Medical Reimbursement – Emergency Treatment – Non-Empanelled Hospital – Petitioner’s wife admitted in critical condition and underwent life-saving surgeries in a private hospital – No time to seek prior permission or approach empanelled hospital – Emergency certificate subsequently issued and bills duly verified – Only a nominal amount reimbursed without reasons – Held: Denial of full reimbursement is arbitrary and illegal [Paras 2–4, 9–10].

Right to Health – Article 21 – Medical reimbursement is an integral facet of right to life – State under constitutional obligation to bear expenses incurred for bona fide emergency treatment – Preservation of human life of paramount importance – Technical objections cannot override constitutional mandate [Paras 11–13].

Medical Reimbursement Policy – Beneficial Interpretation – Policy cannot be interpreted in a restrictive or defeatist manner – Once genuineness of treatment and bills is not disputed, reimbursement cannot be denied merely because hospital was not empanelled or prior approval was not taken – Reimbursement at PGIMER/AIIMS rates alone held insufficient in emergency circumstances [Paras 13–16].

Administrative Delay – Arbitrary Inaction – Petitioner pursued reimbursement since 2014 – Authorities delayed processing despite compliance with all objections – Prolonged delay caused financial hardship and mental agony – Such conduct held violative of Article 21 and indicative of callous administrative approach [Paras 17].

Interest on Delayed Payment – State Liability – Petitioner entitled to interest on delayed reimbursement – Direction issued to pay balance amount with interest to compensate for prolonged deprivation of legitimate dues [Para 18].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.05.2020 set aside to extent of denial – Respondents directed to reimburse balance medical claim of Rs. 4,20,766/- with 6% interest from due date till realization within four weeks – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 18–20].

Civil Law – Order 41 Rule 21 CPC – Rehearing of Appeal – Ex-parte Judgment – Delay of 86 Days – Delay Condoned – Application for rehearing maintainable where sufficient cause shown for non-appearance of respondent when appeal was heard ex-parte [Paras 1–3].

Advocate’s Default – Litigant Not to Suffer – Respondents had engaged counsel who appeared initially but stopped appearing thereafter – No Special Process/Notice (SPC) issued by Court despite continuous absence of counsel – Applicants unaware of listing and hearing of appeal – Sufficient cause established for non-appearance [Paras 7, 11].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right of Hearing – Party having done everything expected by engaging counsel cannot be penalised for advocate’s lapse – Litigant not required to act as watchdog over advocate – Reliance placed on Rafiq v. Munshilal and Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad – Rehearing warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 8–9].

Knowledge of Ex-parte Decree – Irrelevant Consideration – Relevant factor is cause for absence on date of hearing and not subsequent knowledge of judgment – Participation in execution proceedings does not disentitle applicant from relief under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC [Para 10].

Delay and Conduct – Bona fide Explanation Accepted – No material to show deliberate avoidance of proceedings – Absence attributable to counsel’s failure to inform – Distinction drawn from cases where parties were negligent or relief discretionary [Paras 7, 11].

Costs – Balancing of Equities – Though rehearing allowed, applicants directed to compensate respondents – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed as condition for rehearing [Para 12].

Decision – Application Allowed – Delay Condoned – Ex-parte Judgment Dated 15.04.2025 Recalled – Second Appeal Directed to be Listed for Rehearing – MCC Disposed of [Paras 1, 11–12].

Customs – Appeal to High Court – Section 130 Customs Act – Scope – Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Concurrent findings of fact by Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT regarding Fe content of Iron Ore Fines exported – Questions raised by Revenue essentially factual in nature – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 8.8–10, 11–12].

Export Duty – Iron Ore Fines – Determination of Fe Content – WMT vs DMT – Prior to Finance Act, 2022 – For exports made before 01.05.2022, Fe content for levy of export duty to be determined on Wet Metric Tonne basis including moisture – Reliance placed on Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (SC) and consistent CESTAT decisions – Held: Assessment on WMT basis is correct and in accordance with settled law [Paras 7.1–8.7, 9–9.6].

Evidence – Test Reports – CRCL vs NABL Accredited Private Laboratory – Load Port Test Report – Transaction Value – Final invoice and Bank Realisation Certificate issued on basis of NABL Accredited Laboratory (SKM) test reports – Payments received accordingly – CRCL report based on delayed testing and DMT basis – Held: No perversity in preferring contemporaneous load port test report for determining Fe content and valuation [Paras 7.2–7.9, 9.1–9.2].

Customs Valuation – Section 14 Customs Act – Transaction Value – Value of export goods to be price actually paid or payable as per contract between exporter and foreign buyer – Customs authorities cannot alter contractual basis of valuation when no doubt exists regarding transaction value – Held: Load port test report forming basis of transaction value must prevail [Paras 7.5–7.9, 9.2].

CBIC Circulars – Interpretation – Circular No.12/2014-Cus and Circular No.04/2012-Cus – Circulars clarify assessment on WMT basis for export duty on Iron Ore Fines – Tribunal correctly applied circulars consistent with judicial precedents – No legal error demonstrated [Paras 8.7, 9.2].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Coordinate Bench Decisions – CESTAT followed consistent line of decisions on WMT basis and valuation – High Court declined to re-appreciate evidence or reopen settled position of law – Held: Judicial discipline mandates uniformity [Paras 8.8–8.11, 9.6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – CESTAT order dated 04.12.2024 upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 12–12.3].

Civil Law - Will – Proof and Suspicious Circumstances – Burden on Propounder – Deceased owner Buddhsen admittedly left behind wife and children as natural heirs – Defendant No.1 claimed title on the basis of Will dated 18.09.1985 – When Will excludes wife and children and bequeaths entire property to a non-relative belonging to a different caste, strong suspicious circumstances arise – Burden lies heavily on propounder to dispel such suspicion – Failure to satisfactorily explain exclusion of natural heirs renders Will doubtful and unenforceable [Paras 11, 15–21].

Will – Attestation and Evidence – Interested and Unreliable Witnesses – Though formal attestation sought to be proved under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, evidence of attesting witnesses revealed inconsistencies and unnatural conduct – Witnesses closely connected with defendant and having doubtful credibility – Circumstances surrounding execution and alleged registration before Notary found improbable – Held: Mere formal proof insufficient when execution surrounded by grave suspicion [Paras 11–14, 19].

Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of Natural Heirs – Will executed in favour of wealthy and influential person depriving poor testator’s wife and children of sole property – Reasons stated in Will found fabricated and unnatural – Testator owning no other property – Date gap between execution and verification of Will unexplained – Held: Suspicious circumstances not removed by propounder [Paras 16–21].

Letter Relied upon by Propounder – Fabrication – Letter dated 13.12.1985 (Ex.D-1) relied upon to justify Will – Typed document allegedly written by poor testator – Contents appeared self-serving and prepared to support Will – Held: Letter unreliable and confers no benefit on defendant [Para 15].

Mutation and Sale Deed – Effect – Mutation obtained on basis of doubtful Will – Subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 based on invalid title – Held: Mutation order and sale deed are null and void being derivative of invalid Will [Paras 2, 24].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Possession – Plaintiffs established themselves as legal heirs of deceased owner – Will not proved beyond suspicion – Trial Court rightly decreed suit declaring Will, mutation and sale deed null and void and directing restoration of possession – No perversity or legal infirmity found [Paras 24–25].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court affirmed – Will dated 18.09.1985, mutation and sale deed declared null and void – Plaintiffs entitled to possession.

Service Law – Recruitment – Age Relaxation – SEBC Candidate – Migration to Unreserved Category – Petitioner belonging to SEBC category applied for post of Management Trainee (HR) against unreserved vacancy – Advertisement prescribed maximum age of 32 years for UR candidates with age relaxation for reserved categories – No vacancy earmarked for SEBC category – Petitioner exceeded upper age limit for UR category – Held: In absence of express provision permitting migration with relaxation, reserved category candidate cannot claim age relaxation while competing for unreserved post [Paras 6–10, 12–13].

Recruitment Advertisement – Binding Nature – Eligibility Conditions – Recruitment governed strictly by terms of advertisement – Age limits and relaxations form part of employer’s policy domain – Court cannot rewrite or dilute conditions of advertisement – Online portal correctly rejected application as over-aged with reference to UR age criteria – Judicial interference unwarranted [Paras 10–11].

Reservation Law – Age Relaxation vis-à-vis Reservation – Distinction – Age relaxation is a category-based concession ancillary to reservation – Such concession cannot be availed independently when no post is reserved for the concerned category – Grant of such relaxation without reservation would result in hostile discrimination against unreserved candidates – Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 11, 13, 15].

Precedent – Applicability – Union of India v. Sajib Roy – Supreme Court held that migration of reserved category candidates to unreserved posts with relaxations is not an inherent right – Such migration must be expressly authorized by recruitment rules or notification – Ratio applied to deny claim of SEBC candidate in absence of enabling clause in advertisement [Paras 9–10].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Policy – Limited Scope – Fixation of age limits, category-wise vacancies and relaxations fall within exclusive domain of employer – Courts to interfere only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or illegality – No such infirmity found in present case [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Rejection of petitioner’s application upheld – Interim orders vacated – No entitlement to age relaxation against unreserved post in absence of SEBC vacancy [Paras 14–15].

Civil Law – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Executing Court Orders – Revision petition filed challenging dismissal of objections and issuance of warrants of possession by Executing Court – High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised to prevent manifest injustice and jurisdictional infirmity where execution would render statutory appeal infructuous [Paras 1, 3–4].

Rent Control – Ejectment for Non-Payment of Rent – Provisional Assessment – Rent Controller provisionally assessed arrears and fixed date for deposit – Tenant failed to deposit on account of Bar Association’s no-work call due to demise of an advocate – Ejectment order passed for default – Subsequent statutory remedies pursued by tenant [Paras 2, 2.2].

Execution Proceedings – Warrants of Possession – Effect on Pending Appeal – Executing Court dismissed objections and issued warrants of possession during pendency of appeal accompanied by applications under Sections 5 and 14 of Limitation Act – Held: Execution at this stage would defeat and frustrate statutory right of appeal [Paras 5.2, 6].

Limitation Act – Sections 5 and 14 – Condonation of Delay – Duty of Appellate Authority – Appeal filed along with applications for condonation of delay – Respondent sought adjournments and failed to file reply – Appellate Authority directed to decide applications expeditiously keeping in view urgency and equities involved [Paras 5.1, 6].

Equitable Relief – Conditional Protection to Tenant – High Court balanced rights of landlord and tenant by suspending warrants of possession subject to deposit of entire arrears of rent along with subsequent rent – Failure to comply to result in automatic revival of warrants – Conditional interim protection upheld as just and proper [Para 6.1].

Scope of Observations – Non-Prejudicial Nature – Observations made confined only to disposal of revision petition and not to influence merits of appeal – Appellate Authority directed to decide independently [Para 8].

Decision: Revision petition disposed of – Warrants of possession kept in abeyance pending decision on applications under Sections 5 and 14 of Limitation Act and stay application – Conditional upon deposit of arrears and current rent within one week – No opinion expressed on merits of ejectment dispute [Paras 6–9].

Tenancy Law - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act – Eviction – Reasonable Requirement – Second Appeal – Suit filed by landlords for recovery of possession on grounds of default, nuisance, damage and reasonable requirement – Trial Court dismissed suit holding lack of bona fide requirement and premises being unfit for habitation – First Appellate Court reversed decree and granted eviction on ground of reasonable requirement – Held: Appellate Court rightly appreciated evidence and need of landlord – No perversity or error of law warranting interference in second appeal [Paras 1–3, 10–11].

Landlord and Tenant – Reasonable and bona fide requirement – Scope and test – Reasonable requirement is a living and dynamic concept varying with time, family size and circumstances – Mere fact that landlord earlier lived in staircase room at time of letting does not negate future requirement – Court cannot compel landlord to continue to live in discomfort – Landlord is best judge of his own need – Held: Claim of landlords neither fanciful nor exaggerated [Paras 10–11].

Evidence – Advocate/Pleader Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary value – Reports indicating suit room not habitable and staircase room having low height – Such reports cannot dictate or construct landlord’s requirement – Commissioner’s report is only one piece of evidence and cannot override landlord’s bona fide need – Held: Appellate Court justified in not treating Commissioner’s report as determinative [Paras 9–11].

Alternative Accommodation – Suitability – Comparative hardship – Availability of other accommodation must be reasonably suitable in comparison with suit premises – Mere existence of other rooms or prior residence in another house does not defeat claim if such accommodation is unsuitable or no longer available – Sale of other house during pendency of suit taken into consideration – Held: Requirement remained reasonable and bona fide [Paras 9–11].

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Limits of jurisdiction – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence like a first appellate court – Interference justified only when findings are perverse or based on misapplication of law – Findings of First Appellate Court based on settled principles laid down by Supreme Court – Held: No substantial question of law survives for interference [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum affirmed – Appellants/tenants directed to hand over possession of suit premises within sixty days – Respondents/landlords at liberty to initiate execution on default – All pending applications disposed of.

Education Law – Fee Regulation – Mid-course Enhancement of Fees – Self-financing Engineering Colleges – Students admitted for B.Tech. batch 2023–2027 challenged applicability of revised fee ceiling notification dated 16.10.2023 – Primary contention confined to applicability and not legality of notification – Challenge to notification itself abandoned [Paras 33].

AICTE Act, 1987 and Regulations, 1994 – Fee Fixation – Regulation 7 – Fee to be fixed by State Level Committee – Fees to be intimated in advance for entire course but payable year-wise or semester-wise – Fee structure subject to ceiling fixed by competent authority – Held: Fee structure not indivisible and may be revised subject to statutory framework [Paras 34–38, 45–46].

Prospectus – Contractual Nature – Reservation of Right to Revise Fees – Prospectus expressly stated that fee structure was subject to change as per Government decisions – Students admitted with notice of such condition – Held: Students bound by contractual terms voluntarily accepted at the time of admission [Paras 41, 50–51].

Government Notification – Power to Revise Fee Ceiling – Section 21, General Clauses Act – Power to issue notification includes power to amend or supersede earlier notifications – State competent to revise upper fee ceiling after seven years – Notification dated 16.10.2023 issued in supersession of earlier orders and effective from date of issuance [Paras 42–44].

Prospective vs. Retrospective Operation – Interpretation of “with effect from academic year 2023–2024” – Academic year comprising multiple semesters – Fee payable semester-wise – Implementation from second semester (January 2024) not retrospective – Enhancement held prospective and legally permissible [Paras 45, 48–49].

Expression “To be admitted” – Interpretation – Expression used to identify category of students and not to restrict applicability only to future admissions – Explicit stipulation regarding effective date prevails over ambiguous language – Intention of notification held clear [Paras 47, 49].

Judicial Precedents – Distinguishability – Shanker Doon case and Bindiya Khatri case held inapplicable – Rendered under different statutory frameworks with express statutory prohibitions on fee revision for existing students – No such bar under West Bengal regime [Paras 52–54].

Equitable Considerations – Financial Hardship – No Ground to Avoid Contractual or Statutory Obligations – Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to rewrite contract or negate Government-mandated fee revision [Paras 51].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Notification dated 16.10.2023 validly applicable to petitioners from academic year 2023–2024 – No arbitrariness or illegality found – Prayer for stay rejected [Paras 55–56].

Tort Law – Electrocution – Death due to high-voltage transmission line – Compensation – Deceased TV cable operator died due to electric shock while repairing cable on rooftop – Trial Court dismissed suit on conjecture that 132 KV line could not cause such death – First Appellate Court reversed findings and decreed suit – Held: Death due to electrocution proved by ocular and medical evidence – Trial Court’s reasoning based on assumptions unsustainable [Paras 2–4, 7–8].

Electricity Law – High-voltage transmission lines – Statutory and non-delegable duty – Electricity supplier under obligation to maintain safe clearances and remove obstructions – Evidence showed tree touching/dangerously close to 132 KV line creating lethal induction zone – Breach of statutory duty established [Paras 8–10].

Strict Liability – Hazardous activity – Transmission of electricity – Electricity inherently dangerous commodity – Once death due to electrocution established, liability of electricity authority arises irrespective of negligence – Burden on authority to show absence of liability – Failure to discharge burden – Reliance placed on M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari [Paras 10–11].

Contributory Negligence – Plea rejected – Victim engaged in lawful occupation on rooftop – Cannot be expected to foresee induction hazard from negligently maintained transmission line – Duty of safety rests on electricity authority and cannot be shifted to victim [Para 12].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness testimony – Departmental records – Eye-witness corroborated by medical evidence and site plan – Defence of no tripping on line disbelieved due to discrepancies and overwriting in departmental records – Absence of tripping not determinative where induction possible [Paras 8–9].

Compensation – Assessment – Multiplier method – First Appellate Court applied principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC and Pranay Sethi – Notional income, future prospects and conventional heads correctly assessed – Quantum neither excessive nor arbitrary [Para 13].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No substantial question of law – Findings of First Appellate Court based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled law – High Court not justified in interfering with concurrent and reasoned findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani affirmed – No order as to costs.