Education Law – Unrecognised Schools – Mandatory Recognition under RTE Act – Section 18 – Petitioners alleged that a private educational institution was being run without statutory recognition – Educational authorities found institution to be unrecognised and issued stop memo – Held: Running any school without recognition from the competent Government authority is impermissible and violative of Section 18 of the RTE Act [Paras 2, 7, 9].

Education Law – Religious / Pre-school Instruction – Scope of RTE Act – Institution imparting pre-school education with religious instruction to around 300 students – Reliance placed on earlier decision of Kerala High Court disapproving imparting religious instruction without State permission – Such institutions cannot function outside statutory framework under guise of pre-school or religious education [Paras 7–8].

Recognition – National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) – Effect – Institution relied on NIOS accreditation to justify continuation – Held: Accreditation by NIOS does not dispense with requirement of recognition under Section 18 of the RTE Act from the State Government – NIOS recognition alone insufficient [Paras 6–7].

Writ of Mandamus – Enforcement of Statutory Duty – Petition by local residents – Authorities duty-bound to act on reports finding lack of recognition – Direction issued to shut down unrecognised educational institution – Mandamus granted [Paras 2, 10].

Equitable Relief – Students’ Interest – Time to Make Alternate Arrangements – While ordering closure, Court granted limited protection by permitting institution to function for the academic year 2025–26 to enable students to make alternative arrangements [Para 10].

Connected Writ Petition – Challenge to Closure Proceedings – Educational institution sought quashing of stop memo and closure direction – Held: No legal right to continue without recognition – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–10].

Decision: WP(C) No.21615 of 2023 allowed – Authorities directed to shut down unrecognised institution subject to limited continuation for academic year 2025–26 – WP(C) No.28053 of 2024 dismissed.

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Vendor Agreement – Petitioner contended it was an assembler, not manufacturer, and that respondent was obligated to pay 100% advance – Arbitrator found petitioner responsible for non-delivery of goods and liable to refund part of advance with interest – Held: Findings based on appreciation of contract and evidence – No perversity or patent illegality – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–3, 10–12, 20–21]

Interpretation of Contract – Payment Terms and Procurement Obligations – Vendor Agreement required petitioner to procure components (five from vendors identified by respondent) and deliver finished switches – No contractual clause requiring 100% advance – Petitioner failed to supply full quantity under Purchase Order – Arbitrator’s interpretation that payment was due post-acceptance of goods found plausible – No interference warranted [Paras 7–9, 11–13]

Scope under Section 34 – Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards – Court reiterated narrow scope of interference under Section 34 – Arbitrator’s view must be respected if plausible and not perverse – Court not to sit in appeal or reappreciate evidence – Relied on Prakash Atlanta v. NHAI, Ramesh Kumar Jain v. BALCO, and Parsa Kente Collieries v. RRUVNL [Paras 19.1–19.3]

Contractual Interpretation – Entire Agreement Clause – Clause 14.10 of Vendor Agreement did not nullify existing purchase orders but governed terms of performance – No merit in contention that PO stood extinguished [Para 15]

Arbitral Remedy – Back-to-Back Refund for Vendor-Identified Components – Arbitrator rightly noted that deficiencies in components from respondent’s identified vendors would attract refund only if vendor issued a back-to-back refund – No absolute liability of respondent for advance payment [Para 8.2, 16]

Decision: Petition under Section 34 dismissed – Arbitral award upheld – No perversity, patent illegality, or conflict with public policy found – Pending application also dismissed.

Trade Union Recognition – Statutory Mechanism – West Bengal Amendment Act, 1983 – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Petitioner union sought recognition as constituent of joint bargaining council and derecognition of rival union – Held: Recognition of trade unions and disputes regarding legality of registration are exclusively governed by Sections 28A/28B and Section 7 of the Trade Unions Act – Proper authority is Registrar of Trade Unions – Writ petition dismissed for non-availment of statutory remedy [Paras 20–27].

Writ of Mandamus – Absence of Enforceable Legal Right – Recognition of Trade Union Not a Fundamental or Legal Right Enforceable in Writ Jurisdiction – Employer is a private entity not discharging public duty – Relief seeking direction for recognition by private employer impermissible under Article 226 [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Alternate Remedy – Doctrine of Exhaustion – Petitioner failed to approach Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No.5) for recognition or challenge to alleged illegal registration of rival union – Held: When statute provides complete machinery, writ court should not be invoked in the first instance [Paras 21–26].

Trade Unions Act – Section 7 – Identical or Deceptively Similar Names – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Allegation that two unions registered with identical names – Held: Issue squarely falls within powers of Registrar of Trade Unions – High Court declined to adjudicate in writ jurisdiction [Paras 24–25].

Industrial Relations – Inter-union Rivalry – Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction – Disputes relating to membership strength, recognition and bargaining rights between rival unions are matters for statutory authorities and industrial adjudication – Not for determination under Article 226 [Paras 15, 18–19].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty implied to petitioner to approach Registrar of Trade Unions for appropriate relief under the Trade Unions Act and the West Bengal Amendment Act – Interim orders vacated – Connected applications disposed of.

Anticipatory Bail – Prevention of Money Laundering – Organized Cyber Frauds – Petitioners alleged to be key operatives in third and second layers of laundering network – Large-scale layering of proceeds of crime through hundreds of mule accounts, conversion to cryptocurrency, and uploading to UAE-based PYYPL platform – ED investigation revealed deep involvement of petitioners in managing over 30 entities and routing ₹65 crore through fraudulent transactions – Custodial interrogation sought by ED – Held: Petitioners played significant role in laundering – Bail denied [Paras 2–3, 5–9]

Twin Conditions under Section 45 PMLA – Applicability to Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners argued that mere dealing in cryptocurrency is not an offence and relied on parity with co-accused granted bail – Held: Bail cannot be granted unless both twin conditions under Section 45 are satisfied – Plea of parity misplaced as co-accused were granted regular bail post-custody – Section 45 applies fully to anticipatory bail as well – There are no reasonable grounds to believe accused are not guilty or unlikely to commit offences while on bail [Paras 3, 4, 14–15]

Continuing Investigation – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation ongoing with new complaints emerging – Petitioners allegedly wiped digital evidence, assaulted ED officers, and paid bribes to local police – ED requires custody to trace further layering and involvement of banking officials – Held: Court cannot override investigative necessity for effective interrogation and evidence collection – Bail would risk destruction of crucial evidence [Paras 7, 10–13]

Economic Offences – Seriousness – Impact on Public Confidence and National Economy – Money laundering offences viewed as aggravated economic crimes with transnational dimensions – Held: Economic offences constitute a distinct class – Investigation must be allowed full play before grant of bail can be considered [Paras 4.4–4.5, 9.3–9.5]

Constitutional Rights vs. Investigative Interests – Petitioners relied on Article 21 for anticipatory bail – Held: Right to liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against public interest in effective investigation – Article 21 cannot be used to block necessary custodial interrogation [Paras 4.2, 10]

Decision: Both anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Petitioners failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA – Custodial interrogation found necessary due to serious nature of allegations and risk of evidence tampering – No protection from arrest granted.

Land Acquisition – National Highways – Multiplier Factor – Conflict between Central and State Notifications – Acquisition initiated under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act for National Highway project – Central Government notification dated 09.02.2016 under Section 30(2) read with First Schedule of the Act of 2013 prescribing multiplier factor of 2.00 – State Government notification dated 05.10.2021 and GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022 prescribing multiplier factor of 1.00 even for national highways – Held: For acquisition of land for national highways, Central Government alone is the “appropriate Government” under Section 3(e)(v) of the Act of 2013 and Entry 23 of List I – State Government lacks jurisdiction to prescribe multiplier factor for such acquisitions – State notifications and GRs quashed to that extent [Paras 15–24].

Constitution of India – Legislative Competence – National Highways – Entry 23, List I – Exclusive domain of Union – State Government cannot trench upon powers of Central Government in matters relating to acquisition for national highways – Notifications and GRs issued by State Government insofar as they apply to national highways held unconstitutional and unsustainable [Paras 18, 22–23].

Compensation – Multiplier Factor – Award under National Highways Act – Award dated 13.01.2023 applying multiplier factor of 1.00 based on State Government GRs – Held: Award vitiated as it ignores binding Central Government notification prescribing multiplier factor of 2.00 – Award quashed – Direction issued to pass fresh award applying multiplier factor of 2.00 within six weeks [Paras 25, 29(iii)–(iv)].

Alternative Remedy – Section 3-G(5), National Highways Act – Applicability – Objection relating to determination of multiplier factor involves jurisdictional conflict between Central and State Governments – Statutory arbitrator under Section 3-G(5), being a State functionary, lacks authority to decide such issue – Availability of alternative remedy not a bar to writ jurisdiction in present case [Paras 28–29].

Relief – Writ Petition Allowed – State Government notifications and GRs quashed insofar as applicable to national highway acquisitions – Impugned award quashed – Liberty reserved to petitioners to challenge fresh award on grounds relating to quantum of compensation under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act [Paras 29–30].

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C – Allegation of Voyeurism – Section 354C IPC – Ingredients of Offence Not Made Out – Private complaint alleging taking of photograph of complainant while laying clothes for drying – Sworn statement did not disclose that complainant was engaged in a “private act” or that her privacy was violated – No allegation of exposure of private parts or expectation of privacy as contemplated under Section 354C – Held: Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7–10, 11].

Voyeurism – Meaning of “Private Act” – Explanation to Section 354C IPC – Scope – Act of laying clothes for drying in front of house – No material to show complainant was not properly dressed or engaged in any act reasonably expected to provide privacy – Mere presence of accused or flashing of light insufficient to attract offence – Cognizance taken without foundational facts – Proceedings unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 66E – Violation of Privacy – Capture of Image of Private Area – Essential Requirement – Sworn statement of complainant did not allege photographing of naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts – No prima facie case under Section 66E made out [Para 10].

Protest Complaint – Credibility – Contradictory Versions – Initial complaint, investigation reports and protest complaint disclose material inconsistencies – Two police refer reports finding complaint false – Radical change in version at protest stage – Statements of witnesses inconsistent with complainant’s own version – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance in absence of sufficient materials [Paras 3–5, 7, 11].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Abuse of Process – Accused compelled to face prosecution without sufficient grounds – Held: Ends of justice require interference – Proceedings in C.C No.555/2018 quashed against Accused Nos.1 to 3 [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara quashed.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Minor Rape Victim – Constitutional Jurisdiction – Applicant aged 14 years and 6 months, victim of rape, sought permission for termination of pregnancy – FIR registered under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS – Medical Board opined pregnancy of about 15 weeks and found termination permissible under MTP Act – Held: In cases of rape of a minor, continuance of pregnancy presumed to cause grave injury to mental health – Termination allowed in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution [Paras 1–6, 11].

MTP Act – Sections 3 and Rule 3B – Pregnancy up to 24 Weeks – Survivors of Sexual Assault and Minors – Rule 3B expressly permits termination up to 24 weeks for minors and survivors of rape – Opinion of Medical Board confirmed safety of procedure – Statutory framework recognizes autonomy, dignity and bodily integrity of pregnant woman – Court relied on Supreme Court exposition in X v. Union of India [Paras 6–9].

Right to Reproductive Choice – Article 21 – Bodily Autonomy and Dignity – Forcing a minor rape victim to continue pregnancy would violate her right to life with dignity – Reproductive choice is inseparable from personal liberty under Article 21 – Best interest of the victim is paramount consideration – Continuation of pregnancy would aggravate trauma, mental agony and social harm [Paras 9–11].

Best Interest Doctrine – Victim-Centric Approach – Court emphasized “best interest” theory while dealing with pregnancy of minor rape survivor – Psychological trauma, social ostracism and long-term impact on minor taken into account – Termination directed without delay to prevent further aggravation of victim’s suffering [Paras 11–13].

Procedure and Safeguards – Medical Board – DNA Preservation – Court directed constitution of team of senior gynaecologists and psychologist for conducting termination – Hospital directed to ensure pre and post-operative care – Directions issued for scientific collection and preservation of fetal tissue for DNA profiling to aid investigation – If child born alive, best medical care and State responsibility ensured under JJ Act [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Medical termination of pregnancy of minor rape victim permitted – Detailed directions issued to Zydus Medical College and Hospital, Dahod – Petition disposed of with safeguards and compliance directions.

Public Trust – Election Dispute – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff filed civil suit seeking declaration and cancellation of unopposed election of defendant as President of a registered public trust – Allegations of illegal rejection of nomination, mala fides, corrupt practices and collusion by election officials – Defendants sought rejection of plaint contending statutory bar under Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act and pendency of proceedings before Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan – Trial Court rejected application – Held: At stage of Order VII Rule 11, only plaint averments are to be examined – Allegations disclose clear cause of action requiring adjudication on evidence – Rejection of plaint unwarranted [Paras 1–5, 10].

Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 – Sections 21 to 23, 38 & 73 – Scope and Applicability – Proceedings under Sections 21–23 relate to entries and change reports of trustees – Section 38 concerns management and administration of public trust – Act does not provide mechanism for adjudication of election disputes of office bearers – Section 73 bars civil court jurisdiction only in respect of matters required to be decided by statutory authorities – Election disputes alleging fraud and corruption not covered – No express or implied bar to civil court jurisdiction [Paras 7.1–7.3, 10.1–10.3].

Election of Trust Office Bearers – Allegations of Fraud and Corruption – Civil Remedy – Suit based on allegations of corrupt practices, mala fide conduct and connivance between election officer and elected candidate – Such disputes involve civil consequences and cannot be summarily decided – In absence of statutory forum under Act of 1959, civil court retains plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC [Paras 8–10.2].

Exclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction – Principles – Dhulabhai Case Applied – Ouster of civil court jurisdiction not to be readily inferred – Unless statute provides express bar and adequate alternative remedy, civil courts retain jurisdiction – Rajasthan Public Trust Act does not create special tribunal for election disputes – Ratio of Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. applied – Coordinate Bench decision in Nathu Lal Sharma v. Omprakash followed [Paras 10.2–10.4].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 115 CPC – Scope – No jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity found in order of Trial Court rejecting Order VII Rule 11 application – Revisional interference not warranted [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order dated 03.11.2025 rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC affirmed.

Plaint – Rejection of Plaint – Under-valuation – Advanced Stage of Trial – Application filed after examination of defence witness (DW.4) – Defendant sought rejection of plaint alleging that suit property was undervalued based on evidence of Sub-Registrar official regarding sale value of nearby properties – Trial Court dismissed the application holding that under-valuation was not substantiated and application was belated – Held: Evidence of DW.4 only indicated approximate value including land and building and did not conclusively establish market value of land alone – Valuation of construction varies depending on quality and age of building – No definite conclusion of under-valuation possible on such evidence – Disputed question of fact involved, requiring detailed enquiry – Rejection of plaint at such stage not warranted – No illegality or irregularity in impugned order [Paras 2–7].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Though application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage before disposal of suit – When plea involves disputed facts relating to valuation and requires evidence, plaint cannot be rejected summarily – Proper course is framing of issue and trial on valuation, if sought – Liberty granted to defendant to seek framing of issue on valuation before Trial Court [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2025 upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply before Trial Court for framing an issue on valuation of plaint – No costs – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.