Constitution of India, 1950 - Appointment of Director of Enforcement - Extension of tenure - Constitutional validity of Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 and Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 - Writ petitions challenging the Acts - Whether amendments violative of Article 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution - Power of Government to appoint Director of Enforcement - Whether Government has power to extend tenure beyond two years - Scope of Section 25 of Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 - Interpretation of Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 - Principle of separation of powers and judicial review - Effect of subsequent legislative enactment on mandamus issued by the Court - Whether a writ of mandamus can be nullified by legislative act - Retrospective amendment and its reasonableness - Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution - Smooth transition and public interest - Validity of impugned orders granting extensions - Held, the challenge to the Acts and rules is rejected and writ petitions are dismissed - The impugned orders are held to be illegal - Respondent permitted to hold office till 31st July 2023.(Para 1-121)

Eviction suit - Interpretation of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Whether the provision creates a complete prohibition on filing a suit for eviction within five years of the tenancy or only affects the consideration of the suit and passing of a decree therein - Objective of Section 14(3) is to protect the tenant from eviction for a specified period - Literal interpretation leading to absurdity - Purposive interpretation required - Passage of time beyond the prescribed period washes away the initial impediment against the suit - Filing of a fresh suit after the prescribed period would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation - Applicability of B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan judgment - Extraordinary delay in the present case - Quietus should be put to the prolonged dispute - Decree of eviction affirmed - Respondent ordered to hand over vacant possession of the premises - Appeal allowed. (Para 15-23)

The respondent, Ravinder Singh, was a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination (Written), 2022. He sought re-evaluation of his answer script for question No.9 of Law Paper-I. His request for re-evaluation was rejected by a Committee of six Hon’ble Judges of the High Court. Aggrieved by the rejection, he filed WP(C) No. 434/2023 in the High Court of Delhi seeking quashment of the rejection letter dated 05.01.2023 and direction to re-evaluate the said question.

Issue:

Whether the rejection of the respondent’s request for re-evaluation of his answer script for question No.9 of Law Paper-I was valid, considering the prohibition on re-evaluation under Clause XII, Rule 7C of the Appendix to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970?

Ratio:

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules and considered the specific provision under Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which justified the award of zero marks to the respondent for question No.9 of Law Paper-I. The Court also referred to the decision in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 357], which clarified that re-evaluation cannot be ordered when a statutory provision prohibits it. In cases where re-evaluation is not expressly prohibited, it can only be permitted in rare and exceptional instances where a material error has been committed.

Decision:

The Court held that the rejection of the respondent’s request for re-evaluation was valid in the light of the specific prohibition on re-evaluation under Clause XII, Rule 7C of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules and the absence of any ‘material error’ in the evaluation. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 434/2023 was set aside, and the Writ Petition was dismissed. The Civil Appeal was allowed in favor of the petitioner (Registrar General, High Court of Delhi).

Contempt Petition - Reinstatement of petitioners and similarly situated members of Bharatpur Bar Association - Undertaking given by respondents' counsel - No obstruction on petitioners or similarly situated members acting as legal defense counsel - Coercive action warned for future incidents - Disposal of petitions - No impediment on the work of legal defense counsel.

Anticipatory Bail – Grant of – Seriousness of offence and need for custodial interrogation – Balance between individual rights and interests of justice – Land forgery and fraud – Prima facie evidence of fraudulent transactions – Suspicion regarding authenticity of documents – Elderly and vulnerable victims – Necessity of thorough investigation – Cancellation of erroneous bail order – Expansion of inquiry and constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Direction for custodial interrogation – Cooperation from authorities – Conclusion of investigation within specified timeframe – Monitoring by Commissioner of Police. (Paragraphs 16-36)

Land Scams – Fraudulent practices in land acquisition and transactions – Creation of fake land titles, forged documents, and manipulation of records – Exploitation of vulnerable individuals and communities – Disruption of development projects and erosion of public trust – Need to thwart organized crime and ensure justice. (Paragraph 25)

Prima Facie Evidence – Evaluation of material facts – Non-recovery of original documents – Dubious nature of transactions – Discrepancies in execution and registration processes – Suspicion of collusion and conspiracy – Importance of fair and unobstructed investigation. (Paragraphs 20-22, 24)

Cooperation of Civil Court – Non-interference with ongoing investigation – Avoidance of orders hampering investigation – Prima facie criminality not barred by civil proceedings – Prompt and effective resolution of the matter. (Paragraphs 28-29)

Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Constitution and scope – Headed by senior officer – Authority to subject suspects to custodial interrogation – Power to seek modifications of anticipatory bail orders – Monitoring by Commissioner of Police – Timely conclusion of investigation. (Paragraphs 31-35) Bail Order Set Aside – Appeal Allowed.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Enhancement – Assessment of compensation by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal – Appeal before the High Court – Appeal before the Supreme Court – Assessment of quantum of compensation – Consideration of evidence – Error in assessing income and disability – Revision of compensation awarded – Additional compensation for pain and suffering – Modification of compensation for loss of future income, loss of marriage prospects, and loss of earnings during laid-up period – Recalculation of compensation amount – Interest on the awarded amount – Directions for depositing the awarded amount. (Para No. 11-13)

Land Acquisition Act, 1956 - Apportionment of compensation - Principles and procedures - Scope and jurisdiction of the competent authority - Powers of the District Magistrate - Role of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction - Reference to Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Decision in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar - (28) Judgment highlighting that apportionment under sub-clause (4) of Section 3H of the Act is a distribution of the already fixed value among interested parties - (32) Distinction between Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - (34) Legislative assignment of apportionment function to the Principal Civil Court - (34) District Magistrate lacking power or jurisdiction in apportionment matters - (35) Dispute resolution centered around Principal Civil Court - (35) Quashing of District Magistrate's order and referral of dispute to Principal Civil Court - (35) Finality of Collector's award on specific issues - (38) Just and equitable distribution of compensation among interested parties - (28) Court's decision ensuring fair and impartial apportionment proceedings.

Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Interim Compensation – Order of deposit of 10% of the amount of a dishonored cheque – Tenability – Whether the order can be made before the accused enters a plea of “not guilty” – Held, interim compensation under Section 143A(1)(a) can be granted only when the accused pleads not guilty to the accusation in the complaint – Order made before the accused entered the plea is in violation of Section 143A(1) – Order quashed. (Para 6)

Proceedings at an advanced stage – No further orders made – Since the trial has progressed to an advanced stage, no further orders are made except to observe that the complainant can seek appropriate relief, including under Section 143A, at any stage of the trial. (Para 7)

Applicability of Section 143A – Relief available at any stage of the trial – The complainant can seek appropriate relief, including under Section 143A, at any stage of the trial, even if the trial has progressed to an advanced stage. (Para 7)

Electricity Supply Agreement - Reduction in maximum demand - Delay in processing application - Unilateral amendment of contract - Whether arbitrary and unreasonable - Appellant's entitlement to refund of excess amount paid - Consideration of.

Constitution of India, Article 14 - State actions in contractual matters - Principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness to be upheld - Requirement of reasonable time for decision-making - Application to reduction in maximum demand - Refund of excess payments.

Contract law - Unilateral amendment of contract - Contractual obligations of parties - State as a party to the contract - State's duty to act fairly, justly, and reasonably - Compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Time for processing applications - Reasonable period - Six months as a benchmark for decision-making - Failure to act within reasonable time - Resulting prejudice to the party - Unreasonable and arbitrary action.

Refund of excess payments - Calculation of amount paid for excess contracted demand - Period from application to execution of new agreement - Interest at the rate of 6% per annum - Two months' time for payment.

Appeal allowed - High Court judgment set aside - Direction for refund of excess payments and interest.