Education Law – Promissory Estoppel – Legitimate Expectation – Return of Applications for Special Education Courses – RCI’s Decision – Judicial Review – Writ Petitions Against RCI Circulars

Representation and Reliance - Circulars issued by RCI invited fresh proposals from institutions for conducting special education courses for the academic session 2024-2025, including diploma and degree courses. The petitioners, acting on the representations, invested substantial resources to conform to RCI norms. Subsequently, RCI’s decision to return these proposals, based on a letter from the Ministry, was challenged as arbitrary and lacking legal justification. [Paras 1-23]

Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation - Held, RCI’s circulars amounted to a clear representation inducing petitioners to submit proposals and invest resources. The decision to resile from this representation without adequate justification or supervening public equity was not permissible. Petitioners could not restore status quo ante, making the initial representation irrevocable against RCI. [Paras 60-79]

Arbitrariness and Lack of Statutory Basis - The decision to return the proposals was based solely on a ministerial letter without due consideration by the Executive Committee of RCI. No statutory provision or amended regulation justified the return of applications for diploma and degree courses. The ongoing need for special educators further negated any public interest justification for the decision. [Paras 66-74]

NEP 2020 Considerations - The NEP 2020 recognized the urgent need for additional special educators, contradicting the rationale for not considering new proposals. Enhancing seats in existing institutions while refusing new proposals was inconsistent with the stated objectives of NEP 2020. [Paras 80-81]

Decision - The impugned circulars dated 4 January 2024 and 8 March 2024 were quashed to the extent they returned the petitioners’ applications for starting D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses. The RCI was directed to process the proposals in accordance with law. The challenge to the circular allowing enhancement of seats in existing institutions was dismissed. [Paras 83-85]

Criminal Law – Protest Petition – Revisionist challenged the rejection of his protest petition against the final report exonerating accused on grounds of insufficient evidence – Trial Magistrate accepted the final report noting no specific flaws in the investigation were cited in the protest petition – High Court held that Magistrate had applied judicial mind in accepting the final report, with proper consideration of all collected material and evidences [Paras 1-44].

Procedural Law – Final Report Acceptance – Revisional Court’s jurisdiction limited – Court emphasized the discretionary power of Magistrate to accept or reject final reports – Revision allowed as revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its view [Paras 45-57].

Investigation – Role of Magistrate – Magistrate can independently assess final reports and material collected by Investigating Officer – Not bound by conclusions of Investigating Officer – Protest petition can be treated as complaint if it satisfies requirements under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. [Paras 25-36].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Held – Order by Additional Sessions Judge setting aside Magistrate’s acceptance of final report is unsustainable – Informant has the option to file a fresh complaint [Para 61].

Property Law – Partition Suit – Appeal against lower court decree setting aside trial court’s dismissal of partition suit – Appellate court found no legal partition by mutual consent among parties, overturning trial court’s decision – Held that mere possession based on convenience cannot substitute a formal partition [Paras 1-22].

Mutual Partition – Legal Requirements – Trial court held parties had mutually partitioned property; appellate court reversed, citing lack of evidence for formal partition – Emphasized need for judicially recognized partition to claim exclusive ownership rights – Partition must be proven with clear evidence, not inferred from possession alone [Paras 6, 17, 21].

Wills and Testamentary Dispositions – Invalid Will – Unregistered will executed during suit found invalid by appellate court – Failure to prove execution and contents per Indian Evidence Act – Legal implications of unproven wills on property share determination highlighted [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of appellate court upheld, confirming no legal partition and invalidating will – Reinforced that high court under Section 100 CPC should not disturb findings of fact unless perverse or illegal – Confirmed shares of parties as per appellate court’s decree [Paras 25-26].

Stamp Duty – Assessment of Market Value – Petitioner challenged the orders directing payment of deficient stamp duty on agricultural land purchased in 2011 – Contention that the land was being used for agricultural purposes and the authorities erred by not conducting a proper spot inspection – High Court held that the valuation was based on speculative assumptions without proper evidence or spot inspection as required by law – Orders quashed and set aside, with directions to return any deposited amount with interest [Paras 2-14].

Procedure under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act – Statutory requirement for spot inspection and evidence-based determination of market value – Authorities' failure to conduct spot inspection and reliance on an improper comparator for valuation – High Court emphasized the need for concrete evidence and proper procedural adherence in valuation of properties for stamp duty purposes [Paras 7-13].

Burden of Proof – Onus on State – High Court reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies on the State to justify imposition of additional financial liabilities such as higher stamp duty – Insufficient evidence provided by the State to support its valuation claims [Para 9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Impugned orders dated September 28, 2012, and February 4, 2013, set aside – Amount deposited by Petitioner towards deficient stamp duty to be returned with interest – Emphasized need for evidence-based and fair valuation practices [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Law – Summoning and Cognizance Orders – Quashing of summoning and cognizance orders along with consequential orders due to lack of application of judicial mind and procedural irregularities – No evidence indicating the applicants intended to cause death or had knowledge their actions would result in death – Demolition leading to accidental death does not meet criteria for culpable homicide [Paras 1-20, 23-26].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Applicants wrongfully implicated without substantial evidence – Police presence during incident with no preventive measures taken [Paras 27-38].

Legal Principles – Application of Mind – Magistrate’s duty to apply judicial mind and provide reasons in orders – Summoning orders without detailed reasoning or assessment of prima facie case liable to be quashed – Emphasis on careful scrutiny of allegations and evidence before issuing summons [Paras 29-33].

Decision – Application Allowed – Summoning and cognizance orders dated 30.03.2016, orders dated 11.01.2018 and 11.07.2018, and charge sheet dated 13.07.2015 quashed – Entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 16768 of 2016 set aside – Directions for trial court compliance [Paras 37-41].

Kidney Transplantation – Non-Near Relatives – Petitioners seeking approval for kidney transplantation where donors are not near relatives – Hospital hesitated to forward applications to the Authorisation Committee – Court allowed petitioners to submit applications directly to the Committee – Directed the Committee to scrutinize and decide on applications within four weeks [Paras 2-28].

Role of Hospitals – Clarification of Responsibilities – Court clarified that hospitals are not required to forward transplantation applications – Applications can be submitted directly by donors and recipients to the Authorisation Committee [Para 8].

Evaluation by Authorisation Committee – Guidelines for Consideration – Emphasized that Authorisation Committees should consider applications without assuming commercial intent – Evaluations should include absence of financial transactions and verification of donor's altruistic intent – Aligned with provisions of the Act and Rules [Paras 11-19].

Protection of Donor Rights – Ensuring Donor Welfare – Highlighted need for medical insurance coverage for donors – Suggested measures for post-operative care and financial security of donors – Encouraged development of comprehensive guidelines to protect donor interests [Paras 23-27].

Decision:

Petitioners are permitted to submit applications directly to the Authorisation Committee. The Committee is directed to scrutinize and decide on the applications within four weeks from the date of submission. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Specific Performance – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation and Forgery Allegations - The appellants sought specific performance of a sale agreement regarding property sold by the first respondent to the deceased K.S.N. Manoharan. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, based on allegations of forgery and limitation. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, requiring a full trial [Paras 12-14, 20].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Rejection of Plaint Improper - The Court observed that limitation in specific performance suits is a mixed question of fact and law, especially when allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by counsel are involved. The trial court erred in dismissing the suit at the threshold without framing issues and conducting a trial [Paras 25-28].

Doctrine of Laches – Litigant Should Not Suffer Due to Counsel’s Negligence - The appellants argued that the delay in filing the suit was caused by the negligence of their previous advocate, who failed to refile the suit. The High Court accepted this argument, emphasizing that a litigant should not be penalized for the mistakes of their advocate, particularly when fraud by the advocate is alleged [Paras 30-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Case Remanded for Trial - The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and remanding the case for trial. The trial court was directed to frame issues and decide the case on merits within six months [Para 35].

Land Acquisition – Quashing of Notification – Notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for urgent acquisition quashed by Single Judge – Appeal by landholders challenging land acquisition for university expansion – High Court upholds quashing of urgency clause but modifies procedural directions [Paras 1-16].

Urgency Clause – Invocation Invalid – Original notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 issued without urgency – Fresh notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 invoking urgency after significant delay found unjustified – High Court emphasizes legal impermissibility of simultaneous applicability of urgency provisions from both Acts [Paras 8, 10].

Procedural Lapse – Consideration of Objections – Single Judge’s order remanded matter for fresh consideration of objections under Section 5A – High Court upholds this approach, allowing appellants to submit fresh objections – Directions for compliance with Section 5A reiterated to ensure fair process [Paras 11, 16].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Apex Court – High Court refers to Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja regarding invalidity of urgency clause invocation – Finds factual distinctions and reiterates need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in land acquisition [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals Disposed – Impugned order by Single Judge upheld with modifications – Parties permitted to submit fresh objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Proceedings to be undertaken afresh by authorities strictly in accordance with law – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16, 16.1].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order and Charge Sheet – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order and charge sheet challenged on grounds of hasty and tainted investigation – Alleged offense of passing obscene comments against women – Absence of independent witnesses or examination of affected females – Violation of mandatory provisions under Cr.P.C. during investigation – Application allowed, summoning order and charge sheet quashed. [Paras 1-34]

Investigation Irregularities – Analysis – Held – Investigation conducted in haste without due process – No independent witnesses or statements of females affected by the alleged comments – Violation of Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order issued without proper application of judicial mind. [Paras 3-16, 18-20, 27-30]

Role of Accused – Facts and Circumstances – Applicant, a bright student with no prior criminal record – Arrest and implication found to be arbitrary and without substantial evidence – False implication and tainted investigation leading to miscarriage of justice. [Paras 11-14, 20, 29]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Summoning order dated 30.01.2024 and charge sheet dated 24.12.2023 quashed – Entire proceedings against the applicant in Criminal Case No. 141/2024 set aside – Directions for compliance issued to trial court. [Paras 30-34]