Writ Law - Nursing Admission - Indian Nursing Council Regulations - Minimum Qualifying Criteria - Registration Refusal - Petitioner Institute and thirty students challenged the decision of West Bengal University of Health Sciences (WBUHS) refusing to register students for the 2025-2026 B.Sc. Nursing session - Petitioners contended that the State Government notification dated 17.12.2025 relaxed the admission criteria to allow candidates with a JENPAS-UG 2025 rank to fill vacant seats - Indian Nursing Council (INC) and WBUHS argued that the minimum qualifying criteria of 50th percentile for General category and 40th-45th for reserved categories remained mandatory - Court observed that while a relaxation was granted by INC for the 2024-2025 session it was not extended to the 2025-2026 session - Court found that the students failed to meet the minimum percentile prescribed by the expert body - Held - Eligibility criteria prescribed by an expert body like the INC must be strictly adhered to and any dilution would cause injustice to other candidates - Mere admission by an institute and attendance of classes does not create a legal right for registration if the candidate is fundamentally ineligible - Prayer for interim relief to allow students to appear for examinations rejected - [Paras 1-34].

Writ Law - Role of Expert Bodies - Judicial Review - Discretionary Power - The Court held that it is for the expert body to decide whether any relaxation in eligibility criteria is warranted - The High Court cannot direct an expert authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner - Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that academic standards should not be diluted on sympathetic considerations - Held - An ineligible candidate cannot be made eligible by judicial directions to the Government to relax rules - [Paras 24-31].

Writ Law - Ratio Decidendi - Strict Adherence to Academic Standards - The Court reaffirmed the principle that when eligibility criteria are prescribed for professional courses they must be strictly followed without tampering or dilution - Facts of the case distinguished from previous interim orders where no allegation of non-fulfillment of criteria existed - Held - Eligibility criteria for admission must be strictly adhered to and no interim relief can be granted to ineligible candidates - [Paras 30-33].

Decision: Prayer for interim order rejected – Respondents directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks – Liberty granted to mention for hearing after exchange of affidavits.

Criminal Law - Discharge - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406 420 465 468 and 471 - Petitioner who was the second accused challenged the order of the Magistrate dismissing his discharge petition - The prosecution arose from a complaint alleging that the Petitioner was entrusted with a lorry and three lakh rupees but later conspired to transfer the vehicle ownership to the first accused using forged signatures - Petitioner claimed parity with the first accused whose proceedings were quashed by the High Court - Court found the Petitioner played a distinct and central role as the primary entrustee - Held - Principle of parity has no applicability when the role played by the petitioner is totally distinct from the role attributed to the co-accused - Revision petition dismissed - [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Law - Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 156(3) - Filing of affidavit - Requirement of affidavit to accompany a complaint as per Priyanka Srivastava - Complainant filed the affidavit six days after filing the complaint but before the Magistrate forwarded it to the police - Held - Substantial compliance of the law exists as the Magistrate satisfied himself about the existence of the affidavit before invoking powers under Section 156(3) - Requirement cannot be given a strict interpretation like election petitions - [Paras 4-6 10].

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 188 - Offence committed outside India - Petitioner was abroad during the period the offences were committed - Allegations included phone calls from abroad and subsequent transfer of vehicle records within India - Held - Major portion of the offence was committed inside India and thus no sanction under Section 188 CrPC is required - [Paras 5 11].

Criminal Law - Civil Nature - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 - Criminal Breach of Trust vs Civil Dispute - Petitioner argued the matter was a civil dispute arising from a breach of contract - Held - Criminal prosecution cannot be wound up merely because the facts also disclose a civil liability - Offence of criminal breach of trust and forgery are clearly made out from the records - [Paras 12-14].

Evidence Law - Forgery - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 465 and 471 - Contention that petitioner was not the maker of the forged document - De facto complainant alleged Petitioner and co-accused resorted to forgery by affixing bogus signatures - Held - Identification of the specific person who forged the signatures is a matter for evidence at trial - Petitioner can be prosecuted even if he is not the actual maker of the false document if intent to commit fraud is present - [Paras 13 15].

Criminal Law - Simultaneous Charges - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 - Petitioner argued that cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot co-exist in the same set of facts - Held - While there is merit in the contention that the offences are antithetical the trial court shall look into this at the stage of framing charges - Termination of prosecution at the discharge stage is not warranted - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Trial Court directed to proceed with framing of charges under Sections 406, 465 and 471 IPC.

Criminal Law - Narcotics - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - Possession of commercial quantity - Appellant convicted for possession of seven kilograms of Charas and sentenced to fifteen years rigorous imprisonment - Intercepted by Narcotic Cell on Diamond Harbour Road - Search conducted in presence of Gazetted Officer PW-3 - Seven kilograms of Charas recovered from rucksack - Appellant challenged conviction on grounds of non-preparation of nil seizure list for raiding officer and non-examination of nearby shop witnesses - High Court found independent witness PW-5 credible and chemical report confirmed substance - Held - Non-preparation of nil seizure list for raiding officer not fatal - Conviction and sentence affirmed - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-25].

Criminal Law - Search and Seizure - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 - Section 50 - Nil seizure list - Raiding officer searched by Gazetted Officer prior to searching accused - No contraband recovered from officer - No nil seizure list prepared - Held - When nothing objectionable is recovered from raiding officer and ocular evidence of witnesses confirms the search - non-preparation of nil seizure list is not fatal to prosecution - [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law - Gazetted Officer - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 - Section 50 - Neutrality of officer - Appellant opted for search before Gazetted Officer - Police summoned Additional Officer-in-charge of the same police station to act as Gazetted Officer - Held - Calling an officer from the originating police station to act as Gazetted Officer upon option of accused does not dilute prosecution case - Raiding party cannot be faulted for using available officer for search and seizure - [Paras 15-17].

Evidence Law - Independent Witnesses - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 - Non-examination of specific witnesses - Interception near a retail shop - Shop staff not called as witnesses - Two independent passers-by cited and one examined as PW-5 - Held - While desirable to have local shop witnesses - absence is not fatal if other independent witnesses unconnected to police prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th and 29th March, 2017 affirmed.

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference - Petitioner sought to restrain Respondents from obstructing the laying of remaining 200 meters of a 14 km underground HT cable stretch - Lower courts rejected temporary injunction finding no prima facie case regarding the existence of a public road and citing alternative remedies - High Court found the lower courts ignored the Court Commissioner report of the Executive Engineer which explicitly identified the existence of Other District Road No. 61 - Held - The findings of the lower courts were ex-facie perverse and based on irrelevant considerations such as lack of PWD permission which the road authorities had already granted - High Court is duty bound to interfere under Article 227 where the sub-ordinate court exercise of discretion is totally perverse or suffers from patent illegality - [Paras 21-31].

Civil Law - Statutory Power to Lay Lines - Indian Telegraph Act 1885 - Sections 10 and 16 - Right of Licensee - Respondents obstructed cable laying work on a road margin claiming proprietary rights - Held - The statutory scheme under the Telegraph Act and Electricity Act empowers the licensee to place and maintain lines even through private property subject only to the liability of paying compensation - Unobstructed access to lay electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest and for economic growth - The right of a landowner is limited to claiming compensation and not to impede essential infrastructure work - [Paras 32-38].

Civil Law - Alternative Remedy - Works of Licensees Rules 2006 - Rule 3 - Temporary Injunction - Trial court held Plaintiff had an efficacious alternative remedy by approaching the District Magistrate under Rule 3 - Held - The proviso to Rule 3(1) applies where ownership or occupation of the land is undisputed or indisputable - Where a prima facie case exists that the work is on a public road margin and there is no evidence of Respondent ownership over that stretch the bar of alternative remedy is not attracted - Injunction cannot be declined solely on the availability of a remedy that applies to different factual circumstances - [Paras 39-40].

Civil Law - Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Petitioner completed 99 percent of the work over 13.8 km - Obstruction was for a short stretch of 200 meters - Held - Refusal to grant injunction would render the entire 13.8 km exercise nugatory causing irreparable loss to the Petitioner - Conversely the underground cable using horizontal directional drilling would cause no irretrievable damage to the land or restrict surface use - Balance of convenience tilts heavily in favor of the Petitioner - [Paras 41-47].

Civil Law - Interim Relief Amounting to Final Relief - Mandatory Injunction - Grant of relief at interim stage - Held - While courts ordinarily refrain from granting interim relief that amounts to final relief it is not an immutable rule - In rare and exceptional cases where a very strong prima facie case exists and withholding relief would prick the conscience of the court or result in extreme hardship such relief can be granted - To balance equities the Petitioner is directed to deposit security for potential compensation - [Paras 48-54].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned orders of the District Court and Civil Judge quashed – Temporary injunction granted – Petitioner permitted to complete cable work using HDD method – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 20,00,000 as security before the trial court.

Civil Law - Land Ownership Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Suit for declaration of ownership and permanent prohibitory injunction - Plaintiff asserted status as a tenant inducted by co-owners (Defendants 4 and 5) on payment of rent who subsequently became owner under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act - Contesting Defendants 1 to 3 claimed ownership through their predecessor Vidya Parkash who allegedly purchased the land via oral sale in 1963 and developed an orchard - Trial Court dismissed the suit finding rent receipts produced by plaintiff were forged and revenue entries in favor of Vidya Parkash carried presumption of correctness - First Appellate Court reversed the trial court decree relying on an unproved affidavit of Defendant 5 admitting plaintiff's tenancy and a Local Commissioner's report from a separate contempt proceeding - High Court found that the First Appellate Court misappreciated evidence and ignored the perversity in relying on unexamined hearsay statements and procedurally flawed revenue entry changes - Held - The First Appellate Court's findings were perverse and unsustainable as it ignored material evidence regarding the defendants' possession and title - Judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside and Trial Court's dismissal of the suit restored - [Paras 1-54].

Civil Law - Scope of Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Interference with findings of fact - High Court's power to interfere with concurrent or reversed findings of fact is restricted to cases involving substantial questions of law - Interference is warranted only when findings are based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or ignore material evidence or are so outrageously defying logic as to be perverse - Held - Finding of fact however erroneous cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless it suffers from perversity - If the First Appellate Court's conclusion is based on inadmissible evidence or misconstruction of documents it constitutes a substantial question of law - [Paras 15-22].

Evidence Law - Admissions - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 17, 18, 21 and 58 - Admission by co-defendant - Effect on contesting parties - Defendant No. 5 filed an affidavit admitting plaintiff's tenancy but was never examined in court - First Appellate Court treated this as a conclusive admission against contesting defendants 1 to 3 - Held - Admission by one defendant does not bind other defendants especially when they have an independent interest and the maker of the admission was not subjected to cross-examination - An admission is only the best evidence if it is clear and unambiguous and not successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous - [Paras 23-31].

Civil Law - Revenue Entries - Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual - Procedure for change of entries - Presumption of correctness - Revenue entries recording defendants' predecessor as owner were changed to reflect plaintiff's name without notice or following mandatory procedure under the Land Records Manual - Held - Presumption of truth attaches to revenue entries but it is rebuttable - Changes made in violation of mandatory instructions requiring notice to affected parties and attestation by local officials are null and void - Subsequent entries made without authority do not have legal force - [Paras 32-40].

Evidence Law - Local Commissioner Report - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 26 Rule 10 - Admissibility of report from different proceedings - First Appellate Court relied on a Local Commissioner's report filed in a contempt petition to establish plaintiff's possession - Held - While a commissioner's report is admissible in evidence under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC it cannot be made the sole basis for a judgment in total disregard of other evidence on record - Probative value of a report where the commissioner was not examined or appointed in the specific suit is weak - [Paras 43-46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court judgment dismissing the suit restored.

Writ Law - Constitutional Validity - Delimitation Act 2002 - Section 9(1)(c) - Challenge to reservation of Assembly constituency - Petitioner challenged the continued reservation of Kadipur Assembly seat for Scheduled Castes for nearly sixty years - Argued that Section 9(1)(c) is ultra vires for lack of a rotational principle resulting in stagnation of seats - Contended that this violates Articles 14 and 15 and deprives general category residents of a free choice of candidates - Court evaluated the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 in light of the bar under Article 329(a) - Observed that while Articles 330 and 332 mandate reservation based on population proportion they do not expressly provide for rotation for Assembly seats unlike Panchayat elections under Articles 243D and 243T - Held - Section 9(1)(c) falls within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 72 of List I and does not violate any fundamental rights - The methodology for identifying reserved seats is a policy matter for the legislature - Held - Writ petition is maintainable but challenge to the vires fails - [Paras 1-41].

Writ Law - Maintainability - Constitution of India - Article 329(a) - Judicial review of delimitation - Respondents argued that Article 329(a) bars court interference in delimitation of constituencies - Court relied on Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs Union of India - Held - Judicial review under Article 226 is permissible where interpretation of constitutional provisions is required or when a case of malafide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out - Article 329 cannot be construed to completely debar citizens from pleading grievances in a constitutional court - [Paras 12-18].

Civil Law - Fundamental Rights - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 15 - Test of unconstitutionality - Petitioner alleged that population based reservation is arbitrary - Court referred to Rajbala vs State of Haryana and K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India - Held - A statute cannot be declared unconstitutional merely on the ground that it is arbitrary - Enactments can be struck down only for lack of legislative competence or violation of Part III rights or other constitutional provisions - Section 9(1)(c) does not infringe any constitutional mandate - [Paras 28-32].

Writ Law - Separation of Powers - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Mandamus to legislate - Petitioner sought directions to the legislature to adopt a rotational roster for SC/ST seats - Held - Courts cannot direct the legislature to enact a particular law or read words into a statute where the language is plain - Providing for rotation is a legislative function and the court cannot assume the role of a supervisory authority over the wisdom of the legislature - [Paras 33-40].

Writ Law - Right to Vote - Constitution of India - Articles 325 and 326 - Scope of electoral rights - Petitioner claimed that reservation hampers his right to vote for a candidate of choice - Court referred to PUCL vs Union of India and Rajbala vs State of Haryana - Held - The right to vote and the right to be elected are constitutional rights subject to limitations and restrictions prescribed by law - A voter does not have an absolute right to dictate the terms of allotment of a constituency or insist that it be general - Constitutional rights must be read in harmony with Articles 330 and 332 - [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Delay and Laches - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 10 - Belated Industrial Dispute - Respondent-employee dismissed in October 2000 for fraudulent withdrawals and misappropriation of customer funds - Raised industrial dispute after 13 years in 2013 - Reference made in 2014 - Statement of Claim filed in 2018 - Petitioner-Bank destroyed enquiry records after 10 years as per standard banking practice - Industrial Tribunal Pune held domestic enquiry fair but branded findings perverse solely due to Bank's inability to produce original depositions of 11 witnesses - High Court observed Respondent was responsible for delay of 18 to 24 years in various stages of adjudication - Held - Employee cannot take advantage of his own wrong - Tribunal's decision to reward a negligent litigant for delay that caused disappearance of evidence is unsustainable - Findings of Enquiry Officer were based on discussed evidence and cannot be termed perverse merely because records were destroyed over time - Awards set aside - [Paras 1-25].

Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 10 - Destruction of Records - Bank unable to produce 24-year-old enquiry records destroyed in normal course of business due to Respondent's late approach - Respondent failed to produce his own copies of depositions received during the fair enquiry - Tribunal held Bank responsible for non-production - High Court held that for stale claims the burden of producing documents or at least photocopies shifts to the claimant - Held - Tribunal committed material irregularity by not drawing adverse inference against the Respondent for non-preservation of his own records - Bank was not expected to preserve records for eternity under the hope of a future challenge - [Paras 19-22].

Labor Law - Domestic Enquiry vs Criminal Trial - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Dismissal - Respondent acquitted in criminal trial for same charges in 2013 - Contended acquittal as ground for reinstatement - High Court reiterated that tests and purposes of domestic enquiry and criminal prosecution are distinct - Domestic enquiry enforces discipline based on preponderance of probabilities while criminal trial punishes acts based on proof beyond reasonable doubt - Held - Mere acquittal in a criminal trial has no impact on the finding of guilt in a fair domestic enquiry - [Paras 31-32].

Labor Law - Misconduct - Standard of Integrity - Bank employee found guilty of misappropriating customer funds - Held - Bank employees are required to exercise a higher standard of honesty and integrity as per settled law - Punishment of dismissal for proven financial fraud is appropriate and not subject to interference on technical grounds of record unavailability after decades - [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 09/08/2024 and 23/01/2025 passed by Industrial Tribunal Pune are quashed and set aside – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Default Bail - NDPS Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Extension of remand period - Petitioners/Accused Nos 3 and 4 challenged Trial Court order extending remand beyond 180 days in Crime No 264 of 2025 of Kasimkota Police Station - High Court noted that extension requires a specific report by the Public Prosecutor indicating independent application of mind and assessment of investigation progress - Trial Court failed to ensure the Public Prosecutor acted as an independent statutory authority rather than a mere forwarding agency for the Investigating Officer - Public Prosecutor did not file a report as envisaged under the proviso to Section 36A(4) and the petition did not disclose satisfaction with investigation progress - Trial Court failed to inform the accused of the extension request and failed to assign special reasons for detention beyond 180 days - Held - Extension order set aside for non-compliance with statutory requirements and principles of personal liberty - Criminal Revision Case allowed - [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Law - Public Prosecutor Duties - NDPS Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Independent Application of Mind - Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory authority and not part of the investigating agency - Report must clearly state reasons for further detention and justify the need for additional time - Mere forwarding of the Investigating Officer request is insufficient and cannot substitute a proper report - Failure to comply grants the accused an indefeasible right to default bail - Held - Public Prosecutor failed to independently assess investigation progress or file a valid report - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Petitioners enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties – Petitioners directed to appear before SHO Kasimkota Police Station every Saturday – Petitioners prohibited from leaving the District without permission and directed to surrender passports.

Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9 - Interim Measures - Applicant BNR Infrastructure Projects Private Limited filed applications for interim injunction against invocation of bank guarantees worth Rs 310 Crores and stay of part termination notice dated 30-05-2026 issued by Respondent 1 Yuzhan Technology India Private Limited - Disputes arose from a contract dated 29-10-2025 regarding infrastructure works - Applicant alleged delays in site handover and design approvals by Respondent - Respondent alleged contractor delay and failure to provide catch-up plans - Sole Arbitrator appointed by consent on 11-06-2026 and Advocate Commissioner appointed for joint inspection - Previous interim order directed status quo which led to ambiguity regarding site materials and resumption of work - Court analyzed Clause 18-1-3 regarding 30-day post-termination obligation period and Clause 18-1-7 regarding employer right to continue works - Held - Right of employer to deploy materials and resume work under Clause 18-1-7 only kicks in after the expiry of the 30-day period granted to the contractor under Clause 18-1-3 and determination of unresolved receivables - Respondent restrained from claiming to continue work till 29-06-2026 - [Paras 1-35].

Civil Law - Contractual Obligations - Interpretation of Clauses - Right to continue work post-termination - Clause 18-1-3 vs Clause 18-1-7 - Notice of termination issued on 30-05-2026 - Clause 18-1-3 grants 30 days for contractor to perform post-termination duties - Clause 18-1-7 allows employer to continue work - Held - Employer right to continue work under Clause 18-1-7 only kicks in after the 30-day period for contractor compliance under Clause 18-1-3 expires and receivables are determined upon final settlement - Respondent cannot resume work till 29-06-2026 - [Paras 27-34].

Decision: Applications disposed of – Respondent restrained from claiming to continue work or utilizing site materials until the expiry of the 30-day compliance period on 29-06-2026 – Liberty granted to the parties as indicated in the order dated 11-06-2026 – No costs.