Affiliation Withdrawal – Natural Justice – School’s Affiliation Withdrawn by CBSE – Surprise Inspection Revealed Violations – Petitioner Contested Withdrawal Citing Lack of Pre-Decisional Hearing – High Court Referred to Mount Columbus School Judgment Emphasizing Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice Including Audi Alteram Partem – CBSE’s Order Quashed and Affiliation Restored [Paras 1-31].

Show Cause Notice – Adequacy and Specificity – Show Cause Notice Issued to School Lacked Specific Indication of Proposed Penalty – High Court Highlighted Need for Clear Communication of Potential Withdrawal of Affiliation and Ensuring Opportunity for School to Respond [Paras 3-4, 10-11].

Procedural Fairness – Necessity of Personal Hearing – Court Criticized Absence of Personal Hearing Before Affiliation Withdrawal – Emphasized Fair Play and Adherence to Natural Justice Principles [Paras 48-54, 28-31].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – The orders by the CBSE withdrawing the school’s affiliation and rejecting the appeal were quashed. The provisional affiliation of the petitioner was restored. The CBSE retained the right to proceed against the school, provided due process and principles of natural justice were followed [Paras 29-31].

Will – Proof and Validity – The petitioner sought to have his name mutated in the revenue records based on a Will executed by Phagulal Patel in favor of Dharmendra Sonkar. The Court emphasized that for a Will to be acted upon, it must be duly proved in accordance with the law. The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving the genuineness and validity of the Will. The Court highlighted the necessity of proving the Will through a civil court declaration before mutation can be done​​.

Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – The Court reiterated that revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Will. The mutation of names based on a Will can only be done if the Will is duly proved in a competent civil court. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments underscoring that mutation entries do not confer title and are only relevant for fiscal purposes​​.

Hindu Succession Act – Class II Heirs – The Court noted that under the Hindu Succession Act, the petitioner, being a nephew, falls under Class-II heirs and does not automatically inherit the property of his uncle unless explicitly mentioned in a valid Will. The absence of a legal declaration of the Will further negated the petitioner's claim​​.

Decision - The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner must first seek a declaration from a civil court regarding the validity of the Will before any mutation in the revenue records can be considered. The revenue authorities were deemed not competent to mutate names based on an unproved Will​​.

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Bar under Section 60 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act – The court upheld the decision of the Special Court which denied jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The petitioner was directed to pursue alternative remedies as prescribed under the Act and Rules, such as moving the application before the Collector for release of the vehicle upon payment of the penalty as stipulated under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 [Paras 1-12, 16].

Alternative Remedies – Writ Jurisdiction – The court reiterated that despite the statutory bar on the jurisdiction of the Special Court, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India remains unaffected. It provided the petitioner the liberty to invoke the writ jurisdiction if the vehicle was wrongfully seized [Paras 13-17].

Confiscation and Release of Vehicles – Statutory Provisions and Procedures – The court explained the statutory provisions governing the confiscation and release of seized vehicles under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the corresponding Rules, including the process for applying for the release of a vehicle upon payment of the prescribed penalty [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Petition dismissed in limine – The court upheld the order of the Special Judge (Excise) and dismissed the petition. The petitioner was advised to either seek the release of the vehicle by paying the penalty under the relevant provisions or to approach the High Court through writ jurisdiction if he believed the seizure was unlawful [Paras 16-17].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – The applicants sought the appointment of a neutral arbitrator, challenging the named arbitrator's eligibility on the grounds of a professional relationship with the respondent. The court held that an arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Act, read with the Seventh Schedule, terminates the mandate of the arbitrator, and the appointment of a new arbitrator is warranted​​.

Arbitrator's Independence and Impartiality – Professional Relationship – The Court found that the named arbitrator's professional ties with the respondent created justifiable doubts about his independence and impartiality. The applicants' objections were valid under Section 12(5), which mandates the termination of the arbitrator's mandate in such cases​​.

Procedure for Challenging Arbitrator – The applicants had not previously raised objections before the arbitrator but approached the Court directly. The Court concluded that this approach was justified due to the ineligibility of the arbitrator under the Act, which allows for such direct applications in cases of clear ineligibility​​.

Decision:

The application was allowed. The appointment of the named arbitrator was set aside, and a new impartial, independent, and neutral arbitrator was appointed. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring arbitrators' independence and impartiality to maintain the integrity of the arbitration process​​.

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – The applicants sought the appointment of a neutral arbitrator, challenging the named arbitrator's eligibility on the grounds of a professional relationship with the respondent. The court held that an arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Act, read with the Seventh Schedule, terminates the mandate of the arbitrator, and the appointment of a new arbitrator is warranted​​.

Arbitrator's Independence and Impartiality – Professional Relationship – The Court found that the named arbitrator's professional ties with the respondent created justifiable doubts about his independence and impartiality. The applicants' objections were valid under Section 12(5), which mandates the termination of the arbitrator's mandate in such cases​​.

Procedure for Challenging Arbitrator – The applicants had not previously raised objections before the arbitrator but approached the Court directly. The Court concluded that this approach was justified due to the ineligibility of the arbitrator under the Act, which allows for such direct applications in cases of clear ineligibility​​.

Decision:

The application was allowed. The appointment of the named arbitrator was set aside, and a new impartial, independent, and neutral arbitrator was appointed. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring arbitrators' independence and impartiality to maintain the integrity of the arbitration process​​.

Partition Suit – Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Order – Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Vacation – Appellant and Respondent No. 2 are Siblings, Dispute Over Family Properties – Consent Decree for Partition Previously Granted – Respondent No. 1 (Daughter of Respondent No. 2) Filed New Suit Suppressing Material Facts – High Court Set Aside Interim Order, Allowed Appeal, Directed Execution of Consent Decree [Paras 1-14, 25-31].

Suppression of Material Facts – Consent Decree Already Implemented – Respondent No. 2 Admitted Sale of Properties – Respondent No. 1’s Pleadings Contained False Assertions – High Court Found Abuse of Legal Process – Directed Notice for Suo Moto Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Respondents for False Pleadings and Affidavits [Paras 27-47].

Recovery of Possession – License Fee – Execution Proceedings to Recover Possession and License Fee Pursuant to Consent Decree – Court Directed Immediate Execution [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The impugned judgment dated 9th January 2023 was set aside, and the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 21st December 2018 was vacated. The appellant was permitted to proceed with execution proceedings to recover possession and license fees as per the consent decree. The respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit 2/3rd of the sale consideration with the Registrar General within four weeks to secure the interests of respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under Repealed Legislation – Accused convicted under sections 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for an offence allegedly committed under sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Appellant argued improper application of law post-repeal – High Court quashes conviction, holding that prosecution should proceed under the law in force at the time of the offence – Procedural error in applying the new Act retrospectively – Charges restored under the old Act [Paras 17-25].

Procedural Irregularity – Investigation by Informant – Appellant contested fairness of investigation led by the same officer who initiated the trap – High Court finds the dual role prejudicial and vitiates investigation – Investigation and subsequent proceedings held invalid – Appeal allowed, conviction and charges quashed [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under sections 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and section 161 IPC set aside – Charges under sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the old Act of 1947 and section 161 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Personal and surety bonds discharged [Paras 30-33].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR alleging offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC – Allegations in FIR and complaint disclose commission of cognizable offence – High Court emphasizes principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and other decisions on exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR and complaint contain prima facie essentials for investigation – Petition dismissed with liberty to petitioner to defend case in accordance with law [Paras 1-35].

Quashing of FIR – Legal Principles – High Court outlines principles for quashing FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exceptional and rare cases where FIR can be quashed at the threshold – Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be exercised sparingly and with caution – Continuation of investigation to collect evidence warranted in cases disclosing prima facie offence [Paras 7-35].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – FIR to stand – Petitioner granted liberty to defend case as per law.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Final Report – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner accused of offences under Section 15(1) of POCSO Act and Section 67B of IT Act – Allegations of sharing and transmitting pornographic material involving a child – No material evidence to show petitioner shared or transmitted such material – Mere possession or storing without intent to share or transmit not an offence under Section 15(1) of POCSO Act or Section 67B of IT Act – Petition allowed, final report quashed [Paras 1-16].

Offence Under Section 15(1) of POCSO Act – Ingredients – Mere possession or storing of child pornographic material without intention to share or transmit not an offence – Intent to share or transmit essential [Paras 8-9].

Offence Under Section 67B of IT Act – Ingredients – Automatic or accidental downloading of child pornographic material without intention to share or transmit not an offence – Material evidence must show intentional downloading and sharing [Paras 10-13].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Final report and all further proceedings in Crime No. 911 of 2020 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur, quashed.