30.05.2023, 17.07.2023 and 24.04.2024 set aside – Prosecution sanction quashed – All consequential proceedings annulled – No order as to costs.