Succession – Removal of Executor – Section 301 – Fiduciary Duty – Persistent Non-Compliance – Applicant sought removal of Respondent (brother) as Executor for failure to administer estate despite probate granted in 2016 – Prior order dated 29/01/2025 had granted final opportunity with time-bound directions – Held: Continued non-compliance, vague explanations and failure to distribute estate within stipulated timelines constitute gross misconduct and breach of fiduciary obligations – Requirements of Section 301 satisfied – Executor removed and independent Administrator appointed [Paras 18-21, 24-25].

Executor – Duties and Obligations – Section 317 – Imposition of Extraneous Conditions – Respondent insisted on execution of Memorandum of Family Settlement and indemnity as pre-condition to distribution – Earlier order had categorically rejected such stand as being in teeth of statutory duties – Held: Once probate granted, Executor bound to administer estate strictly in accordance with Will – Cannot impose additional conditions not contemplated by Will – Such conduct amounts to obstruction of due administration [Paras 13(b), 18].

Administration of Estate – Delay of Nearly Decade – Failure to Furnish Proper Inventory and Accounts – Despite specific directions to distribute movables within two months and immovables within six months, Respondent failed to comply – Chart tendered during arguments contained unverified assertions not pleaded on oath nor supported by documentary evidence – Held: Casual and unsupported explanations demonstrate lackadaisical attitude and disregard of Court’s orders – Chart rightly disregarded [Paras 14-17].

Dividend and Shares – Transfer to IEPF – Non-Compliance with ECS Directions – Respondent contended that shares/dividends transferred to IEPF and companies refused transmission – Held: No documentary proof produced – No explanation of steps taken to recover shares or enforce rights – Bare assertions insufficient to justify delay – Demonstrates failure to exercise due diligence expected of Executor [Paras 13(c)-(e), 17].

Testamentary Jurisdiction – Discretion under Section 301 – Scope – Court empowered to suspend, remove or discharge Executor where continuance is detrimental to estate or prejudicial to beneficiaries – Beneficiary (widow) died awaiting legacy – Persistent delay frustrates testamentary intent – Held: Court cannot remain mute spectator to prolonged inaction – Removal warranted in interest of justice [Paras 20-24].

Precedents – Dr. Subhada Mithilesh v. Prabhakar Deolankar – Bagchi v. Hrishikesh Sanyal – Held: Executor not to be removed lightly – However, where clear material shows detriment to estate and frustration of Will, removal justified – On facts, precedents do not assist Respondent [Paras 22-23].

Relief – Appointment of Administrator – Respondent removed as Executor – Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale (Retd. Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court) appointed as Administrator – Directions issued for handover of records, filing of true inventory and accounts, and expeditious distribution within six months – Honorarium payable from estate – Stay refused [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Respondent removed as Executor under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Independent Administrator appointed – Directions issued for inventory, handover of records and time-bound distribution – No order as to costs – Request for stay rejected.

Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Distinction from Sale with Condition to Repurchase – Deed dated 24.09.1979 executed for Rs.13,000/- with stipulation to reconvey on repayment within 7 years – Restriction on enjoyment of property and indication of borrowing for household and agricultural expenses – Relationship of debtor and creditor established – Held: Transaction was mortgage by conditional sale and not outright sale or independent right to repurchase – Intention to be gathered from document as a whole applying literal rule of interpretation – Decree for reconveyance and possession upheld [Paras 9-15, 18].

Interpretation of Document – Literal Rule – Court must read document as a whole and assign natural meaning where language is clear and unambiguous – Surrounding circumstances secondary when terms are explicit – Supreme Court principles reiterated – True intention discerned from contents of Exh.26 – Document created security for debt and not absolute transfer of title [Paras 10-11].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Substantial Question of Law – Appellant contended that appellate court erred in not examining readiness and willingness and in granting specific performance – High Court held that findings regarding nature of transaction were based on proper appreciation of document and settled legal principles – No substantial question of law survived for consideration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 18-20].

Mortgage vs. Sale – Essential Tests – Single document embodying condition – Consideration amount indicative of borrowing – Restrictions on enjoyment – Right of redemption subsists – Applying tests laid down in Bhoju Mandal and Patel Ravjibhai Bhulabhai – Held: Exh.26 satisfied ingredients of mortgage by conditional sale – Plaintiffs entitled to redeem and obtain reconveyance upon payment of Rs.13,000/- [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of first Appellate Court directing plaintiffs to deposit Rs.14,610/- (mortgage money) and directing defendant to execute reconveyance deed and hand over peaceful possession upheld – Interim relief vacated – Record and Proceedings directed to be sent back to trial Court.

Education Law – RTE Act, 2009 – Teacher Redeployment – Validity of G.O. dated 14.11.2025 – Government Order issued to maintain prescribed pupil–teacher ratio under Section 25 of the 2009 Act – Challenge on grounds of arbitrariness, mid-session transfer and absence of procedure – Held: G.O. is supplemental and curative in nature, issued to ensure strict statutory compliance and cannot be termed arbitrary or ultra vires – Policy decision in furtherance of Article 21-A – Valid [Paras 71–79, 103–109, 132].

Service Law – Transfer – Incidence of Service – Scope of Judicial Review – Transfer within same district pursuant to policy for rationalization – No mala fides or statutory violation established – Courts do not sit in appeal over administrative transfers – Interference confined to cases of mala fide, arbitrariness or breach of statutory rules – Petitioners failed to demonstrate such infirmity – Limited judicial restraint reiterated [Paras 93–100, 124, 136–137].

RTE Act – Section 25 – Pupil-Teacher Ratio – Continuing Obligation – Rule 21 of 2011 Rules provides annual review before July – Not an absolute embargo on corrective measures thereafter – State retains power to issue executive instructions in November to address emergent shortages – Obligation to maintain PTR is continuing and overrides timing objection [Paras 82, 88–90].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Procedural Compliance – Though G.O. not arbitrary per se, implementation must be data-driven and transparent – Non-preparation of consolidated verified list of surplus/deficit schools or improper inclusion of Shiksha Mitras contrary to law may render action arbitrary – Issue relates to improper implementation, not absence of power – Individual grievances to be examined by District Level Committee [Paras 112–115, 138–142].

Policy Decisions – Judicial Restraint – Education Policy – Court reiterates that in matters affecting policy and administrative exigencies, judicial review is limited to legality of decision-making process – Courts cannot substitute executive wisdom unless action is unconstitutional, mala fide or contrary to statute – Transfers to achieve statutory mandate of RTE Act fall within executive domain [Paras 122–129].

Natural Justice – Mass Adjustment – Opportunity of Representation – Though transfer is incidence of service, fairness requires affected teachers be permitted to submit objections where large-scale rationalization undertaken – Directions issued to file individual representations before District Level Committee – Speaking orders to be passed [Paras 118–121, 145].

Data Verification – UDISE Portal – Necessity of Accurate Institutional Data – Apparent non-verification of sanctioned strength and working strength necessitates calibrated judicial intervention – Authorities directed to verify and update authentic data and ensure redeployment strictly as per RTE Act [Paras 138, 143–147].

Directions:

(i) Government Order dated 14.11.2025 upheld – Challenge rejected

(ii) Petitioners to submit separate representations within one week before District Level Committee

(iii) Committee to decide objections by reasoned and speaking orders within one month

(iv) Status quo to be maintained for one month or till decision, whichever earlier

(v) Authorities to verify and update UDISE data and ensure maintenance of prescribed pupil–teacher ratio in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009

(vi) Writ petitions disposed of with observations and directions [Paras 145–148].

Service Law – Recovery of Excess Payment – Retired Employee – Petitioner retired on 30.11.2005 – Objection regarding pay scale raised at fag end of service on 02.07.2005 – Impugned order dated 08.06.2007 directed recovery of Rs.2,80,000/- from pension on ground that petitioner had not acquired B.Ed. qualification within prescribed period – No allegation of fraud or misrepresentation – Held: Recovery from retired employee is impermissible in view of law laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Shyam Babu Verma – Direction of recovery quashed [Paras 10–12].

Service Law – Pay Fixation – Graduate Primary Teacher – Requirement of B.Ed. Qualification within Five Years – Respondents contended that under Government Resolution dated 14.11.1979 petitioner ought to have obtained B.Ed. qualification within five years from 01.08.1985 – Though recovery barred, employer not precluded from correcting erroneous pay fixation for purpose of pension – Held: Pension can be re-fixed strictly in accordance with applicable Rules, but such re-fixation shall operate prospectively and shall not result in recovery of amounts already paid [Para 12].

Pension – Statutory Right – Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 – Pension governed by applicable Rules – While excess payment made due to employer’s mistake cannot be recovered after retirement in absence of fraud, employee cannot insist on continuation of incorrect pay fixation contrary to statutory provisions – Court balanced equities by restraining recovery and permitting prospective re-fixation [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Impugned order dated 08.06.2007 quashed to extent of recovery – Respondents restrained from recovering any amount already paid during service or from pensionary benefits – Liberty granted to re-fix pension prospectively within eight weeks – No order as to costs – Rule made partly absolute.

Rape – Consent on Promise of Marriage – Discharge – Prosecutrix alleged physical relations on false assurance of marriage – Record revealed long-standing relationship of two years – Single incident alleged – Delay in complaint and FIR – No material indicating force, coercion or false inducement from inception – Held: No prima facie material to show consent was vitiated under Section 90 IPC – Trial Court rightly discharged accused under Section 376 IPC [Paras 12-17].

Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Scope – For consent to be vitiated on ground of false promise of marriage, prosecution must prima facie show that promise was false at inception and intended solely to obtain consent – In present case, parties were in consensual relationship and prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied accused – No grave suspicion of deception or fraudulent inducement made out [Paras 15-17].

Discharge – Standard under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C. – Court at stage of charge to assess whether material gives rise to “grave suspicion” and not merely suspicion – Where two views possible and evidence gives rise only to suspicion, discharge justified – Trial Court cannot conduct mini-trial but must evaluate whether essential ingredients of offence are disclosed – Impugned order consistent with principles laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal [Paras 6, 18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., interference warranted only in case of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Where Trial Court’s view is plausible and based on record, High Court not to substitute its own view – No glaring perversity or illegality found in discharge order [Paras 19-20].

Delay and Conduct – Relevance at Stage of Charge – Prosecutrix lodged complaint nearly one month after alleged incident and FIR registered thereafter – No allegation of repeated acts – Conduct of parties, including voluntary travel and continued communication, relevant in assessing existence of grave suspicion at threshold stage [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Order dated 31.05.2017 discharging respondent from offence under Section 376 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction.

Criminal Law – Withdrawal from Prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Dismissal of State's Revision Upheld – FIR No. 53/2018 registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 332, 333, 353, 336, 307 and 436 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act arising from stone-pelting by protesters during "Bharat Band" on 02.04.2018 at Raniwada, Jalore – During trial, State filed application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal from prosecution – Trial court dismissed the same by order dated 16.01.2021 – State preferred revision (S.B. CRLR No. 953/2021) – Accused's revision (S.B. CRLR No. 444/2024) dismissed as not pressed – Held: Trial court's order refusing consent to withdrawal neither perverse nor illegal – Revision petition devoid of merit – Order dated 16.01.2021 affirmed [Para 4-5].

Role of Public Prosecutor – Independent Discretion – Not a Postman of the State – Section 321 CrPC structures the withdrawal provision in three parts: (i) prosecution part — who can apply; (ii) judicial part — consent of court; and (iii) victim part — rights of unattended complainant – Public Prosecutor must exercise independent legal discretion before filing withdrawal application and must not act as a mere delivery agent or postman of the executive – An application filed under an incorrect provision of law (Section 311 CrPC instead of Section 321 CrPC) conclusively demonstrates non-application of mind and utter disregard to legal parameters – Held: Public Prosecutor cannot abdicate independent judgment merely to relay State Government's resolution [Paras 18-29].

Grounds for Withdrawal from Prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Four Valid Grounds Enumerated – Following grounds recognized in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) for seeking withdrawal: (1) bleak possibility of successful prosecution bearing in mind evidence; (2) incrimination of individuals born out of political or personal vendetta; (3) inexpediency of prosecution for reasons of State and public policy; (4) unfavourable impact of continued prosecution on public interest in light of altered scenario – In the present case, none of the four grounds existed — evidence showed prospects of successful prosecution, no signs of political vendetta, no public policy impediment, and continued prosecution would not cause pernicious impact on public interest [Paras 30-31].

Judicial Check and Balance – Court's Role – Consent Not a Rubber Stamp – Section 321 CrPC vests supervisory, not merely adjudicatory, function in the Court — Court must satisfy itself that: (a) application is made in good faith in the interest of public policy and justice; (b) application does not suffer from improprieties causing manifest injustice; (c) grant of consent sub-serves administration of justice; and (d) permission not sought with ulterior purpose unconnected with vindication of law – Court cannot act as a mere stamp or rubber stamp while granting consent and must guard against executive interference in judicial process – Trial court that allowed withdrawal merely because State did not wish to continue, without independent application of mind, deserves deprecation [Paras 44-57].

Victims' Rights – Prosecution Withdrawal – Non-Participation Tantamounts to Denial of Access to Justice – Wrongful withdrawal from prosecution leads to: (i) denial of victims' rights; (ii) loss of public faith in legal system; (iii) encouragement of impunity; (iv) weakening of deterrence; (v) wrong perception and threat to majesty of law – Victim's right to review prosecution withdrawal decisions, as available under England's VRR scheme and recognised in R Vs. Christopher Killick [2011] EWCA Crim 1608, could be adopted in India to fulfil fundamental right of access to justice under Articles 14 and 21 – Non-participation of victim in withdrawal proceedings amounts to deviation from "Access to Justice" [Paras 60-68].

Decision: S.B. CRLR No. 444/2024 dismissed as not pressed – S.B. CRLR No. 953/2021 dismissed as devoid of merit – Order dated 16.01.2021 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 14/2020 (FIR No. 53/2018) refusing withdrawal from prosecution hereby affirmed.

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Competent Authority – Applicability of Service Rules – Petitioner appointed as Superintendent in autonomous medical college in Pay Band 15600-39100 + 5400 GP – Held: Petitioner governed by Autonomous College Rules of 2018 and not Super Specialty Hospital Rules of 2018 – Under Rule 13.4, CEO/Dean competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue charge-sheet – Objection regarding lack of competence rejected [Paras 27–29].

Departmental Proceedings – Premature Interference – Allegation of Non-Supply of Documents – Enquiry not concluded and petitioner called upon to submit explanation to enquiry report – Dispute regarding supply of documents is factual in nature – Held: Issue premature at this stage – Liberty granted to petitioner to raise such grounds before disciplinary authority [Para 17].

Departmental Enquiry – Role of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer – Impartiality – Enquiry Officer acts as quasi-judicial authority and must remain unbiased – Presenting Officer functions as prosecutor – Joint issuance of charge-sheet by Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and joint signing of enquiry report impermissible – Creates impression of bias and vitiates proceedings [Paras 31–37].

Natural Justice – Bias – Enquiry Officer acting in collusion with Presenting Officer – Charge-sheet dated 21.11.2025 issued jointly by Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer – Later withdrawn – Enquiry report dated 31.12.2025 again jointly signed – No evidence led by Presenting Officer – Findings recorded by Enquiry Officer on his own without formal proof of documents – Held: Principles of natural justice given complete go-by – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 34–38, 40].

Service of Charge-Sheet – Failure to Prove Prior Service – Charge-sheet dated 30.10.2025 allegedly issued by Dean not shown to have been served before 16.12.2025 – No material produced to establish earlier service – Irregularity noted [Paras 30, 36].

Departmental Enquiry – Procedural Fairness – Conduct of Enquiry by Person Not Versed in Procedure – Plea that Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer being doctors were unaware of disciplinary procedure – Held: Ignorance of procedure cannot justify breach of natural justice – Departmental enquiry cannot be treated as casual exercise [Paras 39–40].

Judicial Review – Scope – While courts ordinarily do not interfere at charge-sheet stage, interference warranted where enquiry proceedings ex facie vitiated by violation of natural justice and bias – Reliance on State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha and Union of India v. Naseem Siddiqui – Proceedings quashed from stage of service of charge-sheet [Paras 31–33, 42–43].

(i) Charge-sheet dated 30.10.2025 upheld as having been issued by competent authority

(ii) Entire enquiry proceedings conducted by respondent nos.4 & 5 and enquiry report dated 31.12.2025 quashed

(iii) Dean directed to proceed afresh from stage of service of charge-sheet

(iv) If required, Dean may appoint a competent Enquiry Officer well-versed with enquiry procedure

(v) Petitioner entitled to copies of relied upon documents and other relevant documents

(vi) Petition partly allowed [Paras 43–44].

Criminal Law – Defamation – Section 199 Cr.P.C. – “Person aggrieved” – Complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Party represented by State Secretary – Authorization issued by President of State Unit – No material to show authorization by National Party – Held, complaint not instituted by competent person representing alleged aggrieved entity – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 20-21].

Defamation of Political Party – Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC – Imputation against identifiable body required – Advertisement referred to constitutional functionaries and Government schemes – No specific imputation against political party as identifiable collection of persons – Party cannot be treated as “person aggrieved” on vague or inferential allegations – Complaint not maintainable [Paras 28-31].

Issuance of Process – Requirement of Prima Facie Material – Advertisement contained only photograph of accused No.4 – No material showing publication at his instance or requisite mens rea under Section 499 IPC – Essential ingredient of intention to harm not established – Mere presence of photograph insufficient to fasten criminal liability [Paras 22-25, 33].

Electronic Evidence – Tweet Allegedly Forwarding Advertisement – Not marked as exhibit – No Section 65B certificate produced – Trial Court while issuing process relied only on Ex.C1 to C14 which did not include tweet – Held, absence of tweet on record at stage of cognizance renders material insufficient to connect accused No.4 – Subsequent production cannot cure defect [Paras 26-27, 34].

Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Enquiry – Accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate – No enquiry conducted before issuance of summons – Non-compliance prejudicial and reflects casual approach – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Para 32].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Where continuance of proceedings amounts to abuse of process – High Court justified in quashing complaint insofar as accused No.4 concerned [Para 35].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No.7399/2024 (P.C.R. No.3878/2023) set aside insofar as petitioner/accused No.4 – Continuance of proceedings held to be abuse of process of law.

Trade Mark – Renewal – Section 25(3) Trade Marks Act – Mandatory Notice – Registrar removed trademarks on ground of non-renewal – Notices (RG-3) issued to erstwhile agent despite prior intimation of change of proprietor and authorized agent – Held: Section 25(3) casts mandatory obligation on Registrar to send notice to registered proprietor – Issuance of notice to person who was no longer authorized agent does not constitute compliance – Provision is sacrosanct in view of drastic consequences of removal [Paras 16, 18-19].

Change of Proprietor and Agent – Effect – Assignment deed executed and Form TM-P filed reflecting petitioner as proprietor – Registry effected change of ownership but failed to update authorized agent despite Form TM-M and Power of Attorney – Registrar cannot rely on alleged non-payment of fee for TM-M without intimating defect – Once change of proprietorship recorded, Registrar ought to ensure compliance with Section 25(3) by notifying registered proprietor directly [Paras 14-17].

Section 25(3) – Nature of Obligation – Statutory mandate places positive duty on Registrar to send notice intimating date of expiration and conditions for renewal – Mere generation of notice or dispatch to incorrect agent insufficient – Removal not automatic consequence; expression “may remove” indicates discretion [Paras 18, 21].

Delay and Laches – Renewal after Expiry – Objection that petitioner approached Court after 1½–2 years rejected – Where mandatory notice under Section 25(3) not validly issued, question of laches does not defeat statutory right – Reliance placed on Division Bench judgment in Charanjiv Kumar Taneja – Renewal permitted even after substantial delay in absence of valid notice [Paras 21-22].

Registrar’s Contention – Alternate Remedy to File TM-R – Argument that petitioner could have applied for renewal within statutory period despite non-receipt of notice – Rejected – Primary obligation under Section 25(3) lies on Registrar, not proprietor – Failure of Registrar to comply cannot prejudice registered proprietor [Para 20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Removal of eight trademarks for non-renewal set aside – Petitioner permitted to file Form TM-R with prescribed fee and fine within 10 days – Registrar directed to process renewal within eight weeks.