Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Suit – Notice Requirement under Section 80 CPC – Second Appeal against the judgment of the lower appellate court, which dismissed the suit for lack of mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC – The suit was initially filed by plaintiffs seeking a declaration of ownership by adverse possession of agricultural land – Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but lower appellate court reversed this, citing non-compliance with Section 80 CPC – High Court upheld the decision of the lower appellate court, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the notice requirement under Section 80 CPC – Held, compliance with Section 80 CPC is a condition precedent for instituting a suit against the Government or public officers – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Mandatory Nature of Section 80 CPC – Analysis – Supreme Court precedents affirming the necessity of serving notice under Section 80 CPC before instituting a suit – Section 80 aims to provide the government a chance to address grievances outside of court – Non-compliance results in the suit being deemed not maintainable – Exceptions under Section 80(2) discussed, but the case at hand did not meet the criteria for such exceptions. [Para 9-13]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court upheld the lower appellate court’s judgment dismissing the suit due to the absence of mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC – No error found in the lower appellate court’s application of law – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Para 13]

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 – 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].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. –

Allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence – FIR against entire family of husband including those living separately – Specific allegations only against husband and parents – General, vague, and bald allegations against others – No prima facie case against distant relatives – Court cites Supreme Court's caution against roping in distant relatives without specific instances – FIR quashed for distant relatives – Continuance against husband and parents upheld [Paras 1-16].

Procedure under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of process – Emphasis on specific allegations for prosecution – Application of judgments from Supreme Court cases to ensure fair trial – General allegations insufficient to prosecute relatives without details – Court's intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-14].

Decision: FIR quashed against petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 – Petition infructuous for petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 – Investigating Officer to proceed against petitioner No. 3 in accordance with law [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Procedure – Registration of FIR – Complaint Handling Post Cognizance – Petitioner challenged the order directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after the Magistrate recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Held that once cognizance was taken by recording the statement, the Magistrate could not issue directions for FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Such directions can only be issued at a pre-cognizance stage [Paras 1-10].

Procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that direction under Section 156(3) for FIR registration is not permissible post-cognizance by the Magistrate – Highlighted the Supreme Court’s stance in “M/S Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana” regarding the stages at which FIR directions can be issued [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Quashing of the order and FIR – Orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequent FIR quashed – Directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law without requiring pre-process hearing from the accused [Paras 10-11].

Domestic Violence – Interim Monetary Compensation – Petitioner challenged the order of the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, enhancing interim monetary compensation from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 31,000 per month – Contention that an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act against an interim order is not maintainable – Court held that there is no bar on filing an appeal against an interim order under Section 29 of the DV Act – Interim orders passed under Section 23 of the DV Act are appealable [Paras 1-16].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Appeal under DV Act – Argument advanced by petitioner relying on Punjab & Haryana High Court decision, holding that no appeal lies against interim orders, rejected – Uttarakhand and Delhi High Courts’ decisions holding appeals maintainable against interim orders under DV Act endorsed – Legislature did not explicitly bar appeals against interim orders, thus they fall within purview of Section 29 of the DV Act [Paras 7-15].

Interim Order – Evaluation of Evidence – Order of the Trial Magistrate reducing interim compensation from Rs. 21,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month found cryptic and lacking reasons – 1^st Additional Sessions Judge’s detailed analysis and enhancement of interim compensation to Rs. 31,000 per month upheld – Findings based on petitioner’s substantial salary and children’s educational needs – No perversity in conclusions warranting High Court’s interference [Paras 17-21].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Appellate Court’s order – No gross failure of justice or violation of natural justice principles identified – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 not invoked to alter well-reasoned orders of subordinate courts [Para 22].

Insecticides Act – Prosecution of Employees without Company as Accused – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu quashed proceedings against petitioners, employees of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., for offences under Sections 29(1)(a)(i) and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. – Petitioners challenged trial court’s process issuance without arraying the company as accused, arguing violation of Section 22 and Section 24 of the Act. – Court found the company’s inclusion necessary for proceeding against employees. – Proceedings and order against petitioners quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Legal Representation – Petitioners represented by Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate. – Respondent represented by Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG. [Intro]

Issue 1 – Company’s Absence in Complaint – Court observed that under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, prosecution against employees requires the company to be arraigned as an accused. – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy (2019) 3 SCC 797, emphasizing that vicarious liability of employees cannot be invoked without prosecuting the company. [Paras 9-12]

Issue 2 – Violation of Sections 22 and 24 – Not examined as determination of Issue 1 was sufficient to decide the matter. [Para 8]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Held – The complaint proceedings against the petitioners pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, are quashed due to the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused. [Paras 13-14]

Appointment of Non-Teaching Staff – Requirement of Prior Approval – Appellant challenged the decision of the Single Judge which quashed the orders of the DIOS disapproving the appointment of the respondent as an Assistant Clerk – Argument that minority institutions are exempt from seeking prior approval as per Regulation 101 of the Act – Single Judge held Regulation 101 inapplicable to minority institutions, affirming the appointment of the respondent and directing financial sanction and salary payment – High Court held that Regulation 101 applies to all aided institutions, including minority institutions, and mandates prior DIOS approval – Judgment of Single Judge set aside [Paras 1-56].
Minority Educational Institutions – Regulatory Provisions – Applicability of Regulation 101 – Detailed examination of Regulation 101 which mandates prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions – Analysis of Supreme Court rulings affirming the regulation's applicability to both minority and non-minority institutions – Emphasis on the necessity of regulatory oversight for ensuring lawful appointments and proper utilization of state aid [Paras 44-53].
Recruitment Process – Validity of Appointment – The respondent's appointment as Assistant Clerk found invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Advertisement for the post lacked essential details and the appointment letter was deficient – High Court concluded that the appointment process was flawed and lacked transparency – Importance of adhering to prescribed procedures for fair and legitimate recruitment [Paras 30-34, 53-54].
Conclusion – Special Appeal Allowed – Single Judge's judgment reversed – Held – Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is fully applicable to aided minority institutions – Appointment of the respondent without prior DIOS approval is invalid – Directive issued for compliance with regulatory requirements in future recruitment processes [Paras 55-56].
Decision: Special Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of Single Judge set aside – Appointment of respondent as Assistant Clerk declared invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Emphasis on mandatory prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions, including minority institutions.
 

Ancestral vs. Self-Acquired Property – Suit by sons challenging the self-acquired nature of property decreed in favor of grandsons – Trial Court held land in village Salala as self-acquired based on a sale deed and land in village Pattar Kalan as ancestral – Appeals filed by both parties – First Appellate Court dismissed all appeals without considering application for additional evidence – High Court remanded matter to First Appellate Court for re-evaluation [Paras 1-15].

Additional Evidence – Appellants' application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for producing additional evidence not decided by the First Appellate Court – High Court directed First Appellate Court to decide on the application and then re-evaluate the appeals – Emphasized statutory right to lead additional evidence and the necessity for Appellate Courts to consider such applications before final decision [Paras 10-14].

Relief – Judgments and decrees dated 07.02.1992 by the First Appellate Court set aside – Matters remanded back for fresh decision considering the application for additional evidence – Appellate Court directed to expedite decision within nine months [Paras 15-15].