Civil Procedure - Appointment of Receiver - Appeal against trial court order allowing application under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. – Trust created by will deed dated 25.02.1925 - Dispute over the nature of trust as public or private - Trial court appointed receiver due to mismanagement and misappropriation of trust funds by appellant – Held, no urgency or adequate reasoning provided by trial court for appointing receiver - Trust declared as public religious trust by trial court and appellant’s claim of it being a private trust rejected - Appeal dismissed, trial court's decision upheld. [Paras 1-17]

Trust Law - Nature of Trust - Analysis - Held - Trust created by late Jai Narain through will deed dated 25.02.1925 is a public religious trust - Trustees appointed by original creator deceased - Subsequent management by appellant and others misused trust funds - Trust income utilized for personal use by appellant - No proper account maintained - Trial court’s finding of public trust status affirmed. [Paras 6-10, 16]

Civil Procedure - Competency to File Application for Receiver - Analysis - Held - Application under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. can be filed by any party interested in proper management of trust property - Defendant no. 5’s application valid despite not being transposed as plaintiff - Court can appoint receiver if just and convenient, even at instance of stranger. [Para 14]

Decision - Appointment of Receiver - Court upholds trial court's decision to appoint receiver due to mismanagement by appellant - Appeal dismissed, ensuring protection and proper administration of trust property. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction – Eyewitness Reliability – Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 392 IPC – Prosecution's case primarily based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, PW-1 – Trial court acquitted one accused (Mahendra Kumar Kaushik) based on disbelieving part of the testimony of PW-1 regarding the alleged conspiracy – High Court found significant inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the testimony of PW-1 – Evidence suggested that PW-1 and his father were not present at the crime scene – Held, conviction based on unreliable and contradictory testimony is unsustainable. [Paras 43-54]

Forensic Evidence – Non-corroboration – Lack of ballistic and forensic evidence to support the prosecution's case – No recovery of alleged murder weapon or looted rifle – Destruction of case property including the car allegedly used by the accused – High Court noted the absence of forensic examination of crucial evidence – Held, absence of corroborative forensic evidence further weakens the prosecution's case. [Paras 43(n)-(o)]

Ante-timing of FIR – Discrepancies in FIR timing and inquest report – Evidence suggested that sections of IPC were added later to the inquest report – Delay in sending special report to Magistrate unexplained – High Court found FIR was likely ante-timed – Held, this raised serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's narrative. [Paras 50-54]

Motive – Lack of Evidence – Trial court acquitted accused of conspiracy charge under Section 120B IPC – Prosecution failed to establish motive for the crime – High Court upheld the trial court's finding on the absence of motive – Held, absence of motive adds to the doubt regarding the prosecution's case. [Paras 42-43]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentencing set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Direction for the release of appellants in custody if not required in any other case. [Paras 54-55]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Petition filed under Article 226 seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the conduct of ‘Hanuman Jayanthi Shobhayatra’ on 01.06.2024, challenging the rejection by the 5^th respondent on grounds of lack of authority and arbitrariness – Court held that the Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Circle, was not the competent authority to reject the permission – The rejection order was set aside and directions were issued to allow the procession with specific conditions to ensure public order and safety. [Paras 1-7]

Administrative Law – Competence of Authority – Validity of Orders – Held – The 5^th respondent, Inspector of Police, lacked the authority to reject the permission for the Shobhayatra – Such orders must be passed by the competent authority as per established protocols – Rejection order declared illegal and arbitrary. [Para 5]

Public Order – Conduct of Religious Processions – Held – While public authorities have the duty to maintain public order, they must ensure that statutory rights to conduct religious processions are not unduly curtailed – Directions issued for imposing necessary conditions to balance public order and the right to procession. [Para 6]

Decision – The writ petition was disposed of with directions to allow the Hanuman Jayanthi Shobhayatra on 01.06.2024 under stipulated conditions – The court provided a comprehensive list of conditions to ensure public order, safety, and adherence to the Model Code of Conduct due to the prevailing election period. [Para 7]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charges – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash charge sheet and cognizance order – Allegations of dacoity found baseless during investigation – No evidence of caste-based derogation or public humiliation – Offences under IPC and SC/ST Act not made out against applicants – Personal dispute misrepresented as caste-based crime – Charge sheet and proceedings quashed [Paras 1-42].

SC/ST Act – Applicability – Insufficient evidence to invoke Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) – No specific derogatory remarks or actions targeting complainant’s caste – Personal dispute between parties – Supreme Court precedents emphasized necessity of public view and caste-based insult for SC/ST Act applicability [Paras 13-22, 35-39].

Judicial Cognizance – Application of Mind – Magistrate required to apply judicial mind before taking cognizance – Mere filling of blanks on proforma not sufficient – Detailed reasons for cognizance necessary – Cognizance order found mechanical and unsustainable [Paras 23-32].

Decision – Application Allowed – Charge sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings quashed – Case emphasized need for proper judicial scrutiny before cognizance in criminal matters [Para 41].

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 Procedure – DNA Test Order – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court's order for DNA testing to ascertain paternity in a maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Applicant argued against the legality of forced DNA testing without consent – Court upheld the order emphasizing that DNA testing is necessary to establish truth in paternity disputes impacting maintenance claims – Reference made to Section 53 Cr.P.C. and relevant case laws supporting the use of DNA tests [Paras 1-24].

Paternity Dispute – Maintenance Claim – Applicant contested paternity and responsibility for maintenance of children – Opposite party provided evidence including birth certificates and school records naming the applicant as the father – Court held that DNA testing is crucial for determining paternity and ensuring the welfare of the children, overriding objections to consent based on scientific advancements and legal precedents [Paras 11-21].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of – Order for DNA test upheld – Applicant directed to either provide maintenance or undergo DNA testing to resolve paternity dispute [Para 23-24].

Recruitment Process – Estoppel – Appellant challenged the selection process for Medical Technologist post at SKIMS after participating in it – Contention that only 15 candidates applied for 20 advertised posts, hence, written test and interview were unnecessary – High Court upheld the selection process – Appellant estopped from challenging the process after participation [Paras 10-20].

Doctrine of Appropriation and Reprobation – Candidates who participate in selection without objection cannot later challenge it – Cited Supreme Court precedents affirming this principle – High Court rejected appellant’s claims based on settled legal position [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge – No legal infirmity found in the selection process or in the judgment under appeal.
 

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].