Education Law – Examination Results Cancellation – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Lucknow University’s negligent conduct in withholding a student’s B.Sc. results and subsequent failure to communicate the cancellation of exams – High Court quashes University’s actions as arbitrary and illegal – Petitioner awarded costs for damages to educational prospects due to the University's negligence – [Paras 1-24].

Administrative Law – Non-communication of orders – Order dated 21.05.2012 not communicated to the petitioner, rendering it non-est and non-existing – Subsequent orders based on the non-communicated order deemed illegal and arbitrary – University’s failure to conduct a proper inquiry and provide an opportunity to the petitioner criticized – [Paras 10-21].

Cost Imposition – High Court imposes compensatory costs of Rs. 2 lakhs on Lucknow University for negligent actions that caused delay and harm to the petitioner’s educational career – Purpose of costs to discourage mala fide actions and compensate for inconvenience and expenses caused to the petitioner – [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The actions of Lucknow University, including the non-communication of essential orders and negligent conduct, were in gross violation of natural justice principles – The University is ordered to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within two months – [Para 24].

Competitive Examination – Correctness of Answer Keys – Appellants challenged the decision of the Expert Committee regarding the correctness of the answer key for question No.135 of Question Booklet Series-104C – The committee initially marked option “(B) Toda” as correct but changed it to option “(D) Gagron” upon objections – High Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, relying on expert opinion unless demonstrated to be patently wrong – Appeals dismissed, no interference warranted in the committee’s decision [Paras 1-39].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court reiterated that judicial intervention in academic matters, particularly concerning answer keys, should be minimal – Re-evaluation not permissible unless the key is demonstrably incorrect without requiring detailed reasoning – Presumption in favor of the examining authority unless clear errors are evident [Paras 17-22, 36-37].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Court upheld the Expert Committee’s decision – Emphasized the necessity of relying on expert evaluations in academic matters – No grounds for interference found.
 

Co-operative Societies – Redevelopment of Housing Societies – Petitioners challenged the orders of the State Government relating to the redevelopment projects – Contention regarding the inadequacy of the consent obtained from the members and non-compliance with statutory requirements – High Court held the State’s orders to be mechanical and without proper consideration of members’ rights – Orders set aside [Paras 1-35].

Consent of Members – Statutory Requirement – Emphasized the necessity for obtaining the consent of at least 70% of the members as per the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Failure to obtain valid consent renders the redevelopment agreement void ab initio – High Court highlighted the importance of transparency and fairness in obtaining members’ consent [Paras 20-25].

Developer Obligations – Compliance with Regulations – Court scrutinized the obligations of developers under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and the Development Control Regulations – Found significant non-compliance with mandatory disclosures and project timelines – Developers directed to adhere strictly to statutory norms [Paras 26-30].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Orders by State Government set aside – Court mandated strict compliance with statutory procedures for redevelopment, ensuring members’ rights and interests are protected – Directed developers to rectify non-compliance and adhere to timelines and disclosures as per the applicable laws** [Paras 31-35].
 

Suspension of Sentence – POCSO Act – Appellant convicted under Section 6 and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, as well as under Section 323 IPC – Sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and additional terms – Application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Appellant has already served 7 years and 3 months in custody – No other criminal antecedents against the appellant – Suspension granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Considerations – Appeal Duration – Acknowledged that the appeal is likely to take time – Decision to suspend sentence taken to prevent undue hardship to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal – Emphasis on no criminal antecedents and significant duration already served [Paras 5-9].

Conditions for Suspension – Suspension of sentence granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount – Conditions imposed: appellant to remain available on mobile, report to the police officer telephonically monthly, reside at the specified address, inform any change of address, and be present for court hearings [Para 9].

Decision:  Suspension of sentence granted – Application disposed of – Appellant to comply with specified conditions during the suspension period [Paras 10-12].

Evidence Law – FSL Report – Application for FSL report on blood-stained clothes and weapons dismissed by the trial court for being filed belatedly – Held, application for adducing evidence should be filed at the stage of prosecution evidence and not at the committal stage – Trial court’s dismissal based on incorrect premise – Order set aside [Paras 1-12].

Trial Procedure – Stage for Filing Applications – Prosecution’s application for FSL report should be entertained during the prosecution evidence stage – Trial court erred in dismissing the application for delay – Importance of FSL report in establishing the role of the accused emphasized [Paras 8-11].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Order dated 02.03.2024 set aside – Prosecution’s application for FSL report allowed – Articles to be sent for FSL analysis and report to be submitted to the trial court.

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Imposition of Unusual Conditions – Petitioner released on bail with condition to deposit passport – Petitioner did not possess passport – Trial Court failed to consider affidavit and investigating officer’s statement confirming non-possession – Trial Court directed Petitioner to deposit passport within four months, implying Petitioner must apply for one – High Court held Trial Court exceeded its powers and imposed conditions not required for bail – Condition modified to deposit passport if any [Paras 1-16].

Modification of Bail Conditions – Requirement of Reasonableness – High Court emphasized necessity of considering factual circumstances and existing possessions of accused while imposing bail conditions – Held that imposing condition to deposit non-existent passport amounts to compelling accused to create new document [Paras 10-14].

Decision:

Criminal Writ Petition allowed – Condition for deposit of passport modified to “deposit the passport, if any” – Petitioner already released on bail under modified condition – Rule made absolute in above terms [Paras 15-18].

Insurance Liability – Contract of Insurance – Appeal against trial court’s decree holding insurance company liable for compensation and medical expenses paid by employer to its employees – Appellant contends no contract of insurance exists between insurer and employer, policy was an Act policy with limited liability – No contractual obligation to cover medical expenses incurred by employer [Paras 1-23].

Motor Accident – Recovery of Compensation – Employer’s claim for recovery of medical expenses and compensation from insurer – Employees injured during employment while traveling in hired jeep – Jeep insured under Act policy, not comprehensive policy – No claim filed with Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by injured employees – No contract of insurance between employer and insurer under Workmen Compensation Act [Paras 13-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Decree and judgment of trial court set aside – Insurance company not liable to indemnify employer in absence of contractual obligation – No costs awarded [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Law – Evidence of Victim – Conviction based on sole testimony of victim of sexual assault without corroboration – Legal standards for reliability of victim’s testimony examined – Statements of prosecutrix must be appreciated on the principles of probabilities, broader probabilities to be examined, minor contradictions not fatal [Paras 13-17].

Chain of Custody – Forensic Evidence – Failure to connect forensic samples with commission of the offence – Discrepancies in the chain of custody – Possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out – SFSL reports unreliable due to procedural lapses [Paras 23-24].

Kidnapping – Enticement and Consent – Victim below 18 years, consent irrelevant – Accused convicted under Section 363 IPC for kidnapping from lawful guardianship – Prosecution failed to prove intent for illicit intercourse, acquittal under Sections 366, 366-A IPC [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 366, 366-A, 376(3) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act set aside – Conviction under Section 363 IPC upheld – Appellant directed to be released forthwith as sentence already undergone [Paras 27-29].

Family Law – Restoration of Petition – Appellant’s Conduct –

Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act dismissed for default as appellant and his counsel failed to appear on the scheduled date – Appellant walked out during proceedings on the prior date and did not return – Filed for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 CPC after four months – Appellant blamed counsel for advising non-appearance – Family Court dismissed restoration application, citing lack of sufficient cause and appellant’s disrespect to the court [Paras 6-15, 23-27].

Presence of Parties in Family Court – Requirement and Consequences –

Under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, personal presence of parties typically required – Appellant failed to justify absence and walking out of court proceedings – Supreme Court emphasized importance of parties’ presence and criticized appellant for not taking responsibility for his actions [Paras 17-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

Family Court’s decision upheld – Appellant’s petition for restoration dismissed due to failure to show sufficient cause – Court emphasized that appellant cannot benefit from his own wrong and must take responsibility for court proceedings [Paras 25-28].