SUPREME COURT

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union of india (uoi) and Ors. (Decided on 07.03.2011) MANU/SC/0176/2011

(1) Euthanasia - Right to die - Legality - In 1973, petitioner, staff nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEM hospital), was sexually assaulted and choked, leaving her blind, deaf, paralysed and in a vegetative state - In 1999, 'X' as petitioner's next friend filed a petition for euthanasia submitting that petitioner should be allowed to die with dignity as there was not the slightest possibility of any improvement in her condition - Whether petition filed by the 'X' regarding euthanasia for the petitioner could be allowed?

Held, petitioner met most of the criteria for being in a permanent vegetative state for the past 37 years - However, her dementia had not progressed and had remained stable for many years - Petitioner's parents were dead and other close relatives were not interested in her ever - It was the KEM hospital staff, who had been amazingly caring for her day and night for so many long years, who really were her next friends, and not 'X' who had only visited her on few occasions and written a book on her - Hence, it was for the KEM hospital staff to take that decision - KEM hospital staff had clearly expressed their wish that petitioner should be allowed to live - Hence, petitioner allowed to live, however, assuming that the KEM hospital staff at some future time changes its mind, in such a situation the KEM hospital would have to apply to the High Court for approval of the decision to withdraw life support - Petition dismissed.

(2) Human Rights -- Procedure to be adopted by the High Court when Euthanasia application is filed - Which provision of law provided thar the court can grant approval for withdrawing life support to an incompetent person

Held, when euthanasia petition is filed, the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith constitute a Bench of at least two Judges who should decide to grant approval or not - Before doing so the Bench should seek the opinion of a committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench after consulting such medical authorities/medical practitioners as it may deem fit - Preferably one of the three doctors should be a neurologist, one should be a psychiatrist, and the third a physician - The committee of three doctors nominated by the Bench should carefully examine the patient and also consult the record of the patient as well as taking the views of the hospital staff and submit its report to the High Court - Simultaneously with appointing the committee of doctors, the High Court should also issue notice to the State and close relatives e.g. parents, spouse, brothers/sisters etc. of the patient, and in their absence his/her next friend, and supply a copy of the report of the doctor's committee to them as soon as it was available - After hearing them, the High Court should give its verdict - The above procedure should be followed all over India until Parliament makes legislation on the subject of euthanasia - Petition dismissed.

(3) Human Rights - Passive Euthanasia and Active Euthanasia - Legality

Held, passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support of a patient in permanent vegetative state ) was permitted to a person who was being kept alive only mechanically, through life support systems and had been in that condition for many years - Decision regarding discontinuing life support system had to be taken either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision could be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend including doctors attending the patient - However, injecting a lethal drug to a person who was being kept alive only mechanically, through life support systems and had been in that condition for many years remains illegal - Petition dismissed.

• SERVICE LAWS

Centre for PIL and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another- (decided on: 03.03.2011) MANU/SC/0179/2011

Validity of Appointment - High Powered Committee (HPC), duly constituted under proviso to Section 4(1) of Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003 recommended name of 2nd respondent for appointment to post of Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) - Petitioner NGO challenged validity of HPC's recommendation in instant writ petition on ground that 2nd respondent was accused in a corruption case - Whether relevant material and vital aspects having nexus to object of 2003 Act had been taken into account by HPC when decision to recommend 2nd respondent as CVC was undertaken.

Held, appointment to post of CVC was to satisfy not only eligibility criteria of candidate but also decision making process of recommendation by HPC - Decision to recommend had got to be an informed decision keeping in mind fact that Commission as an institution had to perform an important function of vigilance administration - If a statutory body like HPC failed to look into relevant material having nexus to object and purpose of 2003 Act or took into account irrelevant circumstances then its decision would stand vitiated on ground of official arbitrariness - Commission, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and HPC had placed emphasis only on bio-data of empanelled candidates and they had not looked at matter from larger perspective of institutional integrity including institutional competence and functioning of Commission - DoPT, on various dates, noted that penalty proceedings should be initiated against 2nd respondent on number of occasions, however, such notings were not considered in juxtaposition with Commission's clearance for 2nd respondent's appointment - Further, even in bio-data of 2nd respondent, there was no reference to earlier notings of DoPT - HPC's recommendation was entirely premised on blanket clearance given by Commission and on fact of earlier appointments of 2nd respondent as Chief Secretary of a State - Further, in process, HPC had failed to take into consideration pendency of a corruption case against 2nd respondent - HPC, therefore, had failed to consider relevant material keeping in mind purpose and policy of 2003 Act and hence its recommendation was non est in law - Impugned appointment of 2nd respondent as CVC was quashed - Petitions allowed.

Issuance of Writ of quo warranto - Procedure to be adopted - Whether writ of quo warranto was issuable in instant case

Held, before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto he must satisfy the court inter-alia that the office in question is a public office and it is held by a person without legal authority and that leads to the inquiry as to whether the appointment of the said person has been in accordance with law or not - A writ of quo warranto is issued to prevent a continued exercise of unlawful authority - In the main writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of any other writ, direction or order which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this Case - Thus a declaratory relief was also sought beside issuance of a writ of quo warranto - Instant writ petition, therefore, was maintainable and writ of quo warranto was issuable - Petitions allowed.

Appointment of CVC - Role of President of India - Determination - Whether appointment of 2nd respondent by President of India should be questionable in a Public Interest Litigation since President was not acted on advice of Council of Ministers under article 74 of Constitution

Held, CVC was appointed under Section 4(1) of 2003 Act by President by warrant under her hand and seal after obtaining recommendation of a Committee consisting of Prime Minister as Chairperson and two other Members - Although under 2003 Act, CVC was appointed after obtaining recommendation of HPC, such recommendation had got to be accepted by Prime Minister, who was concerned authority under Article 77(3), and if such recommendation was forwarded to President under Article. 74, then President was bound to act in accordance with advice tendered - Advice tendered to President by Prime Minister regarding appointment of CVC, therefore, would be binding on President - Hence, there was no merit in contention advanced on behalf of 2nd respondent that in matter of appointment of CVC under Section 4(1) of 2003 Act President was not to act on advice of Council of Ministers as was provided in Article 74 of Constitution - Petitions allowed.

Whether for Appointment of CVC recommendation of HPC under proviso to Section 4(1) was required to be unanimous

Held, to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners would mean conferment of a "veto right" on one of the members of the HPC - To confer such a power on one of the members would amount to judicial legislation - Act of 2003 was enacted with intention that such HPC would act in a bipartisan manner and should perform its statutory duties keeping in view larger national interest - Each of Members was presumed by legislature to act in public interest and if veto power was given to one of three Members, working of Act would become unworkable - Under Section 4(2) of 2003 Act it had been stipulated that vacancy in Committee should not invalidate appointment, therefore, recommendation under Section 4 was not required to be unanimous - Petitions allowed.

• LABOUR LAWS

Union of India and Others Vs. Vartak Labour Union (Decided on 04.03.2011) MANU/SC/0171/2011

Entitlement to Regularization - Appellant organization employed casual workers for discharging various works in its organization - Respondent Union of casual workers demanded regularization of their service - Single Judge, in respondent's writ petition, directed appellant to regularize respondents' service - Division Bench, in appellant's appeal, directed appellant to implement Office Memo dated 02-02-2001 wherein appellant allegedly framed a scheme for welfare of causal workers - Whether respondent casual workers were entitled to regularization

Held, Division Bench erroneously construed Office Memo dated 02-02-2001 as an approved scheme for absorption and regularization of casual workers - Office Memo dated 02-02-2001 was merely in nature of an inter-department communication between appellant organizations' headquarters and its officials - Inter-departmental communications and notings in departmental files did not have sanction of law creating a legally enforceable right - Respondent Union's claim for regularization of its members merely because they had been working for appellant organization for a considerable period of time should not be granted in light of several Supreme Court decisions wherein it had been consistently held that casual employment terminated when same was discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker had been engaged beyond period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if original appointment was not in terms of process envisaged by relevant rules - Members of respondent Union, therefore, were not entitled to be regularized in their service and hence impugned High Court order was set aside - Appeal allowed.

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND SERVICE LAW

Ajit kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (Decided on 10.03.2011) MANU/SC/0207/2011

 Service - Preparation of judgments through third party - Removal from service - Legality

    (i) Whether High Court was justified in dispensing with enquiry while passing order recommending appellant's removal

Held, reasons recorded by High Court were a legal and valid ground for not holding enquiry and there was no necessity of giving appellant any opportunity of hearing - Inspecting Judge in his report had stated that appellant would not prepare judgment on his own but get them prepared through somebody else before delivering judgment - High Court considered Inspecting Judge's report and opined that it was not possible to hold an enquiry in case of appellant since if an enquiry was held same would lead to question of validity of several judgments rendered by appellant.

    (ii) Whether order of removal passed by Governor was within his jurisdiction

Held, Full Court recommended removal of appellant from service and Governor invoked Article 311(2) of Constitution as holding of enquiry should lead to question of validity of several judgments delivered by appellant - Procedure and pre-conditions laid down for invoking extra-ordinary power under Article 311(2) (b) having been complied with and properly exercised within parameters of provisions, order passed by Governor removing appellant from services should not be held to be without jurisdiction and power - Appeal without merits - Appeal dismissed.

 Constitution - Whether High Court could invoke Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution while passing recommendation for removal of subordinate judge

Held, under scheme of Indian Constitution, High Court was vested with power to take decision for appointment of sub-ordinate judiciary under Articles 234 to 236 of Constitution - High Court was also vested with power to see that high traditions and standards of judiciary were maintained by selection of proper persons to run district judiciary - If a person was found not worthy to be a member of judicial service or it was found that he had committed a misconduct he could be removed from service by following procedure laid - Power could also be exercised for such dismissal or removal by following pre-conditions as laid down under Article 311(2) (b) of Constitution - Even for imposing a punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, High Court should hold disciplinary proceedings and recommend such punishments - Such power could be exercised by High Court to dispense with an enquiry for a reason to be recorded in writing and such dispensation of an enquiry for valid reasons when recommended to Governor, it was within competence of Governor to issue such orders in terms of recommendation of High Court in exercise of power under Article 311(2) (b) of Constitution - No merit in appeal - Appeal dismissed.

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND DIRECT TAXATION

GVK Inds. Ltd. And Anr. Vs. The Income Tax Officer and Anr. (Decided on 01.03.2011) MANU/SC/0163/2011

Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Vires of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenged for want of legislative competence and being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - High Court upheld the applicability of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) on the facts and also its constitutional validity by mainly relying on the ratio of the judgment in ECIL - At the stage of appeal against thereto, the matter referred to constitutional bench to determine powers of Parliament to legislate in relation to extra-territorial aspects or causes vis-à-vis implication of Article 245 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950

Issues before Constitutional Bench :

(A) Whether Parliament constitutionally restricted from enacting legislation with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes that do not have, nor expected to have any, direct or indirect, tangible or intangible impact(s) on or effect(s) in or consequences for: (a) the territory of India, or any part of India; or (b) the interests of, welfare of, well-being of, or security of inhabitants of India, and Indians?

Held, yes, the Parliament may exercise its legislative powers with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes as mentioned, however ought not to be subjected to some a-priori quantitative tests, such as "sufficiency" or "significance" or in any other manner requiring a pre-determined degree of strength - Requirement would be that the connection to India be real or expected to be real, and not illusory or fanciful - Whether a particular law enacted by Parliament does show such a real connection, or expected real connection, between the extra-territorial aspect or cause and something in India or related to India and Indians, in terms of impact, effect or consequence, would be a mixed matter of facts and of law - Where the Parliament itself posits a degree of such relationship, beyond the constitutional requirement that it be real and not fanciful, then the Courts would have to enforce such a requirement in the operation of the law as a matter of that law itself, and not of the Constitution

(B) Whether Parliament has the powers to legislate "for" any territory, other than the territory of India or any part of it?

Held, No - Parliament is empowered to make laws with respect to aspects or causes that occur, arise or exist, or may be expected to do so, within the territory of India, and also with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes that have an impact on or nexus with India - Such laws would fall within the meaning, purport and ambit of the grant of powers to Parliament to make laws "for the whole or any part of the territory of India", and they may not be invalidated on the ground that they may require extra-territorial operation - Any laws enacted by Parliament with respect to extraterritorial aspects or causes that have no impact on or nexus with India would be ultra-vires and would be laws made "for" a foreign territory

Constitution - Powers of Parliament to legislate "for" India vis-à-vis extra-territorial aspects or causes 

 Held, to legislate for a territory implies being responsible for the welfare of the people inhabiting that territory, deriving the powers to legislate from the same people, and acting in a capacity of trust - In that sense the Parliament belongs only to India; and its chief and sole responsibility is to act as the Parliament of India and of no other territory, nation or people - Thus, all powers vested in any organ of the State, including Parliament, may only be exercised for the benefit of India - Laws enacted by Parliament may enhance the welfare of people in other territories too; nevertheless, the fundamental condition remains: that the benefit to or of India remain the central and primary purpose - Exercise of legislative powers by Parliament with regard to extra-territorial aspects or causes that do not have any, or may be expected to not have nexus with India, transgress the first condition - Consequently, the Parliament's powers to enact legislation, pursuant to Clause (1) of Article 245 not to extend to those extra-territorial aspects or causes that have no impact on or nexus with India - Working of the principles of public trust, the requirement that all legislation by the Parliament with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes be imbued with the purpose of protecting the interests of, the welfare of and the security of India, along with Article 51, a Directive Principle of State Policy, though not enforceable in a court of law, nevertheless fundamental to governance, concludes that Parliament may not enact laws with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes, wherein such aspects or causes have no nexus whatsoever with India

Constitution - Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States - Article 245 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Scope of Judicial Review 

 Held, Courts should always be very careful when vast powers are being claimed, especially when those claims are cast in terms of enactment and implementation of laws that are completely beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny and which the Constitutional text does not unambiguously support - To readily accede to demands for a reading of such powers in the constitutional matrix might lead to a destruction of the complex matrix of the Indian Constitution - A thorough textual analysis, combined with wider analysis of constitutional topology, structure, values and scheme has revealed a much more intricately provisioned set of powers to the Parliament - To give in to such demands, would be to run the risk of importing meanings and possibilities unsupportable by the entire text and structure of the Constitution - What the text of the Constitution says, when interpreted in light of the plain meaning, constitutional topology, structure, values and scheme, reveals the presence of all the necessary powers to conduct the affairs of the State even in circumstances that are fraught with grave danger - Courts need not go looking for powers that the text of the Constitution, so analysed, does not reveal

• EXCISE LAWS

Hans steel rolling mill vs. Commissioner of central excise (Decided on 10.03.2011) MANU/SC/0203/2011

-Applicability of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944- Whether the provisions of time limit that are contained in Section 11A of the 1944 Act, are applicable to the recovery of amounts due under the compound levy scheme for Hot-Re-rolling mills, under the Annual Capacity determination Rules 1997 because otherwise, it is a separate scheme for the collection of Central Excise Duty for the goods manufactured in the country.

Held, the compounded levy scheme for collection of duty based on annual capacity of production under Section 3 of 1944 Act and Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was a separate scheme from the normal scheme for collection of central excise duty on goods manufactured in the country - Rule 96P of the 1944 Rules stipulated the method of payment and contained detailed provision regarding time and manner of payment - Thus, this was a comprehensive scheme in itself and general provisions in the Act and Rules were excluded - Hence, Tribunal rightly held that time limit prescribed for one scheme could be completely unwarranted for another scheme and time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Act was no exception - Impugned order of the High Court set aside - Appeals dismissed.

• CUSTOMS

Mustan Taherbhai Vs. Commnr. of Central Excise And Customs (Decided on 28.02.2011) MANU/SC/0157/2011

Leviability of Import Duty on Indian-built ship Brought into India for Breaking Purpose - By impugned Order Tribunal had dismissed appeal filed by Appellant and confirmed levy of Customs Duty on ocean going vessel, purchased by them in Court auction, for breaking/ scrapping purpose - Hence the Appeal - Whether order of Tribunal sustainable

Held, while deciding case, Tribunal had ignored specific directions issued by present Court - Tribunal had not appreciated facts obtaining in present case in their correct perspective, which had resulted in vitiating its decision on question of leviability of import duty - Tribunal was conscious of direction of present Court that it was required to first record correct facts and then in factual perspective locate and apply relevant law - Yet it proceeded to hold that when it was accepted that impugned Notification did not exist at time of clearance of vessel from ship yard, persistent plea that ship was manufactured in warehouse located in India and therefore, it attracted Excise Duty alone need not be considered at all - In light of decision and directions of present Court in C.A. 1998 of 2000(earlier order), judicial discipline obliged Tribunal to examine entire legal issue after ascertaining foundational facts, regardless of its earlier view in matter - Therefore, decision of Tribunal could not be sustained Court set aside impugned order and remanded matter to Tribunal for fresh consideration - Appeal Allowed.

HIGH COURT

• PROPERTY LAWS

PATNA HIGH COURT

Basant Rai Vs. Sanmatia Devi and Ors. (Decided on 07.03.2011) MANU/BH/0124/2011

Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of suit land from defendants contending that defendants had intoxicated predecessor-in-interest (plaintiff's father) and brought him under their influence and procured sale deeds in favour of them - Trial Court dismissed suit on ground of limitation, which was confirmed by First Appellate Court - Hence instant appeal by plaintiffs

(1) Whether plaintiff suit was barred by limitation

Held, sale deeds which were challenged were of years 1955-1966 and plaintiff was required to file suit within 12 years after attaining his majority - Year of birth of plaintiff came to 1948 and he would become major in year 1966 - Applying Article 109 of Limitation Act, plaintiff could have filed suit before 1978 and suit having been filed in 1976 it was not barred by law of limitation

(2) Whether sale deeds were genuine, valid and for consideration and for legal necessity and for benefit of plaintiffs' family

Held, plaintiff admitted fact that sale deed in question was executed validly in favour of defendant by his father - Plaintiff pleaded that plaintiff's father sold lands for immoral purposes but there was no reliable evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff - Recital in sale deeds had been made by plaintiff's father who was now dead and, therefore, statements were admissible under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act - Plaintiff was required to adduce cogent and reliable evidence questioning character of father after his death, however, nothing had been produced before Court - Plaintiff failed to prove that father of plaintiff sold property for immoral purposes and transfer were for without legal necessity - Plaintiff also failed to prove that lands were fertile lands and that it was sold by his father for nominal consideration and in fact his father sacrificed land - Plaintiff also failed to prove that his father sold more than his share - Finding of Court below, therefore, was confirmed with respect to genuine of sale deed in question - Plaintiff was not entitled for relief for cancellation of sale deed - Appeal dismissed.

• CRIMINAL LAWS

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Suresh and Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan (Decided on 07.03.2011) MANU/RH/0135/2011

Instant petition filed by Petitioner against Impugned order whereby the learned Judge, had summoned the Investigating Officer, and directed to summon call-details of Banshi Lal, and a person of Air-Tel company Ltd. to prove the call- details - Whether Court had power to call these two persons as Court witnesses and to pass suo-moto order.

Held, the very function of the court is to ensure that justice is done to the parties and in criminal cases, justice is done to the society at large - Law expects the Judicial Officer to take a pro-active role, and to ensure that accused persons are tried properly, in case, the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case - Under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the trial court has power to summon a witness suo-moto, and to summon any other witness as a court witness.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned trial court has passed a reasoned order, for exercising its power to summon the Investigating Officer, and the other two witnesses as court witness - According to the learned trial court, Banshi Lal and his wife were suddenly attacked at the dead of the night, and allegedly the accused had taken Banshi Lal's shirt along with the mobile - Although the Investigating Agency, had submitted call details of the mobile, but the same were never marked as exhibit by the prosecution - Moreover, the said mobile was recovered at the instance of the accused - In order to complete the chain of circumstances, with regard to recovery of mobile, with regard to use of mobile by accused, obviously, it was imperative that call details should be exhibited, and the concerned person should be summoned to prove the call details - Since certain questions are still left to be answered by the Investigating Officer, therefore, he has to be re- called - No illegality of perversity in the impugned order - Petition dismissed.

• CIVIL LAWS

DELHI HIGH COURT

Sanjay Kumar Vs. Union of India (U.O.I) (Decided on 10.03.2011) MANU/DE/0821/2011

Railway Claims - Compensation - Appellant filed petition against the respondent (Railway Administration) for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- as he received grievous injuries due to a fall from a running train - Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition on the ground that the appellant did not produce the journey ticket - Hence, the instant appeal - Whether order of the tribunal could be upheld

Held, absence of any plea in the objections that the deceased was a ticketless traveller would disentitle the respondent from asserting any such defense at the hearing - That apart just because the train ticket had not been produced could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the passenger had boarded the train unauthorisedly or was travelling without a ticket - Appellant had fallen from the train inasmuch his body was recovered from the track after few hours and he was transported to the nearby hospital - There is no room of doubt that the injuries were sustained by the appellant by falling from the train and not on account of being struck by the train as was pleaded by the respondent - Hence, findings of the tribunal cannot be sustained - The compensation payable to the appellant as per the schedule in the case of injuries suffered by him clarified that he was entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- Hence, appellant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of incident - Appeal allowed.

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Gokhul Kumhar and Ors. Vs. Bimal Madhav Roy and Ors. (Decided on 08.03.2011) MANU/JH/0122/2011

Ascertainment of genuineness of documents - Petition against Impugned order rejecting prayer of Plaintiff to direct Defendant to produce the original sale deed No. 4033 dated 2nd September 1943 to ascertain the genuineness of the documents - Whether submission made in a previous writ petition can bind the Defendant

Held no, the submission made in a previous writ petition could not bind the Defendant-Respondents and it could not be said that the sale deed was in his possession without there being any other documents or any other circumstance to corroborate this assertion made on behalf of the Plaintiff- Petitioners - Submission on behalf of the Defendant-Respondent No. 2-was that the sale deed No. 4033 dated 2nd September 1943 had not been handed over to him, so, the original sale deed was not in his possession - Moreover, Plaintiff had also not been able to bring anything on record to substantiate the claim that the sale deed pertaining to the year 1943 was in the possession of the Defendant - Hence it was futile to direct the Defendant to produce the said sale deed, which he had stated on oath by filing a counter affidavit that the same was not in his possession - Petition disposed of.

• EDUCATION LAWS

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Neha Singh Vs. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University and Ors.(Decided on 08.03.2011) MANU/UP/0410/2011

Re-evaluation - Petitioner appeared in the B.D.S. Third Year Professional Examinations conducted by the University in all subjects and did well in all papers, but in one paper, she had been awarded one mark less than the passing marks and hence, she has been declared 'failed' in the respective subjects - Whether re-evaluation and re-scrutiny/re-totalling of the subject papers in which the students stand failed can be permitted where According to the University authorities, there is no provision for the same.

Held, so far as the law on the subject is that in the absence of any provisions under the statute or statutory regulations the Court should not generally direct re-evaluation -However, there may be cases where glaring errors are found in the answer book indicating that the examiner has not at all applied his mind while evaluating the answer book, i.e. there has been total nonapplication of mind while evaluating the answer book - Such cases will be very rare and exceptional - In such cases, the Court may direct for revaluation of the answer book of a candidate - Objective of re-evaluation is to ensure that the student receives a fair evaluation in the university examination and to minimize human error and extenuating circumstances - In the instant case interest of justice would sub-serve, if the Petitioner's matter is considered by the Vice-Chancellor/any authority who is authorized by him - Hence, Petitioner permitted to file fresh representation within a week, from the date of issuance of certified copy of this order, raising her grievances annexing all the relevant documents and material in support of her case before the Vice-Chancellor, any authority duly authorized by him - In case such representation is received, the authority concerned shall consider the same and pass reasoned and speaking order - Petition disposed of.