Civil Writ – Appointments - Minority Institutions – Applicability of UGC Regulations, 2018 – Minority Institutions' Right to Administer – Selection Committees – Minority educational institutions have the fundamental right under Article 30(1) to administer their institutions, including the right to appoint staff – The UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribing the composition of selection committees for appointment of Assistant Professors and Principals, and adopted by the State through G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 11.01.2021, interfere with this right – Such Regulations cannot be applied to minority institutions – Held: Minority institutions are not bound by UGC Regulations relating to selection procedure but must comply only with qualifications, experience, and other merit criteria [Paras 30-38].

Res Judicata – Applicability of Forum of Minority Institutions Case – Previous Division Bench ruling in The Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. State of Tamil Nadu continues to apply – No substantial change introduced by UGC Regulations, 2018 as compared to earlier Regulations – Minority institutions not required to challenge every new Regulation if settled law applies – Preliminary objection of UGC rejected [Paras 23-25, 32-34].

Doctrine of Merger – High Court and Supreme Court decisions affirming finality – Judgment confirms that once the constitutional protection under Article 30(1) is attracted, regulatory control over the selection process stands limited to qualifications and service conditions only – The right to constitute selection committees rests with the management of minority institutions [Paras 35-38].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Universities directed to grant qualification approvals for appointments made by the petitioner minority institutions without reference to UGC Regulations, 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 11.01.2021 – Directions issued for processing approval within four weeks – Consequential benefits including arrears of salary made available to selected candidates [Paras 39-41].

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Finding Reversed – Claimant Exonerated – Tribunal had held both the bus driver and claimant contributorily negligent (50% each) because the claimant was driving an unregistered vehicle – High Court held that absence of registration does not imply causation unless overt negligence is shown – FIR and evidence confirmed the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus – Held: Finding of contributory negligence against appellant set aside; sole responsibility fixed on bus driver [Paras 5, 6, 9].

Compensation – Disability – Enhanced by Applying Proper Multiplier and Future Prospects – Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 and awarded ₹90,000 for 50% disability – High Court revised it to a multiplier of 18 with 40% addition for future prospects for a 22-year-old – Loss of future earning capacity recalculated at ₹1,51,200 – Held: Tribunal erred in not awarding for future prospects; enhanced just compensation awarded [Paras 6, 10].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Additional Heads Granted – Tribunal had not awarded any compensation for pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, or future medical expenses – High Court awarded ₹50,000 for pain and suffering, ₹5,000 for special diet, ₹10,000 each for attendant charges and future medical expenses – Held: Compensation must be comprehensive and fair, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses [Para 10].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% Interest – Tribunal award of ₹62,564 set aside – Compensation enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% annual interest from date of award till realization – Any previously paid amount to be adjusted – Held: Appellant entitled to full compensation without deduction for contributory negligence [Paras 10–13].
 

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning order set aside – Petitioners were summoned based on partial appraisal of evidence, relying only on the statement of injured witness Ajit Singh (PW-3) – Trial Court failed to consider complainant Chandi Ram’s (PW-4) testimony, which was material to conspiracy allegations – Summoning order held unsustainable in absence of complete analysis [Paras 13-18].

Conspiracy – Evidence Requirement – Complainant’s testimony indicated conspiracy involving all named persons – Injured witness did not support conspiracy allegations against all petitioners – Trial Court erroneously omitted discussion of complainant’s version regarding the meeting and threats before the incident – Supreme Court’s guidelines in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 reiterated – Complete evidence must be examined before exercising power under Section 319 CrPC [Paras 13-17].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Revisional Court has power to test whether Trial Court has properly appreciated material evidence while exercising Section 319 CrPC power – Held: Partial reliance on evidence and omission to consider vital testimony constitutes error of law justifying interference [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Revision Petitions allowed – Impugned order dated 11.09.2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court to re-decide the application under Section 319 CrPC after considering full evidence including statements of both injured witness and complainant – Fresh order to be passed within 45 days – Benefit of remand extended to Raj Kumar, though not a revision petitioner [Paras 19-21].

Service Law – Criminal Case Pending – Denial of Appointment – Matrimonial Dispute – Appointment Directed – Petitioner, a successful RAS candidate, was denied appointment despite being higher in merit than others who were appointed – Denial based on an FIR lodged by her estranged husband prior to his death – FIR arose from a matrimonial dispute and involved no allegations of moral turpitude – Petitioner had truthfully disclosed the pending case – Held: Mere pendency of a criminal case without suppression of facts, particularly where allegations arise out of personal discord and do not relate to integrity or public conduct, cannot be a ground for denial of appointment – Reliance placed on Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 – Employer's discretion must be exercised with objective criteria and not in arbitrary manner – Appointment ordered to be made permanent, subject to outcome of the criminal trial [Paras 1–3, 7–9, 13–21, 34–35].
Circulars and Advertisements – Illegal Condition in Advertisement – Automatic Disqualification for Undertrial – Held Unenforceable – Clause 15 of recruitment advertisement stating that undertrial candidates are ineligible was found inconsistent with law laid down by Supreme Court in Avtar Singh – Such a clause was held to be without statutory backing and contrary to principles of proportionality and fairness – Circular dated 04.12.2019 to be interpreted in consonance with Avtar Singh and not as an absolute bar [Paras 16–20, 30].*
Natural Justice – No Written Communication of Rejection – Violation – Appointment Withheld Orally Without Reasons – Respondents failed to communicate reasons for non-appointment in writing – No opportunity afforded to petitioner to rebut allegations or challenge decision – Held: Violation of principles of natural justice – Administrative decision must be transparent and non-arbitrary [Paras 7.8, 25–26].
Judicial Review – Screening Committee Findings Not on Record – Mechanical Denial of Appointment Disapproved – Respondents failed to produce any material to demonstrate application of mind by appointing authority – No independent assessment of suitability shown – Mere reference to disqualification under Chapter XVI & XVII IPC insufficient – Screening Committee’s report, if any, was not placed on record – Held: Denial of appointment not based on objective criteria, hence unsustainable [Paras 22–24].
Decision – Appointment Ordered – Subject to Outcome of Criminal Trial – Petition allowed – Respondents directed to confirm petitioner’s provisional appointment as per interim order dated 23.07.2024 – Appointment to be subject to outcome of pending trial – No impediment in granting full benefits if acquitted or discharged [Paras 34–36].
 

Criminal Law – Rape - Acquittal Appeal – Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Appellate Court Reiterated Limited Scope to Interfere – The appellate court while re-appreciating the evidence must interfere only when the judgment is perverse or leads to miscarriage of justice – Court found that trial court's judgment was not perverse and based on sound appreciation of evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-14].

Kidnapping and Sexual Assault – Victim Turned Hostile – Allegation of Kidnapping and Sexual Assault Not Established – Victim (PW1) denied the allegations during trial – No independent corroboration from parents or medical evidence – Court held that the prosecution failed to prove offence under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Acquittal upheld [Paras 16-32].

Medical Evidence – No Signs of Recent Sexual Assault – Medical Officer (PW10) opined that there were no signs suggestive of recent sexual assault – Prosecution failed to corroborate charges medically – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 30-33].

Statement Under Section 164 CrPC – Not Substantive Evidence – Court reiterated that Section 164 CrPC statement can be used only for contradiction or corroboration – Cannot solely form basis for conviction in absence of substantive evidence – Victim did not support the prosecution case – Appeal dismissed [Para 31].

Final Decision – No Error Found in Trial Court’s Appreciation of Evidence – Benefit of Doubt Rightly Given – Appeal dismissed and acquittal confirmed [Paras 34-35].

Civil Law – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Redemption – Appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of land mortgaged by his father – Trial court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit treating the document (Ex.P/1) as an absolute sale deed – High Court held that Ex.P/1 is a "Shartiya Farokhtnama" i.e., mortgage by conditional sale – Substantial question of limitation resolved in favor of appellant as redemption period is 30 years under Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Suit filed within limitation – Appellant being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family is competent to file suit alone without impleading other heirs – Estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable [Paras 1-40].

Mortgage Deed – Nature of Document – Courts below erred in construing Ex.P/1 as an absolute sale ignoring clear recital of condition of redemption within five years – Comparison with contemporaneous transactions showed Ex.P/1 was not an outright sale but a mortgage – Consideration amount disproportionate to area compared to other sale deeds suggesting mortgage nature – Courts failed to apply Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act defining mortgage by conditional sale [Paras 17-19].

Limitation – Period for Redemption – Suit for redemption governed by Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Period of limitation is 30 years from the date of right to redeem accrued – Right accrued on 17.03.1974, suit filed in 2002 well within limitation – Courts below erred in applying 3 years limitation treating transaction as sale [Paras 29-33].

Locus Standi – Right of Karta – Appellant as Karta of Joint Hindu Family entitled to sue alone – Non-joinder of brothers does not affect maintainability – No objection raised by other heirs – Courts below wrongly held suit defective for non-joinder [Paras 34].

Estoppel – Applicability – Doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable where transaction adjudged as mortgage and suit within limitation – Redemption right cannot be estopped [Paras 35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit decreed for redemption and possession – Respondent directed to execute redemption deed on payment of Rs. 11,000/- within stipulated period – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 40-41].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search Procedure Properly Followed – Bail Denied - The petitioner alleged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, claiming he was not informed about his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Court held that the petitioner was informed in English of his right under Section 50 and refused to avail it in writing – Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that “nearest” does not mandate proximity, only intent to ensure fair procedure – Thus, compliance with Section 50 was held to be sufficient [Paras 15-16].

Constructive Possession – Recovery from Rented Premises – Exclusive Possession Proven – Bail Rejected - Petitioner challenged the recovery of 205 gms of contraband from his rented room, arguing lack of exclusive possession – Court relied on landlord’s statement under Section 161 CrPC confirming petitioner was sole occupant of the room – Held: Recovery attributable to the petitioner – no benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 17-18].

Procedural Lapses – Sections 57 and 52A NDPS Act – Delay in Sampling Not Fatal – Procedural Irregularities Do Not Entitle Bail - Petitioner argued non-compliance of Sections 52A and 57 due to delay in presenting the accused and drawing of sample – Court held that such procedural irregularities are not grounds for bail unless serious prejudice is shown – Sampling conducted next day held permissible – Supported by Supreme Court judgments in NCB v. Kashif and UOI v. Mohan Lal [Paras 19, 22-25].

Presence of ACP – Non-Signing of Seizure Memo Not Material – No Ground for Bail - Petitioner contended the ACP’s presence was doubtful as his signature was not on seizure memo – Court rejected this, noting the seizure memo was signed by IO and witnesses and presence of ACP was otherwise established [Paras 20-21].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Bail Denied – Petitioner in Custody Since 15.06.2023 – No Grounds Made Out to Satisfy Twin Conditions - Charges framed, trial ongoing, and commercial quantity of contraband recovered – No material before Court to infer petitioner is unlikely to reoffend or that case is prima facie not true – Bail application dismissed in view of Section 37 embargo [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Commercial Quantity Recovery Attracts Section 37 NDPS Bar – Court found that the recovery from the petitioner’s person and exclusive rented premises amounted to commercial quantity – No procedural violations that would vitiate the trial were made out – Held: No case for bail is made out under the stringent conditions of Section 37 – Application dismissed [Para 27].
 

Land Acquisition – Apportionment Dispute – Collector’s Refusal to Refer Case – Quashed – Petitioner Claimed Share in Ancestral Property - The petitioner, asserting a claim through lineage from a common ancestor, challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order disbursing ₹34 crore compensation without referring the apportionment dispute to the authority under Section 35 MIDC Act – Held: Petitioner’s interest could not be dismissed as frivolous merely due to lack of interim relief or absence in revenue records [Paras 5, 20-22, 41-44].

Section 35 MIDC Act – Discretionary Power to Refer Disputes – Not Absolute – Collector Must Refer Disputes in Case of Competing Claims – The High Court held that while Section 35 uses the term “may,” discretion must be exercised judiciously—if a genuine apportionment dispute exists, Collector is obliged to refer – Decision of SDO in refusing reference without proper consideration of rival claims held to be perverse [Paras 38-40, 44-45].

Judicial Function of Apportionment – SDO Not Competent to Decide Complex Ownership Issues – Reference Mandatory - Referring to Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate and Rukminibai v. Krishnath, the Court reiterated that apportionment involves valuation of extinguished interests and must be decided by a judicial authority, not by revenue officers or the Collector/SDO [Paras 30-35, 37-39].

Revenue Records – Not Determinative of Title – Premature Disbursal Based on Survey Entries Invalid – SDO Erred - Court held SDO placed undue emphasis on names in revenue records and absence of injunction from civil suit—this approach ignored the genealogical linkage and pending partition suit, which established at least a prima facie claim [Paras 43, 44].

Direction to Refer – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Authority to Decide Apportionment – SDO Directed to Transfer Funds - Court directed the SDO to refer the apportionment dispute to the designated authority under Section 35 of MIDC Act within one month and deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest—authority to decide entitlement of each party in accordance with law [Paras 55-57].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – SDO’s Order Set Aside – Apportionment Dispute to Be Referred to Competent Authority – High Court held refusal to refer dispute was based on irrelevant considerations—directed SDO to forward compensation amount to authority for adjudication and equitable apportionment—Rule made absolute [Paras 55-60].

Limitation – Applicability of Extended Limitation due to COVID-19 – Petition and Appeal held to be within time - Appellant’s original petition filed during the Covid-19 limitation relaxation period as per Supreme Court directions – The Appeal filed within 90 days as provided by Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also within limitation despite Section 19(3) of Family Courts Act prescribing a shorter limitation – Appeal held to be maintainable [Paras 15-23].

Customary Divorce – Burden of Proof – Customary Divorce not Proved – Respondent failed to lead any documentary or oral evidence to establish customary divorce from first wife as required under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Mere pleading without proof rejected – The Trial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the existence and validity of customary divorce – Appellant entitled to succeed on this ground [Paras 24-39].

Impleadment of First Wife – Rule 8 of the Rules Under Hindu Marriage Act – Impleadment Not Mandatory – Court held that the first wife need not be impleaded as a co-respondent since the question was one of legal validity of marriage and not of her personal rights – The Trial Court's reliance on non-impleadment was misplaced – Appellant’s petition not defective for want of co-respondent [Paras 40-52].

Maintenance/Alimony – Maintainability of Claim by Second Wife – Though Appellant did not press for alimony, Court clarified that second wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act even where the marriage is declared void – Reference made to Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 INSC 197 – The Trial Court’s contrary view was incorrect [Para 53].

Offence of Rape – Misconception of Marriage – Respondent liable under Section 375 IPC / Section 63 BNS – Consent of appellant obtained on mistaken belief of valid marriage – Respondent’s conduct falls under ‘Fourthly’ clause of Section 375 IPC and Section 63(d)(iv) of BNS – Appellant’s mistaken belief of lawful marriage proved – Respondent committed rape punishable under Section 375/376 IPC and corresponding BNS provisions [Paras 54-58].

Desertion – Respondent’s Conduct Amounts to Desertion – Respondent failed to prosecute his restitution petition and remained unrepresented before the High Court despite due service – Court concluded that Respondent deserted the appellant and wilfully abstained from proceedings [Paras 59-62].

Trial Court Judgment – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Judgment Set Aside – Trial Court wrongly presumed appellant’s knowledge of first marriage, failed to frame necessary issues, and misapplied rules on maintenance and impleadment – Findings were contrary to settled law and unsupported by evidence – Impugned order dated 19.11.2024 set aside and appeal allowed [Paras 63-72].