Education Law – Unrecognised Schools – Mandatory Recognition under RTE Act – Section 18 – Petitioners alleged that a private educational institution was being run without statutory recognition – Educational authorities found institution to be unrecognised and issued stop memo – Held: Running any school without recognition from the competent Government authority is impermissible and violative of Section 18 of the RTE Act [Paras 2, 7, 9].

Education Law – Religious / Pre-school Instruction – Scope of RTE Act – Institution imparting pre-school education with religious instruction to around 300 students – Reliance placed on earlier decision of Kerala High Court disapproving imparting religious instruction without State permission – Such institutions cannot function outside statutory framework under guise of pre-school or religious education [Paras 7–8].

Recognition – National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) – Effect – Institution relied on NIOS accreditation to justify continuation – Held: Accreditation by NIOS does not dispense with requirement of recognition under Section 18 of the RTE Act from the State Government – NIOS recognition alone insufficient [Paras 6–7].

Writ of Mandamus – Enforcement of Statutory Duty – Petition by local residents – Authorities duty-bound to act on reports finding lack of recognition – Direction issued to shut down unrecognised educational institution – Mandamus granted [Paras 2, 10].

Equitable Relief – Students’ Interest – Time to Make Alternate Arrangements – While ordering closure, Court granted limited protection by permitting institution to function for the academic year 2025–26 to enable students to make alternative arrangements [Para 10].

Connected Writ Petition – Challenge to Closure Proceedings – Educational institution sought quashing of stop memo and closure direction – Held: No legal right to continue without recognition – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–10].

Decision: WP(C) No.21615 of 2023 allowed – Authorities directed to shut down unrecognised institution subject to limited continuation for academic year 2025–26 – WP(C) No.28053 of 2024 dismissed.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – MMRDA Act, 1974 – Grant of TDR instead of monetary compensation – Illegality – Land of petitioners acquired for Santacruz–Chembur Link Road project – Competent Authority unilaterally awarded compensation in the form of TDR without determining monetary compensation under Section 35 – Statutory scheme under Section 35 mandates determination of “amount” payable – Held: Compensation under the MMRDA Act must be monetary and cannot be substituted by TDR unilaterally – Award dated 15.12.2012 held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 28–35].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 35, MMRDA Act – Step-wise procedure mandatory – Section 35 provides a complete code for determination of compensation – Requires attempt at agreement under Section 35(2) and, failing that, determination of compensation based on net average monthly income – No provision permitting unilateral grant of TDR – Any deviation from statutory mechanism violates authority of law under Article 300A [Paras 23–29, 34–35].

Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) – Consent of land owner – Requirement of consensus – Even where statute contemplates TDR (as under MRTP Act), grant must be by consensus – Applying Full Bench decision in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers – Under MMRDA Act, which does not expressly provide for TDR, unilateral imposition of TDR is impermissible – Petitioners on stronger footing [Paras 30–34].

Alternative Remedy – Tribunal under Section 35(6) – Not efficacious – Tribunal’s jurisdiction confined to disputes regarding quantum of monetary compensation based on net average monthly income – Tribunal cannot adjudicate legality of grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation – Objection of alternative remedy rejected [Paras 36–37].

Delay and Laches – Continuing violation of Article 300A – Acquisition completed in 2011–2012, writ petition filed in 2024 – Held: Forcible deprivation of property without lawful compensation constitutes continuing wrong – State cannot defeat constitutional right to property on ground of delay – Reliance placed on Sukh Dutt Ratra, Vidya Devi, and Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah [Paras 38–45].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Deprivation of property must be by authority of law and accompanied by just, fair and reasonable compensation – Compensation is integral to lawful acquisition – Unilateral grant of TDR amounts to taking possession without authority of law – Violates constitutional and human right to property [Paras 39–44].

Relief – Quashing of Award – Direction to determine monetary compensation – Impugned award dated 15.12.2012 and communication dated 01.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to determine monetary compensation strictly in accordance with Section 35(2) to 35(5) of the MMRDA Act – Exercise to be completed within six months – Writ petition allowed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned award and communication set aside – Respondents directed to determine and pay monetary compensation as per Section 35 of the MMRDA Act within six months.

Civil Law – Amendment of Plaint – Withdrawal or Explanation of Admission – Permissibility – Plaintiffs originally pleaded that predecessor-in-title Udharani Dasi was absolute owner of suit property – By amendment sought to plead that Udharani had only limited interest under prevailing law and lacked authority to alienate property between 1911–1933 – Defendants contended amendment impermissible as it withdraws admission and changes nature of suit – Held: Admission does not create title and is not conclusive – Admission may be explained or clarified if facts justify – Amendment explaining legal nature of predecessor’s title not mutually destructive of original pleading [Paras 13, 18–19, 22].

Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment After Framing of Issues – Due Diligence – Application for amendment filed after framing of issues and at stage of evidence – Objection that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 attracted – Held: Mere delay not a ground to refuse amendment – Dominant test is whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy between parties – Belated amendment can be allowed if prejudice can be compensated by costs or opportunity to file additional written statement [Paras 20–21].

Cause of Action – Nature and Character of Suit – No Fundamental Change – Original suit for declaration of joint ownership and partition – Proposed amendment did not seek additional relief nor introduce a new cause of action – Core controversy remained determination of title and succession – Held: Amendment neither changes nature nor character of suit nor substitutes a new and inconsistent case [Paras 17–19, 21, 23].

Amendment of Pleadings – Real Controversy Test – Court must not examine correctness or falsity of amended plea at amendment stage – Real controversy test to be applied – Amendment necessary to adjudicate whether Udharani had transferable title under law prevailing at relevant time – Held: Trial court rightly allowed amendment to enable complete and effective adjudication [Paras 16–18].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Order allowing amendment discretionary and procedural – No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error found – Held: High Court will not interfere under Article 227 merely because another view is possible [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Civil Revisional Application dismissed – Order dated 20.02.2024 allowing amendment of plaint affirmed – No interference warranted under Article 227 – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Corruption Case – Second Bail Application – Parity with Co-accused – Temporary Bail Granted – Applicant, a Sub-Inspector, accused of extorting ₹50 lakhs during election code period – First bail application rejected considering recovery of ₹30 lakhs from applicant and gravity of offence – Co-accused Prince Srivastava subsequently granted bail by Supreme Court on ground of long incarceration and non-framing of charges – Delay in trial attributable to protective orders obtained by other co-accused – Held: On parity with co-accused and prolonged custody since 09.04.2024, applicant entitled to temporary bail for four months with strict conditions – Bail granted subject to surrender after four months [Paras 40–45].

Bail – Delay in Trial – Attribution of Delay – Protective Orders to Co-accused – Trial not progressed due to non-appearance of co-accused enjoying “no coercive action” orders under Section 528 BNSS – Prosecution not at fault for non-framing of charges – Court nevertheless considers prolonged incarceration of applicant already in custody – Held: Delay factor relevant but balanced by limited-duration bail [Paras 41–42].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Interference with Investigation – Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Applicant sought direction to collect CCTV footage and CDR/GPS data of police officials – Earlier identical application rejected by trial court and attained finality – Second application filed without disclosure of earlier rejection amounts to concealment – Reliance on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi – Accused not entitled to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage for defence material – Held: No interference warranted – Application dismissed [Paras 19–27].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 528 BNSS – Scope and Limits – Co-accused Vishal Tiwari and Prachand Pratap Singh sought quashing of charge-sheet and cognizance – Not named in FIR but specifically named in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with assigned roles – No recovery from them but prima facie material exists – Court cannot conduct mini trial or assess defence at quashing stage – Principles of Neeharika Infrastructure and four-step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani applied – Held: No ground for quashing – Applications dismissed [Paras 28–37].

Evidence – Confessional Statement – Section 25 Evidence Act – At Quashing Stage – Argument that only confessional statements exist against co-accused rejected – Statements of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. constitute independent material – Admissibility and weight of evidence matters for trial – Held: Cannot be examined at Section 482/528 stage [Paras 29–36].

Directions – Expeditious Trial – Interim protections vacated – Trial court directed to proceed expeditiously without granting undue adjournments – Applicant on bail directed to cooperate and surrender after four months [Paras 38–47].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – Resumption of Land – Proof of Grant – Absence of Original Records – Assistant Commissioner proceeded on assumptions without producing grant order or authenticated records – Mere reference to “documents available on record” insufficient – Order of resumption unsustainable [Paras 21–26].

PTCL Act – Burden of Proof – Claimants seeking resumption must conclusively establish that land was granted to a member of SC/ST with conditions against alienation – Confiscatory nature of resumption proceedings – Strict proof required – Deputy Commissioner rightly set aside resumption order in absence of proof [Paras 27–28].

Grant vs. Auction Sale – Darkhast Register – Material produced in appeal indicating that land was sold to original holder in public auction and not granted free or at concessional rate – Land sold in auction does not attract PTCL Act – Proceedings under PTCL Act not maintainable [Paras 18–20, 21–22].

Alienation of Land – Registered Sale Deed of 1951 – Long Possession of Purchasers and their Successors – Delay and Laches – Application for resumption filed after about 46–47 years – Such belated challenge to alienation held not maintainable [Paras 25, 30].

Single Judge’s Order – Error Apparent – Proceeded on assumption that grant in favour of Bovi community member stood proved – Failed to examine absence of original grant records and delay – Order set aside [Paras 16, 28–29].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order dated 17.11.2004 passed in W.P. No. 7988/2002 (SC/ST) set aside – Appellate order of Deputy Commissioner dated 15.10.2001 restored – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 31–32].

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Judicial Review under Articles 226 & 227 – Limited scope of interference – Borrower sought quashing of e-auction proceedings on the ground of arbitrary reduction of reserve price and violation of MSME revival framework – Held: Measures taken by secured creditor strictly in accordance with SARFAESI Act and Rules – No arbitrariness or procedural impropriety warranting interference in writ jurisdiction [Paras 13–14].

MSME – RBI Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation – Obligation of borrower – Petitioner claimed benefit of MSME status belatedly after initiation of SARFAESI measures – Held: MSME borrower must proactively assert its status and seek benefits of the framework at the stage of reply to Section 13(2) notice supported by affidavit – Failure to do so disentitles borrower from invoking framework at later stage [Paras 10–13].

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(2) and 13(3A) – Demand notice and objections – No material placed to show that borrower raised MSME status or sought restructuring in response to demand notice – Admittedly no revival or restructuring proposal submitted at any stage – Held: Bank not obligated to suo motu extend MSME benefits in absence of borrower’s claim [Paras 11–13].

Auction of secured assets – Reduction of reserve price – Validity – Reserve price reduced after failure of earlier auctions – Reduction carried out in accordance with bank guidelines and SARFAESI Rules – Held: Mere reduction of reserve price does not per se establish arbitrariness, particularly after repeated failed auctions [Paras 6, 9, 13].

Equitable jurisdiction – Conduct of borrower – Bank released one secured property enabling borrower to liquidate substantial dues – Significant payments adjusted against outstanding – Considerable time gap between NPA classification and auction proceedings – Held: Bank adopted a fair, measured and restrained approach – Borrower cannot invoke equity to stall lawful recovery proceedings [Paras 4, 13].

Precedent – MSME borrowers and SARFAESI proceedings – Reliance placed on M/s Pro Knits v. Canara Bank and Shri Shri Swamy and Finance Solution v. NKGSB Co-op Bank Ltd. – Held: MSME benefits cannot be claimed as a dilatory tactic after SARFAESI process has substantially progressed [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No interference with SARFAESI measures or e-auction proceedings – Actions of the Bank upheld as lawful and in consonance with statutory framework.

Criminal Law – Section 295A IPC – Sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. – Stage of applicability – Petition seeking quashing of FIR on the ground that prior sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. was not obtained – Held: Statutory bar under Section 196 Cr.P.C. operates only at the stage of taking cognizance by the Court and not at the stage of registration of FIR or investigation – Police are competent to register FIR and conduct investigation without prior sanction – Sanction becomes mandatory only when the Court proposes to take cognizance upon filing of the final report [Paras 7–8].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court cautioned against premature interdiction of investigation at an incipient stage – Interference at investigation stage permissible only when complaint does not disclose any offence or proceedings are manifestly abusive – Held: Investigation in present case cannot be stifled when allegations disclose serious offence affecting communal harmony [Paras 8, 10].

Penal Code – Section 295A IPC – Deliberate and malicious intention – Prima facie satisfaction – Allegations relating to circulation of extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane images of Hindu deities in a WhatsApp group – Material on record demonstrating tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony – Held: Ingredients of Section 295A IPC prima facie satisfied – Question of mens rea, extent of petitioner’s role and liability of other administrators are matters for investigation and trial [Paras 9–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 67 – Obscene electronic content – Online dissemination – Circulation of obscene images through WhatsApp group involving large number of participants – Electronic material seized and examined during investigation – Held: Allegations disclose offence under Section 67 IT Act warranting continuation of investigation [Paras 2, 10].

Freedom of Speech – Article 19(1)(a) – Reasonable restrictions – Religious offence – Reliance placed on Ramji Lal Modi, Amish Devgan and other precedents – Held: Section 295A penalises only aggravated forms of insult with deliberate and malicious intent – Content having propensity to disrupt public order falls within reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) – Free speech cannot be a shield for obscene and malicious religious insult [Paras 9–9.4].

Investigation – Selective prosecution – Role of administrators – Court noted concern that investigating agency appeared not to have proceeded uniformly against all group administrators – However, such aspect held to be within domain of investigation – Direction issued to conclude investigation expeditiously and proceed against all persons found culpable [Para 10–11].

Decision:Criminal Petition dismissed – FIR and investigation in Crime No.4/2021 upheld – Interim orders vacated – Investigating Officer directed to complete investigation expeditiously – I.A. No.2 of 2024 disposed.

Service Law – Selection Process – Fair Price Shop Dealer – Allocation of Marks for Interview – Judicial Restraint on Finalisation of Selection – Non-est Selection – Notification issued inviting applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer providing 50 marks for written test and 50 marks for oral interview – Appellant secured full marks in written test but was unsuccessful in interview – Selection challenged on ground of excessive weightage to interview and violation of constitutional principles – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition applying doctrine of estoppel on ground that appellant participated in selection process – Held: Though ordinarily a candidate who participates in a selection process is estopped from challenging it, such principle cannot apply where the selection itself is conducted in violation of binding judicial directions – Selection continued and finalised despite specific direction in W.P. No.3553 of 2012 & batch restraining finalisation till revision of guidelines – Entire selection process rendered non-est in law – Court cannot uphold an appointment made in defiance of directions issued by a constitutional court – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Fresh selection directed in accordance with revised criteria pursuant to judgment in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch quashing G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2011 – Appeal allowed [Paras 12–14].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Estoppel – Participation in Selection Process – Exception – Participation in selection ordinarily bars subsequent challenge – However, estoppel has no application where selection is vitiated by illegality and conducted contrary to express judicial आदेश – Rule of estoppel cannot legitimise an act that is void in law [Paras 12–13].

Constitutional Law – Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Court Directions – Authorities bound to comply with interim and final directions issued by High Court – Any action taken in contravention thereof is void and unenforceable – Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sustain such actions [Paras 9, 13].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 19.06.2014 in W.P. No.6463 of 2012 set aside – Respondents directed to initiate fresh selection process by fixing interview marks in accordance with criteria laid down pursuant to judgment dated 04.04.2013 in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch – No costs – Connected miscellaneous applications closed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of Civil Dispute – Pendency of Civil Suits – Held: Mere availability or pendency of civil remedy does not bar criminal investigation where allegations disclose prima facie cognizable offences [Paras 9–11].

Forgery and Impersonation – Large Scale Property Fraud – Detailed complaint alleging impersonation of landowner, fabrication of sale deeds, gift deeds, GPA, JDA, forged Will and misappropriation of compensation – Allegations not peripheral but central to criminal conspiracy – Investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold [Paras 3–8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS, 2023 – Scope and Limitations – Court not to assess truth or otherwise of allegations at investigation stage – Interference permissible only in rare cases where no offence is disclosed – Present case discloses serious cognizable offences warranting full investigation [Paras 10–11, 15].

Civil and Criminal Remedies – Coexistence – Same set of facts may give rise to civil as well as criminal liability – Criminal law not eclipsed merely because civil suits for cancellation of documents are pending – Principle reiterated through Supreme Court precedents [Paras 9–11].

Impersonation Before Public Authorities – Abuse of Judicial and Registration Process – Allegations of forged appearances before Sub-Registrar, fraudulent mutation entries, false court proceedings and Letters of Administration – Matters requiring thorough investigation by police [Paras 12–13].

Reliance on Precedents – Distinguishing Case Law – Judgment relied upon by petitioner held inapplicable on facts – Present case saturated with allegations of fraud, impersonation and forgery unlike mere contractual or civil disputes [Paras 14].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Interim order vacated – Investigation in Crime No.446 of 2025 to proceed in accordance with law – I.A. No.1 of 2026 disposed of [Para 15].