# Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 1034
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-01
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1213 of 2023
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mithilesh-kumar-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52373
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Cancellation
of
admission in Ph.D. - Students cannot be
made to suffer for the fault of the
management of the university. (Para 13)

While granting the admission if the
academic body has acted inattentively and
mechanically, then they cannot be allowed
to take the plea that the admission was
never valid and that the petitioners were
ineligible from the very inception and
knowing the ineligibility they applied for
admission. The respondents cannot be allowed
to
cancel
the
admission
at
their
own
convenience at any time of the year without
considering the fact that if they cancel the
admission after the session has started then the
entire year of the petitioners will be spoiled.
(Para 14)

The respondents cannot be allowed to
take advantage of their own wrong and
cannot be permitted to take the plea that
under the prospectus they had the power
to cancel the admission of ineligible
student and the principle of estoppel will
operate against them. (Para 14)

B. The petitioners cannot be penalised for
the
negligence
of
authorities.
It
is
important
to
appreciate
that
the
petitioners in the facts and circumstances
cannot be accused of making any false
statement or suppressing any relevant
fact before anybody. (Para 14)

In the present case, once the University has
granted admission and permitted petitioner to
continue for five long years and his Ph.D. course
is on the verge of completion, it is now not open
for the University to restrain petitioner from
completing his course. Even presuming some
irregularity did occur at the time of admission in
Ph.D. course, the same cannot now be made
the basis for denying petitioner from completing
his course. Learned counsel for respondent
University could not show from record that
petitioner has in any manner misrepresented or
played fraud or otherwise was maliciously
involved in the said admission process and the
decision was taken by the authorities of
University in exercise of its powers. Thus, the
respondent University cannot restrain petitioner
from completing his Ph.D. course and is bound
to consider his application for extension of
period by one year as per rules. (Para 15)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 8 ILRA 1034
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ - C No. 1213 of 2023

Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Krishna Lal Yadav, Aparna Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi

A.
Education
Law
-
Cancellation
of
admission in Ph.D. - Students cannot be
made to suffer for the fault of the
management of the university. (Para 13)

While granting the admission if the
academic body has acted inattentively and
mechanically, then they cannot be allowed
to take the plea that the admission was
never valid and that the petitioners were
ineligible from the very inception and
knowing the ineligibility they applied for
admission. The respondents cannot be allowed
to
cancel
the
admission
at
their
own
convenience at any time of the year without
considering the fact that if they cancel the
admission after the session has started then the
entire year of the petitioners will be spoiled.
(Para 14)

The respondents cannot be allowed to
take advantage of their own wrong and
cannot be permitted to take the plea that
under the prospectus they had the power
to cancel the admission of ineligible
student and the principle of estoppel will
operate against them. (Para 14)

B. The petitioners cannot be penalised for
the
negligence
of
authorities.
It
is
important
to
appreciate
that
the
petitioners in the facts and circumstances
cannot be accused of making any false
statement or suppressing any relevant
fact before anybody. (Para 14)

In the present case, once the University has
granted admission and permitted petitioner to
continue for five long years and his Ph.D. course
is on the verge of completion, it is now not open
for the University to restrain petitioner from
completing his course. Even presuming some
irregularity did occur at the time of admission in
Ph.D. course, the same cannot now be made
the basis for denying petitioner from completing
his course. Learned counsel for respondent
University could not show from record that
petitioner has in any manner misrepresented or
played fraud or otherwise was maliciously
involved in the said admission process and the
decision was taken by the authorities of
University in exercise of its powers. Thus, the
respondent University cannot restrain petitioner
from completing his Ph.D. course and is bound
to consider his application for extension of
period by one year as per rules. (Para 15)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs Karnataka
University, 1986 Supp SCC 740 (Para 12)

2. Ashok Chand Singhvi (Para 13)

3. Abha George (Para 14)

Present petition challenges the order
dated
06.10.2022
passed
by
the
Departmental Research Committee of the
Dr.
Shakuntala
Misra
National
Rehabilitation
University,
Lucknow
by
which the admission of the petitioner in
the Ph.D. course of Sociology has been
cancelled. He has also challenged the
orders dated 13.12.2022 and 23.01.2023
passed by Research Degree Committee
and
by
the
Registrar,
respectively,
communicating the aforesaid order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)
8 All. Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1035

1. Heard Shri Krishna Lal Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent
no.1 and Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Shri Atul Kumar
Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of
respondent no.2 to 5.

2. By means of the present petition,
the petitioner has challenged the order
dated
06.10.2022
passed
by
the
Departmental Research Committee of the
Dr.
Shakuntala
Misra
National
Rehabilitation University, Lucknow by
which the admission of the petitioner in the
Ph.D. course of Sociology has been
cancelled. He has also challenged the
orders dated 13.12.2022 and 23.01.2023
passed by Research Degree Committee and
by
the
Registrar,
respectively,
communicating the aforesaid order with
regard to the cancellation of the admission
in Ph.D.

3. It has been submitted by counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner is a law
graduate having passed his LL.B. in the
year 2014, B.Sc. in 2001 and M.Sc. in 2010
and thereafter had applied for pursuing
Ph.D. (Sociology) from Dr. Shakuntala
Misra National Rehabilitation University,
Lucknow. He participated in the Ph.D.
Entrance Test, 2016 where a provisional
Admit Card was also issued, and according
to the petitioner, he has passed Ph.D.
Entrance Examination and was called for
counseling
on
23.08.2016,
and
subsequently, he was declared qualified. He
completed all the formalities with regard to
his admission in Ph.D. Sociology course. It
is not in dispute that the petitioner is in 1st
year Ph.D. Sociology course since 2016
and it is only in 2021 when the petitioner
approached the Supervisor to submit the
research related report and sought extra
time, the Supervisor refused to accept the
report and asked the petitioner to wait until
further information is received with regard
to the completion of his research work.
Since October, 2021, the petitioner was not
allowed to pursue and complete his Ph.D.
and
in
this
regard,
he
has
made
representation
to
the
Head
of
the
Department Sociology, the Registrar and
the
Vice-chancellor
of
the
aforesaid
University.
It
is
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances, when the petitioner was not
being permitted to pursue his Ph.D., he had
filed a writ petition before this Court being
Writ - C No.1086 of 2023 which was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file
afresh and subsequently, the petitioner filed
another petitioner being Writ - C No.242 of
2023 which was disposed of by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court by means
of order dated 13.01.2023 directing the
Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Shakuntala Misra
National
Rehabilitation
University,
Lucknow to decide the representation with
regard to the grievance of the petitioner.

4. In compliance of the order dated
13.01.2023, the representation of the
petitioner was decided by the impugned
order which was communicated to the
petitioner. In the impugned order dated
06.10.2022, it has been stated that the
petitioner was admitted in the Ph.D.
Sociology without being duly selected and
in this regard, he has been repeatedly asked
to submit an affidavit, which he has not
furnished and accordingly, a decision has
been
taken.
The
said
decision
was
forwarded
to
the
Research
Degree
Committee,
who
has
approved
the
cancellation of admission of the petitioner.

5. By means of order dated
13.12.2022, the Registrar of the University
has communicated that the Research
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Degree Committee has approved the
decision
taken
by
the
Departmental
Research Committee pertaining to the
cancellation of admission of the petitioner
and lastly, by means of the order dated
23.01.2023, the Vice-Chancellor intimated
the
petitioner
with
regard
to
the
cancellation of his admission.

6. It has been submitted by counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner was
duly selected for Ph.D. course in the
entrance exam conducted by the University
in 2016. In support of his submissions, the
copy of the provisional Admit Card as well
as information regarding Ph.D. scholars
enrolled in academic session 2016-17 has
been annexed indicating that the petitioner
has been duly enrolled in the Ph.D. for the
academic Session 2016-17.

7. The respondent - University has put
in appearance and vehemently opposed the
present writ petition. It has been submitted
that as per the material available with the
respondent University, the petitioner was
not
qualified
for
Ph.D.
Entrance
Examination
and
has
managed
the
admission in the Ph.D. though back door. It
has been submitted that with regard to the
admission, the petitioner was directed to
submit an affidavit but he has not submitted
the required affidavit. and his name was not
mentioned in the final select list and his
admission has been cancelled in the year
2022.

8. It is on the strength of the aforesaid
facts that the impugned orders passed by
the authorities of the respondent University
cancelling
the
admission, have
been
supported and prayed for rejection of the
writ petition and accordingly, it was
submitted that the admission of the
petitioner was in violation of the Ph.D.
Regulations, 2009 issued by the University
Grants Commission.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts, this
Court had made a query from the
respondents to indicate as to what took
them five years from ascertaining as to
whether the petitioner was not qualified in
the entrance examination and as to how, he
was pursuing his Ph.D. course for more
than
five
years
in
the
respondent
University.

10. With regard to the said query, no
satisfactory explanation is forthcoming.

11. After hearing the counsel for the
parties and perused the record, it is noticed
that according to the petitioner, he appeared
in the entrance examination conducted by
the respondent University for admission to
the Ph.D. courses. The petitioner has also
annexed a copy of the information
regarding Ph.D. scholars pertaining to the
academic year 2016-17 where the name of
the petitioner is occurring in the list
pertaining to the Department of Sociology
at Serial No.3. It is also not in dispute that
since the date of admission, till passing of
the impugned order sometime in 2022, the
petitioner has been pursuing his Ph.D.
Course.

12. Now coming to the judgments
referred to by counsel for petitioner, in the
case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra)
the dispute was with regard to cancellation
of admission to the B.E. Course. The High
Court allowed the writ petition and the
Supreme Court while dismissing the
appeals held that:

"8. We accordingly endorse the
view taken by the learned Judge and
affirmed by the Division Bench of the High
8 All. Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1037
Court. But the question still remains
whether we should allow the appellants to
continue their studies in the respective
engineering colleges in which they were
admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon
us on behalf of the appellants that under
the orders initially of the learned Judge
and thereafter of this Court they have been
pursuing their course of study in the
respective engineering colleges and their
admissions should not now be disturbed
because if they are now thrown out after a
period of almost four years since their
admission their whole future will be
blighted. Now it is true that the appellants
were not eligible for admission to the
engineering degree course and they had no
legitimate claim to such admission. But it
must be noted that the blame for their
wrongful admission must lie more upon
the engineering colleges which granted
admission than upon the appellants. It is
quite possible that the appellants did not
know that neither the Higher Secondary
Examination of the Secondary Education
Board, Rajasthan nor the first year BSc
examination
of
the
Rajasthan
and
Udaipur Universities was recognised as
equivalent
to
the
Pre-University
Examination
of
the
Pre-University
Education
Board,
Bangalore.
The
appellants being young students from
Rajasthan might have presumed that since
they had passed the first year BSc
examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur
University or in any event the Higher
Secondary Examination of the Secondary
Education Board, Rajasthan they were
eligible for admission. The fault lies with
the engineering colleges which admitted
the appellants because the Principals of
these engineering colleges must have
known that the appellants were not
eligible for admission and yet for the sake
of capitation fee in some of the cases they
granted admission to the appellants. We
do not see why the appellants should
suffer for the sins of the managements of
these engineering colleges. We would
therefore, notwithstanding the view taken
by us in this Judgment, allow the
appellants to continue their studies in the
respective engineering colleges in which
they were granted admission. But we do
feel that against the erring engineering
colleges the Karnataka University should
take appropriate action because the
managements
of
these
engineering
colleges have not only admitted students
ineligible for admission but thereby
deprived an equal number of eligible
students from getting admission to the
engineering degree course. We also
endorse the directions given by the learned
Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his
Judgment with a view to preventing
admission
of
ineligible
students."
(emphasis added)

13. Further, in the case of Ashok
Chand Singhvi (supra), where the facts
were similar to the current case, the Court
observed that students cannot be made to
suffer for the fault of the management of
the university. The relevant paragraphs of
the judgment are as follows:

"14. It is urged by Mr Mehrotra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, that the appellant could not be
admitted and his admission was illegal.
There may be some force in the contention
of the learned Counsel, but when all facts
were before the University and nothing
was suppressed by the appellant, would it
be proper to penalise the appellant for no
fault of his? The admission of the
appellant
was
not
made
through
inadvertence
or
mistake,
but
after
considering even all objections to the
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
same, as raised by the said Officer-inCharge, Admissions, in his note. The
appellant was communicated with the
decision of the Dean as approved by the
Vice-Chancellor admitting him to the
Second Year BE course. The appellant
deposited the requisite fees and started
attending classes when he was told that his
admission was directed to be put in
abeyance until further orders without
disclosing to him any reason whatsoever.

15. It is curious that although
the admission to the BE degree course of
the University is governed by statutes of
the University and admission rules, the
said resolution of the Syndicate dated 1312-1970 has also been kept alive. Neither
the Dean nor the Vice-Chancellor was
aware of the true position, namely, as to
whether the said resolution had become
infructuous in view of the statutes and the
admission rules. A teacher candidate is
likely to be misled by the said resolution. It
is the duty of the University to see that its
statutes, rules and resolutions are clear
and unambiguous and do not mislead
bona fide candidates. The University
should have revoked the said resolution in
order to obviate any ambiguity in the
matter of admission or included the same
in the statutes as part of the admission
rules.

16. When the appellant made the
application beyond the last date, his
application
should
not
have
been
entertained. But the application was
entertained, presumably on the basis of the
said resolution of the Syndicate. The
appellant also brought to the notice of the
Dean the said resolution and also the
implementation of the same by admitting
seven teacher candidates.

17. It is submitted on behalf of the
University that it was through mistake that
the appellant was admitted. We are unable
to accept the contention. It has been
already noticed that both the Dean and the
Vice-Chancellor considered the objections
raised
by
the
Officer-in-Charge,
Admissions, and thereafter direction for
admitting the appellant was made. When
after
considering
all
facts
and
circumstances and also the objections by
the office to the admission of a candidate,
the Vice-Chancellor directs the admission
of such a candidate such admission could
not be said to have been made through
mistake. Assuming that the appellant was
admitted through mistake, the appellant
not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain
the order withholding the admission of the
appellant. In this connection, we may refer
to a decision of this Court in Rajendra
Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University
[1986 Supp SCC 740] . In that case, the
appellants were admitted to certain private
engineering colleges for the BE degree
course, although they were not eligible for
admission. In that case, this Court
dismissed the appeals preferred by the
students
whose
admissions
were
subsequently cancelled and the order of
cancellation was upheld by the High Court.
At the same time, this Court took the view
that the fault lay with the engineering
colleges which admitted the appellants and
that there was no reason why the
appellants should suffer for the sins of the
management of these engineering colleges.
Accordingly,
this
Court
allowed
the
appellants to continue their studies in the
respective engineering colleges in which
they were granted admission. The same
principle which weighed with this Court in
that case should also be applied in the
instant case. The appellant was not at fault
and we do not see why he should suffer for
the mistake committed by the ViceChancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of
Engineering." (emphasis added)
8 All. Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1039

14. The said judgments have been
followed and a similar approach is adopted
by the Delhi High Court in the case of
Abha George (supra), the Delhi High
Court was of the opinion that:

"18. In Javed Akhtar case [Javed
Akhtar v. Jamia Hamdard, 2006 SCC
OnLine Del 1504] , a Coordinate Bench of
this Court considered a case where the
petitioners' candidature was accepted for
appearing in the entrance examinations,
and they were admitted to the institution
concerned.
Their
admissions
were
cancelled after they had attended the
classes for one month. The facts of the case
are very similar to the present case. The
question framed by the court was in the
following terms:

"21. ? This is not disputed that
the
petitioners
filled
the
forms
for
appearing in the entrance examination and
gave their correct date of birth. The forms
of the petitioners were considered and they
were allowed to appear in the examination.
After their names appeared, they were
called for counselling and after verifying
the documents and certificates of the
petitioners, they were given admission. The
petitioners were issued identity cards after
accepting the fees for the course from them
and the petitioners were allowed to attend
classes for a month and thereafter by
communication
dated
8-8-2006
the
admission of the petitioners have been
cancelled. Whether Respondent 1 can be
allowed to cancel the admission midterm
in the facts and circumstances, when the
petitioners have not concealed any thing
nor produced any documents to mislead
Respondent 1? Whether Respondent 1 will
be estopped from cancelling the admission
of the petitioners in the facts and
circumstances?" [ Emphasis supplied]

19. The court answered the
question thus:

"38. Therefore, while granting
the admission if the academic body has
acted inattentively and mechanically, then
they cannot be allowed to take the plea
that the admission was never valid and
that the petitioners were ineligible from
the very inception and knowing the
ineligibility they applied for admission.
The respondents cannot be allowed to
cancel the admission at their own
convenience at any time of the year
without considering the fact that if they
cancel the admission after the session has
started then the entire year of the
petitioners will be spoiled as the petitioners
would not be in a position to take
admission in any other college/university.
If this fact of their ineligibility for
admission was conveyed to them at the very
start they would have taken admission in
some other college/university.

39. In such situation, in view of
the decision in Sangeeta Shrivastava v.
U.N. Singh [Sangeeta Shrivastava v. U.N.
Singh, 1979 SCC OnLine Del 202], the
petitioners cannot be penalised for the
negligence of authorities. It is important
to appreciate that the petitioners in the
facts
and
circumstances
cannot
be
accused of making any false statement or
suppressing any relevant fact before
anybody. They clearly mentioned their date
of birth in the application form for
admission, and are not guilty of any fraud
or misrepresentation. It was the duty of the
university
to
have
scrutinised
the
application form and the certificates
thoroughly before granting admission to
the petitioners and permitting them to
attend the classes and not having done so
they
cannot
cancel
the
admission
thereafter. By accepting the application
form and subsequently granting admission
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
representation
was
made
by
the
respondents that the petitioners' were
eligible for admission and the petitioners'
acting upon the same took admission and
thus the petitioners' suffered a detriment.
Had the respondents not made the
representation that the application had
been approved and granted admission the
petitioners' would have applied and taken
admission else where. Therefore the
respondents are estopped from pleading
that the petitioners were not entitled to a
seat from the inception and that the
admission is void ab initio and that the
admission
without
fulfilment
of
the
eligibility criteria is a nullity.

40. In the facts and circumstances
of the case the respondents cannot be
allowed to take advantage of their own
wrong and cannot be permitted to take the
plea that under the prospectus they had
the power to cancel the admission of
ineligible student and the principle of
estoppel will operate against them. The
respondents are estopped from cancelling
the admission of the petitioners' and further
from preventing them from pursuing the
'pre tib' course in the present facts and
circumstances." [ Emphasis supplied]

20. Applying these authorities in
the present case, it appears that the
petitioners' documents were accepted by
the respective centres of Aiims, despite the
fact that their qualifying examination
results were declared one week later than
stipulated in the prospectus. The petitioners
have prosecuted their studies for almost
two months prior to issuance of the
impugned OM dated 18-10-2021. There is
no allegation that the petitioners had
misrepresented
or
concealed
any
information from Aiims ?indeed, there
cannot be, as the qualifying examination
was conducted by Aiims itself. Applying the
observations of the Supreme Court in
Rajendra Prasad Mathur case [Rajendra
Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University,
1986 Supp SCC 740] , in the present case
also, the blame lies more upon the
institution
than
the
petitioners.
The
candidates applied; their results were
declared by Aiims, New Delhi; those results
were submitted to the regional centres to
which they have been assigned, and they
were granted admission. Their admissions
were cancelled after they had spent almost
two months on the course. The judgment of
this Court in Javed Akhtar case [Javed
Akhtar v. Jamia Hamdard, 2006 SCC
OnLine Del 1504] , in fact, goes further to
hold that an academic institution cannot be
permitted to cancel admissions after the
course had started, at any time during the
year, due to prejudice that would be caused
to the candidates who were admitted as
they would by then be unable to take
admission in any other university to which
they may have been admitted."

15. Law is, thus, well settled on the
issue involved. Once, the University has
granted admission and permitted petitioner
to continue for five long years and his
Ph.D. course is on the verge of completion,
it is now not open for the University to
restrain petitioner from completing his
course. Even presuming some irregularity
did occur at the time of admission in Ph.D.
course, the same can not now be made the
basis
for
denying
petitioner
from
completing his course. Learned counsel for
respondent University could not show from
record that petitioner has in any manner
misrepresented
or
played
fraud
or
otherwise was maliciously involved in the
said admission process and the decision
was taken by the authorities of University
in exercise of its powers. Thus, this Court
finds that the respondent University cannot
restrain petitioner from completing his
8 All. Ascent Education Trust, Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1041
Ph.D. course and is bound to consider his
application for extension of period by one
year as per rules.

16. This Court further finds that the
country is making its best efforts to grow
from a developing nation to a developed
one. Repeatedly, it is said that to become a
developed nation huge research work is
required to be conducted within the
Country. Now, when the students are
pursuing their research work and are at the
verge of completion it is highly improper to
restrain
them
from
completing
their
research
on
legal
technicalities.
The
country is in dire need of research work.
Petitioner has put more than five years in
his Ph.D. course and is on the verge of
submitting the same. Now denial of benefit
of said research work to the nation in itself
would be a huge loss. In the said
circumstances also this Court is inclined to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in
favour of petitioner and against the
respondent University.

17.

In
the
given
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the writ petition
is allowed and the orders dated 13.12.2022
and 23.01.2023 passed by Research
Degree Committee and the Registrar,
respectively, are quashed and a mandamus
is issued to the respondent University to
consider the application of petitioner for
extension of one year after five years of
Ph.D. course and permit him to submit fees
in accordance with law. Such a decision
shall be taken and communicated to the
petitioner by the respondent University
within a period of 15 days and accordingly
petitioner shall be permitted to complete
his Ph.D. course in accordance with law.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 1041
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ - C No. 7092 of 2024

Ascent Education Trust, Kanpur
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Raj, Gokul Seth, Hanumant Lal
Srivastava, Rishabh Raj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Revenue Law - Recovery and penalty
against payment of deficient stamp duty -
Indian Stamp Act,1899 - Section 56(1-A) -
According to generally accepted notions of
professional responsibility, lawyers should
follow the client's instructions rather than
substitute their judgment for that of the
client. In some cases, lawyers can make
decisions without consulting the client.
While in others, the decision is reserved
for the client. It is often said that the
lawyer can make decisions as to tactics
without consulting the client, while the
client has a right to make decisions that
can affect his rights. (Para 8)

Admissions of fact made by a counsel are
binding upon their principals as long as they are
unequivocal; where, however, doubt exists as to
a purported admission, the court should be wary
to accept such admissions until and unless the
counsel or the advocate is authorised by his
principal to make such admissions. Furthermore,
a client is not bound by a statement or
admission which he or his lawyer was not
authorised to make. (Para 8)

The admission in the present case was not
regarding a matter of law or legal conclusions. If
the lawyer assessed that there was no chance