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].

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].

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.

Criminal Law – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Production of Electronic Evidence – Revision petition assailing order of Judicial Magistrate allowing complainant to tender a pen drive containing recorded conversation along with certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act during examination-in-chief – Earlier CD containing the conversation had become unreadable – Held: Section 311 Cr.P.C. is couched in the widest terms and empowers the Court at any stage of trial to summon, recall or re-examine a witness if the evidence appears essential for the just decision of the case – Provision intended to enable the Court to discover truth and render justice, not to benefit either party [Paras 7–8].

Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Discretion of Court – Filling of Lacunae – Test of Prejudice – Contention that complainant was filling lacunae rejected – Mere fact that evidence strengthens prosecution case or was not produced earlier not a ground to reject application – Test is whether evidence is essential for just decision – Adequate safeguard lies in granting full opportunity of cross-examination – No serious or irreversible prejudice shown to have been caused to accused [Paras 8–9, 11].

Electronic Evidence – Section 65-B Evidence Act – Stage of Admissibility – Production of pen drive along with statutory certificate permitted subject to objections – Genuineness, reliability and evidentiary value of electronic record to be examined at stage of appreciation of evidence – Authenticity cannot be adjudicated at threshold while considering application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Revision – Interference – Limits – Revisional Court will not interfere unless trial Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or acted with material irregularity or perversity – Impugned order found to be reasoned, balanced and in consonance with settled principles governing Section 311 Cr.P.C. [Para 11].

Decision – Revision petition dismissed – Order dated 19.07.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 13–14].

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.

Criminal Law - Forgery of Will – Pendency of probate proceedings no bar to criminal prosecution – Magistrate justified in directing FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC – Quashing at threshold declined – Investigation to proceed.

Criminal Law – Forgery of Will – Parallel Probate Proceedings – Maintainability of FIR – Registered Will dated 29.04.2011 challenged as forged during pendency of probate proceedings – Magistrate directed registration of FIR under Sections 467/471 IPC on complaint supported by handwriting expert report – Held: Pendency of probate or civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution where allegations disclose ingredients of cognizable offences – Civil and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres [Paras 50–61, 66–67].

Section 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate’s Power – Scope and Limits – Magistrate required to examine whether allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence necessitating police investigation – Not mandatory to direct investigation in every complaint, but justified where allegations require collection of evidence beyond complainant’s reach – Order directing registration of FIR held proper [Paras 52, 65].

Quashing of FIR – Article 226 / Section 482 CrPC – Limited Jurisdiction – High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or evaluate probative value of expert opinion at threshold – FIR not an encyclopaedia and need not contain all evidence – Investigation must be allowed to proceed unless no offence is disclosed – Reliance on Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure principles [Paras 62–66].

Expert Evidence – Handwriting Expert – Evidentiary Value at FIR Stage – Opinion of handwriting expert only advisory and not conclusive – However, at stage of registration of FIR, conclusiveness of expert opinion not required – Challenge to reliability or time gap in specimen signatures a matter of trial and investigation, not quashing [Paras 15–16, 64–66].

Civil vs Criminal Liability – Distinct Standards of Proof – Probate proceedings determine validity of Will on preponderance of probabilities – Criminal prosecution requires proof of mens rea beyond reasonable doubt – Allegations of forgery and use of forged document constitute independent offences irrespective of outcome of probate case [Paras 60–61, 67].

Abuse of Process – Not Established – Allegations not shown to be mala fide or purely civil in nature at this stage – FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence – No exceptional circumstances warranting quashing made out [Paras 66–69].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – FIR No. 197/2024 under Sections 467/471 IPC not quashed – Criminal investigation permitted to proceed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Power to Array Additional Accused – Degree of Satisfaction – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and cannot be exercised mechanically – Degree of satisfaction required is the same as that required for framing of charge – Mere existence of some evidence is insufficient unless such evidence is strong and cogent – Held: Magistrate erred in summoning petitioner as additional accused without legally admissible material [Paras 4–6].

Evidence – Belated and Bald Allegations – Lack of Credibility – Petitioner not named in private complaint nor in original testimony of PW1 – After lapse of about nine years, PW1 gave additional statement implicating petitioner without disclosing source of knowledge or reasons for delay – Such belated allegations based on surmises and conjectures cannot form basis for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Paras 4–5].

Lok Ayukta Proceedings – Limited Scope – Lok Ayukta proceedings against petitioner related only to alleged grant of police protection – Proceedings ended on acceptance of unconditional apology – No finding of involvement in theft of trees – Held: Lok Ayukta order cannot be relied upon to infer criminal complicity in offence under Section 379 IPC [Para 5].

Further Investigation Report – No Incriminating Material – Further investigation by police indicated only that petitioner rendered police protection to first accused in connection with civil dispute – No material to suggest participation in theft – Held: Such material insufficient to arraign petitioner as co-accused [Para 5].

Public Servant – Requirement of Sanction – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Allegations against petitioner relate to acts purportedly done in discharge of official duties as Dy.S.P. – In absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., Magistrate could not have taken cognizance – Proceedings held vitiated for want of sanction [Para 6].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process – Continuation of proceedings against petitioner would amount to abuse of process of court – Ends of justice require quashing of proceedings – High Court justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction [Para 6].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioner/additional 8th accused in C.C. No.138/2005 quashed – Order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. set aside.

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.

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].