Writ amendment principles under civil procedure guide courts, but a new factual foundation can make the amendment impermissible.

Principles governing amendment of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure may guide, though do not control, amendment requests in writ proceedings under Article 226. The High Court treated those principles as relevant to assess whether a proposed amendment is just and proper. An amendment that added a later show cause notice, fresh allegations, and new factual contentions was held to go beyond a formal correction and to substitute a substantially new case, thereby materially altering the nature of the original writ challenge. The amendment was therefore impermissible, and the order allowing it was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the principles governing amendment of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure can guide an application for amendment in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the amendment sought, by adding the later show cause notice and fresh factual grounds, materially changed the nature of the writ petition and was therefore impermissible.

Issue (i): Whether the principles governing amendment of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure can guide an application for amendment in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Although the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply proprio vigore to writ proceedings, the principles governing amendments in civil proceedings can be taken as a guide while considering amendment requests in writ petitions. The High Court's writ jurisdiction is not controlled by the procedural provisions of the Code, but procedural principles may still assist in deciding whether the proposed amendment is just and proper.

Conclusion: Yes. The principles governing amendment of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure are relevant as a guiding factor in writ proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment sought, by adding the later show cause notice and fresh factual grounds, materially changed the nature of the writ petition and was therefore impermissible.

Analysis: The original writ petition challenged only the earlier communication placing the respondent on the Denied Entity List on the ground of absence of notice and hearing. The proposed amendment sought to incorporate a later show cause notice resting on additional allegations and a wide range of new factual contentions, including the legality of the notice itself. This would substantially alter the factual foundation and legal character of the petition and amount to the substitution of an altogether new case rather than a mere formal amendment.

Conclusion: Yes. The amendment was impermissible because it changed the nature of the writ petition and introduced a substantially new case.

Final Conclusion: The amendment order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, leaving the respondent to pursue challenge to the later notice in appropriate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment in writ proceedings that introduces a substantially new factual foundation and alters the character of the original challenge must be refused, even though civil procedure principles may guide the Court.

---