Public Interest Litigation – Road Safety – Median Cut Closure – Dismissal of PIL – The petitioner sought reopening of a median cut on National Highway No. 44 near village Khari, which was earlier closed due to safety concerns following accidents – The National Highways Authority of India submitted that the closure was based on recommendations from a Road Safety Audit Report in accordance with MoRTH guidelines – Held: The Court found no reason to interfere with expert advice taken for public safety – Mere inconvenience due to an alternative cut being 1.5 km away was not a sufficient ground to reopen the closed median cut [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Review – Role of Courts in Expert Decisions – Limited Scope – The Court reiterated that judicial review does not extend to substituting expert opinion with judicial wisdom, especially in matters involving technical expertise and road safety audits – Held: Courts should defer to technical assessments unless manifestly arbitrary or mala fide – Petition rightly dismissed [Para 5].

Public Safety vs Local Convenience – Balancing Interests – Median Cut Closure Justified – Though the petitioner cited inconvenience to villagers due to distant alternate routes, the Court observed that safety considerations on a National Highway override such inconvenience – The closure was deemed in public interest to avoid accidents – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 4-6].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court declined to entertain the PIL citing valid expert recommendation and public safety grounds – No interference warranted – Petition dismissed [Para 7].

Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Bail Denied – Applicant (cleaner in seized truck) sought second bail after seizure of 151.600 kgs of ganja – Court held that recovery was above commercial quantity, presumption of conscious possession applied, and twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied – Held: No reasonable ground to believe applicant not guilty; bail refused [Paras 20-23].

Charge-Sheet – FSL Report – Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. – Validity of Filing without FSL Report – Court held charge-sheet complete if accompanied by sufficient material; FSL report filed later under Section 173(8) is corroborative – Hence, absence of FSL report at initial stage does not vitiate charge-sheet or entitle default bail [Paras 16-19].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Delay/Irregularity in Compliance – No Ground for Bail – Relying on Supreme Court ruling in NCB v. Kashif (2024), Court held non-compliance or delay in Section 52A procedure for disposal of seized contraband is an irregularity, not illegality; cannot be basis for bail when sufficient evidence exists [Paras 9-13].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Scope – Applies to Personal Search, Not Vehicle Search – Court reiterated SC rulings that Section 50 safeguards apply only to personal search, not to search of vehicle, bag, or premises – Thus, plea of non-compliance with Section 50 rejected [Para 17].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Court held applicant was in conscious possession of contraband above commercial quantity – No ground for bail made out [Para 23].

Civil Law  – Declaration of Matrimonial Status – Sections 7 & 8, Family Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Appeal Allowed in Part – Plaintiff claimed declaration as second wife of late Mukesh Sharma – Trial court dismissed suit holding matrimonial status declaration lies exclusively within jurisdiction of Family Court – High Court upheld finding of lack of jurisdiction but held trial court erred in dismissing instead of returning plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC mandates return of plaint for presentation before competent Family Court – Impugned judgment modified accordingly [Paras 13-22].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Section 7 Explanation (b), Family Courts Act – Exclusive domain over validity of marriage and matrimonial status – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 8 – Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308 applied – Declaration of matrimonial status can only be sought before Family Court [Paras 14-15, 18].

Return of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Mandatory where Court lacks jurisdiction – Trial court committed illegality by dismissing suit outright – Supreme Court in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services, (2020) 12 SCC 667 reiterated principle – High Court directed return of plaint to enable presentation before competent court [Paras 16-19, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 17/09/2022 set aside to extent of dismissal of suit – Finding of lack of jurisdiction upheld – Trial Court directed to return plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before Family Court – No order as to costs [Paras 21-23].

Criminal Revision – Charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, 336 & 307 IPC – Partial Relief – Petitioners challenged order framing charges including Section 307 IPC – Court held: prima facie case under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 336 IPC made out – However, no material showing intention or knowledge necessary for attempt to murder – Charge under Section 307 IPC quashed – Case transferred to CJM, Bhilwara for trial of remaining offences [Paras 18-24].

Framing of Charges – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – At stage of framing charge, Court cannot weigh evidence but must ensure prima facie case – Suspicion alone insufficient; there must be grave suspicion – Trial Court erred in framing charge under Section 307 without prima facie ingredients – Revision partly allowed [Paras 19-22].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Essential Ingredients Missing – Injuries on complainant Mustak and others were simple, caused by blunt objects like lathi and stones – No repeated blows on vital parts, no sharp weapons, no premeditation or motive shown – Incident was sudden fight – Held: necessary mens rea absent – Offence under Section 307 IPC not made out even prima facie [Paras 17-18, 23].

Unlawful Assembly and Simple Hurt – Sections 143, 341, 323, 336 IPC – Sustained – Witness statements and injury reports show petitioners voluntarily caused simple hurt, restrained complainants, and endangered safety by pelting stones – Prima facie offences under these provisions made out – Charges under these sections upheld [Paras 10, 23-24].

Decision – Order framing charge under Section 307 IPC set aside – Petitioners discharged from offence under Section 307 – Charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, and 336 IPC maintained – Case transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for trial – Revision petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Writ – Hit-and-Run Investigation – Mandamus Issued – Police Found Negligent – Petitioner sought Writ of Mandamus directing filing of charge-sheet in a fatal road accident involving her son – FIR was registered on 17/08/2022 but investigation remained stagnant – Court found initial investigation grossly negligent and directed departmental inquiry against the first IO – Charge-sheet finally filed on 07/08/2025 after court’s intervention – Petition disposed with directions for expeditious trial and liberty to seek compensation [Paras 1–12].

Police Inaction – Dereliction of Duty – Court Orders Inquiry – PSI Mr. Dnyadev Pawar, who led the investigation for two years, failed to seize key evidence including the deceased’s vehicle and ignored available e-challan records – Held: Clear case of dereliction of duty – Director General of Police directed to initiate departmental inquiry and take appropriate action under rules [Paras 8–10].

Compensation – Liberty to Approach MACT – Delay in Criminal Proceedings to Be Excluded – Since the accident involved a motor vehicle and the deceased was unmarried and earning, Court allowed liberty to Petitioner to seek compensation from MACT – Period spent before High Court and Trial Court to be excluded for computing limitation [Para 12(c)].

Expeditious Trial – One Year Timeline – Directions Issued – Trial Court directed to complete trial within one year – All parties directed to cooperate – Adjournments to be strictly limited to compelling reasons only [Para 12(a)-(d)].

Final Decision – Petition Worked Out – Rule Made Absolute – As charge-sheet was filed and investigation completed, petition deemed worked out – However, serious view taken of earlier investigative failures, and directions issued for systemic accountability [Paras 7–12].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Section 302 IPC – Upheld for Accused No. 4 – Based on testimony of four consistent eyewitnesses who specifically attributed sword blows to the accused – Minor inconsistencies held immaterial – Conviction for murder upheld despite lapses in investigation [Paras 11, 15-16].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Accused No. 2 Acquitted – No Direct Evidence – Conviction based solely on discovery panchnama which was not proved in accordance with law – Neither eyewitnesses nor circumstances linked him to the crime – Held: Conviction not sustainable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 12-14, 18].

Test Identification Parade – Procedural Lapses – TIP Not Trustworthy – Conduct of TIP not in accordance with law – Witnesses knew many dummy participants – No corroboration between parade and court testimony – However, in-court identification of Accused No. 4 by multiple witnesses deemed reliable – TIP discrepancies did not vitiate case against him [Paras 11(4), 12].

Discovery Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Knife Recovery Unreliable – Panch witnesses to discovery panchnama turned hostile – Investigating Officer failed to narrate full details of discovery – Recovery pertained to weapon allegedly used by another accused – Held: Discovery inadmissible and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 13-14].

Police Notification – Section 135(1) of Gujarat Police Act – Notification Not Proved – Prosecution failed to produce certified copy or gazette publication of weapon prohibition order – Held: Conviction under Section 135(1) unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 78 of Evidence Act [Para 17].

Faulty Investigation – Not a Ground for Acquittal – Though lapses occurred in identification and recovery processes, they do not override consistent eyewitness accounts – Court reiterated that faulty or negligent investigation alone does not justify acquittal if guilt is otherwise proven – Held: No interference with conviction of Accused No. 4 [Paras 10, 15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of Accused No. 4 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 135(1) Gujarat Police Act set aside – Accused No. 2 acquitted of all charges – State not having filed appeals against acquittals or certain IPC charges – Held: Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2017 allowed – Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2018 partly allowed [Paras 16-18].

Civil Writ - Foreigners Tribunal – Ex-Parte Declaration – Delay in Challenge – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the ex-parte opinion of the Foreigners' Tribunal after nearly six years – High Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, had appeared through counsel, and failed to adduce evidence despite multiple opportunities – Delay not justified – Petition dismissed solely on ground of laches and delay [Paras 1-4, 13, 20, 22].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Not Discharged – Tribunal held the petitioner failed to prove her Indian citizenship prior to 1971 as required under Section 9 – High Court observed that despite filing written statement, the petitioner failed to lead evidence, and absented herself from proceedings – Held: Petitioner failed to discharge burden imposed by law [Paras 2, 10-12, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Condonation of Delay – High Threshold in Citizenship Matters – Petitioner claimed poverty, illiteracy, and advocate’s inaction as cause of delay – Court held these reasons insufficient, especially when petitioner’s family members were not prevented from assisting – Held: Delay of 6 years fatal – Petitioner not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction belatedly [Paras 5-9, 13, 16, 18-20].

COVID-19 Argument – Not Applicable – Pandemic Not a Valid Excuse – Petitioner argued delay due to COVID-19 disruption – Held: COVID limitation relief ended in 2022 – Petition filed in 2025 still barred by gross delay [Para 13].

Final Order – Writ Petition Dismissed – Opinion of Tribunal Sustained – High Court refused to interfere and directed that consequences of the Tribunal’s order would follow – Petition dismissed with directions to record the order in the Tribunal record [Paras 22-23].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty Refund – Failure of FDI Transaction – Limitation under Section 48 – Refund Allowed – Petitioner entered into Share Purchase Agreement requiring Government approval under Press Note No.3 (2020 series) – On rejection of approval, SPA became void and refund was sought under Section 47 – Application rejected by authority as time-barred under Section 48 – Held: Delay was due to government procedure; rejection solely on limitation offends equity – Refund allowed with interest [Paras 1–23].

Statutory Right vs. Procedural Technicalities – Substance Over Form – SPA rendered void due to denial of FDI clearance – Though Application was styled under incorrect statutory provision and filed beyond limitation, Court held substance of claim matters more than its form – Mere technicalities should not defeat a legitimate right to refund where underlying transaction failed [Paras 16–17].

Equity and Natural Justice – No Unjust Enrichment by State – Application could not be filed within six-month limitation as approval process was pending – Held: State cannot retain stamp duty when transaction fails – Rejection based only on limitation is against equity and fairness – Refund directed with interest [Paras 8–10, 21–22].

Condonation of Delay – Applicability of Limitation Act – Section 5 Not Barred – Court held that Stamp Act does not expressly exclude Section 5 of Limitation Act – Hence delay can be condoned in appropriate cases where refund claim is otherwise justified – Petition allowed [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Rejection Order Quashed – Refund Directed – High Court quashed impugned order dated 09.10.2023 rejecting refund application – Directed Respondents to refund ₹1,17,08,200 with 4% simple interest within four weeks [Para 22].

Civil Writ - Minority Institution – Appointment Approval – Article 30 Protection – Approval Mandated – Petitioners appointed after advertisement, interviews, and panel preparation by Christian minority schools – DI rejected approval citing non-compliance with Notification No. 1314 – Held: Minority institutions protected under Article 30 have autonomy in staff appointments – Special Rules under Notification No. 641 govern such institutions – Rejection orders are arbitrary and unlawful – Writs allowed [Paras 1–32].

Constitutional Rights – Article 30(1) – Administrative Autonomy – Affirmed – Christian minority institutions enjoy constitutional autonomy in staff appointments subject only to regulatory oversight – Court reiterated principles from TMA Pai Foundation, P.A. Inamdar, and Ivy C. Da Conceicao – State’s role limited to regulatory measures, not administrative interference [Paras 10–13, 20–22, 28].

Procedural Validity – Notification No. 641 Overrides General Rules – Recruitment by Minority Schools Lawful – Special Rules under Notification No. 641 specifically empower School Committees and Founder Bodies to appoint staff – Notification No. 1314 cannot override constitutional and special rule protections – Hence, appointments made were lawful [Paras 19–21, 26–27].

Grounds of Rejection – New Grounds in Affidavit – Not Permissible – Orders Must Stand on Recorded Reasons – Court held that DI cannot supplement rejection orders with new justifications in affidavits – Action contrary to principles laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill – Validity to be judged only by original reasons [Paras 14, 30].

Final Decision – Rejection Orders Set Aside – Directions Issued – High Court set aside rejection orders dated 06.08.2009, 22.11.2019, and 18.11.2019 – Directed DI to approve petitioners’ service and pay fixation within four weeks – Writ petitions allowed [Para 32].