Civil Procedure Code – Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of pleadings – Defendant sought amendment of written statement in 2004 to introduce agreement of 1982, nearly 18 years after suit filed and at stage when trial had concluded – Trial Court allowed application – High Court reversed – Held: “Due diligence” under proviso requires prompt and reasonable steps; delay of 18 years unexplained – Amendment rightly rejected [Paras 7-12].

Civil Procedure Code – “Due Diligence” – Meaning – Explained as diligence reasonably expected from a prudent litigant; doing everything reasonable, not everything possible – Defendant’s explanation (son handling litigation till his death in 1998) not acceptable – No reference to alleged agreement in earlier pleadings or evidence – Conduct inconsistent with bona fide plea [Paras 10-12].

Civil Procedure Code – Delay and prejudice – Application filed after close of evidence and arguments – Allowing amendment at such stage would seriously prejudice plaintiff’s claim and protract litigation already pending for 21 years – High Court’s interference justified [Paras 11-12].

Principle – Amendment of pleadings to be liberally granted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, but subject to rider under proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 – Post-2002 amendment, amendment after commencement of trial permissible only if party shows it could not have been raised despite due diligence – Test not satisfied in present case [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court order upheld – Amendment application rejected – Trial Court to dispose of underlying suit uninfluenced by observations within three months [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers of High Court – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – High Court directed investigation by Special Investigation Team (SIT) into alleged offences involving Divine Retreat Centre based on anonymous complaint and unverified allegations – Held: Inherent powers under Section 482 do not authorize High Court to interfere with statutory police investigation or to direct investigation by an agency of its own choice in absence of prima facie material – Such power to be used sparingly and not to supplant procedure established under CrPC – Jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be invoked for initiating roving inquiries or investigations based on anonymous letters [Paras 2, 20-29, 33, 39-42]

Public Interest Litigation – Anonymous Complaints – Entertaining Anonymous Petitions as PIL – High Court entertained unsigned, anonymous complaint addressed to individual judge and issued sweeping investigative directions – Held: Courts should not entertain anonymous petitions as PILs – Judicial orders must not be based on vague, unverified allegations – Communications addressed to individual judges violate principles of judicial institutionality and judicial discipline – Anonymous letters must not be entertained unless identity, motive and authenticity are verified [Paras 43-48, 57-66, 68-71]

Investigation – Role of Judiciary – Separation of Powers – High Court cannot direct change of investigating officer or dictate manner of investigation unless there is clear abuse of power or mala fide exercise – Investigation is executive function; judiciary cannot encroach on investigative domain except in rarest of rare cases under Article 226, and only upon clear prima facie material – No such material existed here to justify judicial intervention [Paras 22, 25, 34-41]

Natural Justice – Direction to Investigate without Hearing Affected Party – High Court directed investigation against appellant institution without providing any opportunity of hearing – Held: Violates principles of natural justice – No judicial order setting criminal law in motion can be passed without hearing party likely to be affected [Paras 51-54]

Judicial Procedure – Roster Management and Bench Assignment – Judge not authorized to initiate proceedings on judicial side based on letter addressed to him personally – High Court functions as an institution – Communications invoking judicial power must be addressed to the Chief Justice and acted upon institutionally – Individual judges cannot assign themselves PIL jurisdiction in derogation of roster rules [Paras 67-69]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s directions constituting SIT and ordering investigation set aside – Investigation in Crime No. 381 of 2005 to continue under Circle Inspector, Chalakudy – SIT to transfer case materials to investigating officer within two weeks – Investigating officer to file final report within four weeks – No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 73-77]

Anticipatory Bail – Premature Application – Customs Act, 1962, Section 108 – CrPC, Section 438 – Anticipatory Bail Rejected - Respondents summoned by Customs authorities under Section 108 to give statements – High Court held bail applications premature but directed that in case of non-bailable offence, respondents shall not be arrested without ten days’ notice – Held: Such directions are blanket anticipatory bail orders, impermissible in law, and obstruct statutory powers of Customs officers [Paras 9, 16, 63-65].

Power of Arrest – Customs Officer’s Authority – Customs Act, 1962, Section 104 – Validated - Customs officer has statutory power to arrest on ‘reason to believe’ that offences under Sections 132, 133, 135, 135A, 136 have been committed – Such power subject to safeguards: informing grounds of arrest, producing before Magistrate without delay – High Court cannot curtail this power by imposing conditions not envisaged in statute [Paras 21-25, 51-53].

Blanket Anticipatory Bail – Impermissibility – CrPC, Section 438 – Principle Reaffirmed - Anticipatory bail is not a passport to commit crimes or a shield against all accusations – Courts cannot issue vague or general orders protecting accused from arrest for any future offences – Blanket orders contrary to law as laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and later reaffirmed in Adri Dharan Das [Paras 34-49].

Statements under Customs Act – Evidentiary Value – Section 108 – Clarified - Persons summoned under Section 108 not accused at that stage – Obliged to speak truth – Statements recorded admissible and distinct from police investigation statements – Summons procedure not subject to magisterial intervention [Paras 54-59].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – High Court’s order to Customs Authorities restraining arrest without ten days’ prior notice quashed – Respondents bound to appear before Customs Authorities in response to summons – Customs authorities free to proceed in accordance with law [Para 65].

Service Law – Educational Qualification – Validity of Appointment – Appellant appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1988 on basis of B.Ed. degree from Maithili Vishwa Vidyapeeth, not recognized under UGC Act – Institution later directed appellant to acquire valid B.Ed. from recognized university, which he did after appointment – Held: Essential qualification must be possessed at the time of appointment – Appointment made without such qualification is void and cannot be regularized post facto [Paras 3–7, 15–17, 26–27]

Statutory Recruitment – U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act – Section 16 and related rules mandate appointment only through Board and upon fulfilment of prescribed qualifications – Rule 3 of 1993 Rules requires recognized degree – Appellant’s appointment in contravention of rules held void ab initio – No estoppel or equity can override statutory mandate [Paras 1–2, 15–17]

Departmental Proceedings – Allegation of Malice – Appellant alleged termination motivated by mala fides following contempt proceedings – Held: Even if timing suspect, illegality in appointment renders service untenable – Absence of qualification extinguishes legal right to post – No fault in initiation of departmental action [Paras 10, 22]

Post-facto Qualification – Subsequent acquisition of valid B.Ed. degree does not validate original illegal appointment – Degree obtained after appointment irrelevant to determine eligibility unless rules expressly permit relaxation – No such relaxation shown in present case [Paras 7, 20, 27]

Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Judicial Discretion – High Court rightly refused to grant relief under writ jurisdiction as appointment lacked legal foundation – Writ of mandamus cannot issue to protect illegal appointment – Legal right and corresponding duty must coexist [Paras 10–11, 22]

Regulatory Oversight – Responsibility of Authorities – Court expressed concern over authorities appointing candidates without verifying validity of qualifications – Duty of educational institutions to verify recognition status of awarding bodies at time of recruitment [Para 16]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appointment held void for lack of valid qualification at the time of entry into service – Subsequent qualification irrelevant – No relief under Article 226 – No costs [Para 29]

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Quasi-Judicial Nature – Procedural Fairness – Railway employee found guilty in a disciplinary inquiry for overcharging ₹5 from a decoy passenger during a pre-arranged trap – Tribunal set aside punishment on grounds of violation of Rule 9(21) and non-compliance with Vigilance Manual (Paras 704 and 705) – High Court reversed, holding that the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence – Held: Tribunal was justified in examining whether principles of natural justice and procedural safeguards were followed – Inquiry vitiated due to flawed trap, leading questions, and failure to examine delinquent on circumstances against him [Paras 6, 14, 15, 19, 21, 26–27]

Evidence – Vigilance Trap – Guidelines under Para 704 and 705 – Admissibility – Only one non-gazetted RPF officer witnessed the transaction from 30 meters away – No independent witnesses, decoy failed to count change or complain immediately – Held: Though Vigilance Manual does not create enforceable rights, substantial procedural deviation along with lack of credible evidence renders findings unsustainable – Tribunal rightly considered cumulative irregularities including flawed trap procedure and defective enquiry [Paras 10–14, 24–25]

Disciplinary Law – Rule 9(21) – Mandatory Requirement – Appellant not given opportunity to explain circumstances against him as mandated – Enquiry Officer failed to disclose evidence or allegations before concluding inquiry – Held: Rule 9(21) is mandatory – Breach vitiates inquiry and denial of fair hearing renders punishment legally infirm [Paras 18–20, 26]

Judicial Review – Scope – Administrative Law – While reappreciation of evidence is generally barred, courts/tribunals may examine procedural fairness, credibility of process, and proportionality of punishment – Held: Tribunal did not exceed jurisdiction in reviewing legality of enquiry and fairness of disciplinary action – High Court erred in interfering with well-reasoned Tribunal order [Paras 15, 21, 27]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Order of Central Administrative Tribunal restoring the appellant's position reinstated – Costs of ₹25,000 awarded to the appellant [Para 27]

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Liability of Insurer – Driver of the tractor admitted he never held a driving licence – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed claim, holding insurer not liable due to breach of policy condition – High Court affirmed non-liability of insurer but awarded compensation against driver and owner – Held: Insurance company cannot be made liable where driver never held any licence and owner permitted such person to drive – No interference warranted [Paras 2–3, 6]

Insurance Law – Breach of Policy Conditions – Absence of Driving Licence – Clear and admitted breach of insurance policy conditions where driver was entirely unlicensed – Insurer entitled to avoid liability under Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act – Owner has statutory obligation to ensure driver holds valid and effective licence – Distinction drawn between expired, fake, and non-existent licences – In case of no licence at all, no liability on insurer [Paras 5–6]

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Swaran Singh Case – Swaran Singh clarified that insurer may be liable even in cases of breach unless willful or conscious – However, where driver never held any licence and owner consciously allowed him to drive, insurer is not liable – Case falls squarely within exception noted in Swaran Singh [Paras 6, 7]

Doctrine of Social Justice – Scope – Though Motor Vehicles Act is welfare legislation, it also permits insurers to avoid liability where statutory breaches are established – Social justice considerations do not override express statutory defences under insurance law [Para 5]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No liability on insurance company where driver had never held a valid licence – Appellants may pursue recovery against driver and owner – No order as to costs [Para 8]

Rent Control – Subletting – Exclusive Possession – Tenant Subletting Portion of Premises to Relatives Without Written Consent of Landlord – Held: Subletting Proved – Eviction Under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act Justified – Appellant No. 1 inducted as tenant in 1956 – Rent receipts in name of M/s Mitra Book Depot – Subsequent businesses run under M/s Mitra Stores and M/s Lucky Confectioners by appellant Nos. 2 to 4 in separate portion – Rent Controller, Tribunal and High Court concurrently held that exclusive possession was parted without written consent – Held: Subletting made out – Eviction justified [Paras 3, 6–11].

Landlord-Tenant – Subletting by Tenant to Family Members – Legal Control and Possession Absent – Subletting Inferred – Relationship Alone Not Sufficient to Avoid Eviction – Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 not spouse, children or immediate family – No evidence of co-residence or joint business – Tenant admitted no control over businesses run by others – Held: Mere relationship does not exempt from subletting liability unless joint residence and business control proved [Paras 7–8, 10].

Rent Control – Waiver of Eviction Right – No Conscious Relinquishment of Statutory Right to Evict – Mere Knowledge of Subletting Not Equivalent to Waiver – Right to Evict Not Lost by Delay – No written consent by either original landlord or subsequent purchaser – No evidence of waiver by conduct or acquiescence – Sale deed did not mention possession by appellant Nos. 2 to 4 – Held: No conscious waiver established – Landlord's right to evict subsisted [Paras 5, 7, 12].

Burden of Proof – Subletting – Initial Burden on Landlord – Onus Shifts to Tenant Upon Proof of Exclusive Possession by Sub-Tenant – Tenant Failed to Discharge Onus – Respondent proved exclusive possession of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 – Tenant failed to show that they were assisting him or had no independent business – Held: Subletting established [Paras 10–11].

Precedents Distinguished – United Bank of India Case Not Applicable – Tenant Retained No Legal Control in Present Case Unlike in Earlier Decision – Unlike prior case where tenant retained control over premises shared with union, here appellant No. 1 admitted no involvement with business or supervision – Held: Decision in United Bank of India v. Cooks and Kelvey not applicable [Para 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Eviction order upheld – Appellants granted time to vacate till 30th June, 2008 on filing usual undertaking within four weeks – No order as to costs [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Illicit Liquor – Conviction under Punjab Excise Act – Appellants found transporting 18 cartons of whisky from Haryana to Delhi without permit – Samples sealed and sent to Excise Control Laboratory – Report confirmed contents as whisky – Trial court convicted accused under Section 61 – Conviction upheld by appellate and revisional courts – Held: No irregularity in procedure – Sealing and forwarding of samples proved through prosecution witnesses – No contradiction established by defence [Paras 3–6]

Criminal Procedure – Section 293 CrPC – Expert Report – Whether Chemical Examiner must be examined – Held: Not mandatory – Report by government scientific expert admissible in evidence under Section 293(1) – Court has discretion under Section 293(2) to summon expert – Absence of request to summon expert or challenge to contents of report fatal to appellant’s case [Paras 6–9]

Appeal – Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellants already suffered more than 3 months of imprisonment – Occurrence nearly 13 years old – No minimum sentence prescribed under Section 61 at relevant time – While upholding conviction, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Para 10]

Decision: Conviction under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Para 10]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Four partition suits decided by common judgment in 1944 on issue whether sale deed of 1885 by widow Sirtaji in favour of Mata Badal was for legal necessity – In Suit No. 98 (Kurthuwa lands), sale held invalid; appeal dismissed as time-barred in 1945, decree attained finality – In other suits (Nos. 99, 100), appellate authority in 1966 held sale valid – Appellant contended later decision superseded earlier one – Held: Principle of res judicata applied – Suit No. 98 having attained finality, subsequent decisions in other suits between different parties could not reopen or override it – High Court rightly held decision of 1966 not binding between parties to Suit No. 98 [Paras 2-7, 11-17].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 41 Rule 33 – Benefit to non-appealing party – Provision confined to parties within the same suit – Cannot be extended across separate suits involving different parties and different properties – Hence, appellant cannot derive benefit of appellate decision in suits 99 and 100 [Para 18].

Res Judicata – Doctrine – Not exhaustive under Section 11 CPC – Based on principle of finality of litigation, equity and good conscience – Privy Council and Supreme Court precedents reiterated: Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Singh (43 IA 91), Lal Chand v. Radha Krishan, AIR 1977 SC 789, and others – Rule to be applied substantively and not technically, but finality of decisions inter partes cannot be unsettled by subsequent rulings in other suits [Paras 12-16].

Consolidation Proceedings – U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Section 9 – Settlement Officer and Deputy Director Consolidation erred in holding that later appellate decision (1966) nullified decree in Suit No. 98 – High Court correctly restored order of Consolidation Officer expunging appellant’s name [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 18].