Medical Education – Eligibility for MBBS – Disability and Reasonable Accommodation - The appellant, with a disability of congenital amputation of multiple fingers, contested the denial of admission to the MBBS course despite his eligibility under general merit – The National Medical Commission (NMC) and two Medical Boards assessed the appellant, concluding ineligibility due to bilateral upper limb disability affecting essential skills – The appellant argued that the assessment did not fully consider reasonable accommodations or assistive devices as mandated under RPwD Act and challenged CBME guidelines as restrictive and discriminatory – Held: Disability does not justify compromising patient safety in critical medical education skills; regulatory compliance must balance patient welfare with disability rights [Paras 1-6, 26-32].

Judicial Review – Expert Opinion in Medical Eligibility – Limited Scope for Substitution - The appellant sought a court-ordered admission or re-assessment by a specialized board inclusive of disabled health professionals – The Court held that substituting its opinion over a medically expert board's findings is beyond judicial scope unless evident procedural errors are found – Held: Appeal dismissed; judicial intervention restricted to review of expert opinions, not replacement of expertise [Paras 33-35].

Future Scope for Disabled Candidates in Medical Education - The appellant’s plea to permit entry solely for medical teaching was denied due to regulatory restrictions requiring full MBBS competencies – The Court directed the NMC to explore feasible paths within medical education for individuals with disabilities to pursue certain specializations – Directive: NMC to report on curriculum adjustments within six months to support reasonable inclusion [Paras 39-41].

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed, with directions for the National Medical Commission to consider avenues for accessible medical specializations within the MBBS curriculum for persons with disabilities.

Maintainability of Review – High Court’s Power under Article 215 – Review Allowed - Petitioners sought review of an order dismissing their arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, arguing an error on the record in identifying R-Cube Energy’s legal structure – Respondents argued that the Arbitration Act lacks a review provision, precluding the High Court from considering such a petition – The Court held that since Section 11 powers are exercised by the High Court as a court of record post-amendment, inherent powers under Article 215 allow correction of record errors – Held: Review maintainable under Article 215 as the High Court is a court of record [Paras 13-17].

Error Apparent on Record – Legal Entity Misclassification – Grounds for Review - Petitioners contended that R-Cube Energy was inaccurately classified as a partnership instead of a private limited company, invalidating the trial court’s decision on partnership rules and arbitration eligibility – The Court noted that the initial dismissal was based on partnership requirements and found that R-Cube Energy’s registration as a private limited company altered the legal interpretation entirely – Held: Error apparent, warranting review and recall of previous order [Paras 18-21].

Revival of Arbitration Application – Procedural Limitations - Though petitioners urged the Court to proceed with the arbitration application, the Court held it would exceed its jurisdiction due to assignment limitations – Held: Arbitration application revived and remanded to appropriate Bench for reassessment [Para 22].

Decision: The petition is allowed, recalling the previous order dated 19/12/2023. The arbitration application is revived and will be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal per assignment.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Breach of Trust – Prima Facie Case for Summons – Petitioner challenged the order setting aside summons issued against Educomp and associates for alleged fraud and misrepresentation in a joint venture – Court found that allegations involved a contractual dispute lacking evidence of fraudulent intent at inception, dismissing claims under Sections 420, 406 IPC – Held: Mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless deceitful intent exists from the start, as required for offenses under Section 420 IPC [Paras 8-12, 24-28].

Civil vs. Criminal Liability – Contractual Disputes and Penal Provisions – The Court emphasized that allegations arising solely from contract performance disputes should proceed through civil channels, with criminal liability reserved for clear deceit or misrepresentation – Relying on precedents, the Court stressed that invoking criminal process to resolve civil disputes constitutes abuse of law – Held: Civil remedies sufficient; penal proceedings inappropriate for the presented allegations [Paras 30-33].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The Court upheld the Sessions Court’s order quashing the summoning order, concluding the dispute was civil and did not justify criminal proceedings.

Labour Law – ESI Act – Principal Employer Liability for Contract Workers – Petitioner contended that contract workers, engaged via petty contractors with no direct supervisory control by KSEB, should not be covered under the ESI Act – The Court highlighted that under Section 2(12), establishments employing more than 10 workers are covered, and principal employers bear responsibility for ensuring ESI contributions – Held: KSEB’s liability as principal employer includes contract workers engaged indirectly through contractors [Paras 14-20].

ESI Contribution Demands – Exemption for High Earners and Contract Workers – The petitioner argued exemption for employees earning above ₹21,000/month and claimed that ESI demands were incorrectly calculated based on exaggerated worker numbers – Held: Court found that ESI dues assessment must consider eligible employees and should re-evaluate worker count and wages under Section 45A; erroneous assessments warrant reconsideration [Paras 21-25].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Hearing and Fair Assessment – Noting discrepancies in assessments and lack of consultation, Court ordered a fresh determination of ESI liabilities after a hearing – Held: Demand notices quashed; respondents directed to reassess KSEB’s contributions following fair procedure [Paras 26-30].

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed in part. Demand notices (Exts.P4, P7, P9, and P10) are quashed. Respondents are directed to conduct a reassessment after giving the petitioner an opportunity for hearing.

Bail Application – Custodial Detention – Section 439 CrPC – Bail Granted - The petitioner sought bail, asserting prolonged detention and lack of specific evidence linking him to the alleged offences of wrongful confinement, assault, and murder – The State opposed bail, citing witness statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the chargesheet naming eight accused, including the petitioner – The Court noted that despite completed investigation, the petitioner’s specific involvement was unclear, and extended detention was unjustified given the remote likelihood of early trial commencement – Held: Petitioner granted bail with conditions to avoid tampering with evidence or witness intimidation [Paras 1-3].

Conditions of Bail – Appearance and Conduct – Compliance Mandated - The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including restriction from entering the jurisdiction of the Nagrakata Police Station, regular reporting to the local police, and a warning that any breach would enable the trial court to cancel bail without further reference – Held: Bail conditional on compliance to ensure fair trial proceedings [Paras 4-5].

Decision: The bail application is allowed, subject to a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, one local. The petitioner must adhere to stipulated conditions, including staying outside Nagrakata Police Station limits and regular reporting, to retain bail.

Right to Information Act – Disclosure of Candidate Marks – Petitioner, a candidate for Junior Clerk post, was denied information regarding marks obtained by other candidates on grounds of confidentiality under Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, and under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of RTI Act – Petitioner contended that public interest and transparency required disclosure of all candidates' marks – Held: Disclosure of marks obtained in a public recruitment process does not constitute an "unwarranted invasion of privacy" as it is related to a public activity – Disclosure justified by larger public interest, promoting transparency and accountability in recruitment process [Paras 5-7, 24-29, 35-38, 50-52, 54].

Confidentiality and Public Interest – Applicability of Rule 13(e) of Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules – Rule 13(e) exempts information affecting examination confidentiality – Court clarified that once an exam concludes, disclosure of marks does not affect confidentiality but rather enhances transparency – Prior disclosure by another district court (Wardha) found relevant though not binding, affirming transparency practices in public recruitment [Paras 43-46, 51-52].

Privacy Concerns – Section 8(1)(j) and Privacy – Marks in public exams not deemed personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) – Court distinguished between genuinely private information and information relevant to public recruitment – Found that disclosure serves public interest by ensuring recruitment fairness and transparency, which outweighs privacy concerns of individual candidates [Paras 25-28, 30-34].

Precedent Analysis – Supreme Court Precedent in Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal – Petitioner relied on Supreme Court’s clarification that disclosure of information related to public functions and transparency aligns with RTI Act objectives – Rationale of public interest and accountability reinforced need for disclosure in cases involving public selection process [Paras 31-37].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Orders denying petitioner access to other candidates' marks set aside – Direction issued to furnish marks obtained by candidates from serial nos. 1 to 363 in written/screening test, Marathi and English typing test, and interview within six weeks upon payment of prescribed costs – Promotes public confidence in recruitment process and aligns with RTI's goal of transparency [Paras 54-56].

Judicial Immunity – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – The petitioner argued that actions performed under Section 165 of the Land Revenue Code were judicial in nature, entitling him to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act – The Court noted that Additional Collectors are empowered to perform judicial functions per Section 17 of the Code – Held: Petitioner’s quasi-judicial actions fall within the ambit of “judge” under the Act, granting immunity from disciplinary proceedings based on such actions [Paras 5-12, 30-36].

Administrative Law – Competence of Additional Collector – The Court reviewed the petitioner’s authority to grant permissions under the work distribution order and found his exercise of powers as Additional Collector lawful – Prior High Court rulings confirmed that work distribution does not limit judicial functions to the Collector exclusively – Held: Petitioner’s authority under the work distribution order was valid, making the disciplinary action baseless [Paras 18-23].

Malafide Disciplinary Action – Impact on Career Advancement – The Court observed that initiating disciplinary proceedings after a prolonged delay, without findings of personal gain or misconduct, suggests malicious intent to impede petitioner’s promotion to IAS cadre – Held: Chargesheet quashed; proceedings deemed punitive and lacking in legal grounds [Paras 38-42].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The chargesheet dated 29.04.2019 and subsequent inquiry orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to IAS cadre, if otherwise eligible.

Arbitration Law – Single Transaction and Interconnected Agreements – Enforceability of Arbitration Clause – Appellants sought to refer disputes to arbitration, citing a single transaction encompassing a sale agreement with an arbitration clause and subsequent MoU and Allotment Letter – Trial Court dismissed the application, treating the MoU as an independent agreement lacking an arbitration clause – Held: Conveyance deed’s execution ended the enforceability of the arbitration clause in the original sale agreement; subsequent agreements did not explicitly incorporate arbitration [Paras 16-20, 24-26].

Doctrine of Merger – Effect of Conveyance on Arbitration Clause – Court affirmed that conveyance execution concludes the original agreement, terminating any arbitration clause therein; absence of specific arbitration clause reference in MoU or Allotment Letter supports their independent status – Held: Arbitration clause cannot be revived post-conveyance; dismissal of application upheld [Paras 27-30, 35].

Decision: Arbitration Appeal dismissed; Interim Application disposed of. Trial Court’s rejection of arbitration reference application confirmed as valid under legal principles of contract termination and lack of arbitration clause incorporation.
 

Income Tax Law – Reassessment Notice – Assumption of Jurisdiction Beyond Four Years – Reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2011-12 was challenged by the petitioner (Discovery Communications India), as the original assessment had already been completed under Section 143(3) – Notice issued after the four-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 147, alleging escapement of income without new tangible material and based on the previous assessment record from AY 2012-13 – Held: Without failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening the assessment constitutes a mere change of opinion, rendering the reassessment notice invalid [Paras 1, 2, 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30].

Reassessment Beyond Four Years – Condition for Failure to Disclose – The court observed that reopening under Section 147 beyond the four-year period requires proof of a failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for the assessment, which was absent in this case – The notice under Section 148 did not specify any undisclosed facts or evidence of nondisclosure by the petitioner – The reassessment was initiated solely based on the same material available during the original assessment [Paras 16, 17, 24, 26].

Change of Opinion – Invalid Ground for Reopening – The court held that reassessment based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO) is not permissible – When an assessment order is completed under Section 143(3), the AO cannot reopen it merely because of a shift in opinion on previously verified claims – Citing judgments in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd., the court reiterated that the AO has no authority to review on the same facts under the guise of reassessment [Paras 22, 24, 27].

Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – Reopening Based on AY 2012-13 Records – The reasons provided by the AO for reopening relied on details from the assessment records of AY 2012-13, without any new tangible evidence for AY 2011-12 – The expenses for Discovery Appreciation Plan (DAP) and production and translation costs, which the AO sought to disallow, had already been examined and allowed in subsequent assessments, affirming consistency in the deductions – The court cited A.T. Kearney India Ltd. v. ITO and Ultra Marine Air Aids (P) Ltd. v. IAC to emphasize that reassessment notices lack validity when the foundational reason ceases to exist [Paras 18, 29].

Alternative Remedy – Section 263 Invocation – The court noted that if the AO believed there was an error in the original assessment, the appropriate remedy would have been a revision under Section 263, not reassessment under Section 147 – The AO’s reasoning that the assessment errors were due to mistakes or insufficient verification is insufficient to justify a reassessment [Paras 20, 27].

Decision: Petition allowed – The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 dated 31.03.2018 and the reassessment proceedings initiated thereunder – No cost order issued [Paras 30, 31].