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]

Principles of Natural Justice – Personal Hearing – The petitioner was not granted a personal hearing before the issuance of the impugned orders under Section 74 of the UPGST Act, despite requesting it in writing – Court emphasized that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) where any adverse decision is contemplated against the person charged – Reaffirmed the importance of personal hearings in ensuring compliance with natural justice [Paras 1-45].

Alternative Remedy – Availability – The argument by the State that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act was dismissed – Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition when there is a violation of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction [Paras 7-10].

Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule and Casus Omissus – Court reiterated the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted based on their clear and unambiguous language – Casus omissus should not be readily inferred and should be addressed only in cases of clear necessity supported by the statute itself [Paras 21-44].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned orders dated 19.02.2024 and 27.04.2024 set aside – Matter remitted back to the proper officer to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with statutory provisions [Para 45].

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.
 

Income Tax – Exemption – Assessee, a charitable trust, transferred Rs. 20 crores of accumulated income to its Trust Fund Account and used it to make corpus donations to other charitable trusts – Assessing Officer (AO) denied exemption on this amount, treating it as deemed income under Sections 11(3)(c) and 11(3)(d) – ITAT allowed exemption under Section 11(1) for 15% of deemed income [Paras 1-9].

Utilization of Accumulated Income – The assessee argued that the temporary utilization of accumulated funds for donations, later reversed within two months, should not affect the exemption under Section 11(2) – ITAT upheld this view, citing that the funds were used for charitable purposes and quickly restored [Paras 10-25].

Legal Precedents – Reference made to the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Natwarlal Chowdhury Charity Trust, which held that accumulated income can be exempt under Section 11(1)(a) even if deemed income under Section 11(3) arises due to temporary non-compliance [Paras 6-10].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – ITAT's decision upheld – Accumulated income utilized for donations to other charitable trusts temporarily should not result in loss of exemption – Donations treated as application of income for charitable purposes, and 15% of deemed income allowed for exemption under Section 11(1) [Paras 29-31].

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].

Admission – Post-Graduate Medical Courses – Appellants challenged their exclusion from the merit list for Priority-III candidates in AFMS institutions due to lack of official seals on their sponsorship certificates – Learned Single Judge upheld the rejection – Appellants sought reconsideration and admission based on their NEET-PG 2023 ranks [Paras 1-11].

Sponsorship Certificates – Technical Deficiencies – Appellants argued that the absence of an official seal was a technical formality, not a mandatory requirement – Cited provisions from the Information Bulletin – Respondents failed to provide opportunities for rectifying the deficiency – Prior practice did not enforce this requirement strictly [Paras 12-20].

Legal Precedents – Procedural Relaxations – Appellants relied on Supreme Court rulings (Dolly Chhanda v. JEE, Chairman and S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh) emphasizing that procedural defects should not deprive candidates of admissions – Prior judgments supported the rectification of minor deficiencies [Paras 21-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Respondents directed to grant admission to appellants in the next academic year (2024-2025) based on NEET-PG 2023 ranks and chosen institutions – Sponsorship certificate deficiency deemed a procedural formality, not a ground for exclusion [Paras 29-36].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order and Charge Sheet – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order and charge sheet challenged on grounds of hasty and tainted investigation – Alleged offense of passing obscene comments against women – Absence of independent witnesses or examination of affected females – Violation of mandatory provisions under Cr.P.C. during investigation – Application allowed, summoning order and charge sheet quashed. [Paras 1-34]

Investigation Irregularities – Analysis – Held – Investigation conducted in haste without due process – No independent witnesses or statements of females affected by the alleged comments – Violation of Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order issued without proper application of judicial mind. [Paras 3-16, 18-20, 27-30]

Role of Accused – Facts and Circumstances – Applicant, a bright student with no prior criminal record – Arrest and implication found to be arbitrary and without substantial evidence – False implication and tainted investigation leading to miscarriage of justice. [Paras 11-14, 20, 29]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Summoning order dated 30.01.2024 and charge sheet dated 24.12.2023 quashed – Entire proceedings against the applicant in Criminal Case No. 141/2024 set aside – Directions for compliance issued to trial court. [Paras 30-34]

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].
 

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.