Withdrawal of Petition – Petitioner seeks withdrawal of the special leave petition after initial arguments – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with observations on the need for uniformity in handling bail applications. [Para 1]

Bail and Parity among Co-Accused – Case founded on claim of parity in bail, contrasting petitioner’s denial of bail with co-accused’s grant by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan – Importance of considering Supreme Court judgments in similar cases highlighted. [Para 2]

Observations on Consistent Handling of Cases – Court’s concern over inconsistent decisions in bail matters from the same FIR – Emphasis on avoiding conflicting decisions and considering relevant factors for co-accused bail parity. [Para 3]

Precedent for Consistency – Reference to a three-Judge Bench order in SLP (Crl.) No. 7203 of 2023 on similar issues – Direction for listing FIR-related matters before the same judge for consistent orders. [Paras 4-5]

Directive to High Courts – Order to communicate this decision and SLP (Crl.) No. 7203 of 2023 order to all High Courts for implementation – Aimed at ensuring uniformity and consistency in judicial decisions across similar cases. [Para 6]

Civil Appeals - Challenge to High Court's judgment upholding merger of cadres in Education Department - Appellants sought quashing of the merger order - Policy decision of merger generally not interfered with - Examination of posts, responsibilities, and pay scales found them to be at the same level - No grounds to interfere with High Court's judgment - Appeals dismissed. [Para 4-6]

Personal Liberty - The appellants challenged the merger order affecting their seniority in the Education Department - However, the delay in raising the issue, promotions, and retirements over 24 years since the merger, show that immediate aggrieved officers did not challenge the merger - No violation of personal liberty found in the merger decision. [Para 5-6]

Decision - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment dismissing the appeals challenging the merger of cadres in the Education Department. [Para 7]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Appellant challenging High Court's judgment modifying conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II, IPC – review the evidence and High Court's findings. [Para 1, 8]

Prosecution Case – Incident of Assault and Subsequent Death – Prosecution alleging appellant assaulted the victim, leading to his death – Initial conviction for murder by Sessions Court, later modified to culpable homicide by High Court. [Para 2, 3]

Appellant’s Arguments – Allegations of Misinterpretation of Evidence and False Implication – Appellant's counsel arguing about misinterpretation of evidence by High Court and withholding of key witnesses by prosecution, raising questions about the actual cause of victim's death. [Para 4, 5]

Respondent’s Arguments – Support for High Court's Reasoning and Judgment – Respondent's counsel defending the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and medical evidence linking the death to the assault. [Para 6, 7]

Analysis of Evidence – Scrutiny of Witnesses and Circumstances – Supreme Court meticulously examining FIR, witness testimonies, medical evidence, and other circumstances, especially focusing on inconsistencies and missing evidence. [Para 9-24]

Acquittal of Appellant – Supreme Court finding the evidence insufficient to establish culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt, leading to appellant's acquittal and discharge from bail bonds. [Para 25, 26]

Decision – High Court’s Judgment Set Aside – Supreme Court setting aside the High Court’s judgment, leading to the appellant's release unless required in other cases. [Para 26]

Trial Court Conviction and High Court Acquittal – Six accused convicted under IPC Sections 148, 201/149, and 302/149 for murder, sentenced to life imprisonment and fine by the Court of Sessions – High Court set aside this conviction and sentence, leading to the present appeal by the appellant/complainant Chhote Lal. [Paras 2-3]

Disputed Incident Details – Incident dated 04.11.2000 involving the murder of Kishan Sarup, allegedly by the six accused – FIR lodged by appellant/complainant Chhote Lal, an eyewitness to the initial assault but not to the murder or burning of the body. [Paras 5-6, 8-9]

Questionable Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant/complainant, the sole eyewitness and father of the deceased, did not witness the actual killing or burning of Kishan Sarup – His presence during the incident and credibility of testimony brought into question due to the long-standing enmity with the accused group. [Paras 9-13]

Evidence Insufficiency and Reasonable Doubt – Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – Lack of complete circumstantial evidence chain and doubts about the presence and testimony of the sole eyewitness. [Paras 14]

Decision – The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's view, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons – Appeal dismissed as lacking merit. [Paras 14-16]

Writ Petition (Criminal) – Consolidation of FIRs – Petitioner seeking consolidation of multiple FIRs registered in different states – Contention that cases are unrelated and should be consolidated for a fair and speedy trial – Disagreement by Respondents – Examination of pending cases – Decision to consolidate FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh – Transfer of cases to the District of Devas, Madhya Pradesh – Jurisdictional courts directed to take immediate steps for consolidation and adjudication by one trial – Rejection of transfer of cases from Karnataka and Jharkhand to Madhya Pradesh. [Para 1-7]

Limitation Act – Applicability to proceedings under the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – Whether Article 116 of the Limitation Act 1963 applies – Held that the Jogighopa Act is not governed by the prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the appeal thereunder, from an order of the Commissioner of payments cannot be said to be an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the Legislature of the State of Assam has been categorical in limiting the application of the code to certain aspects of the Act only. Given that the Jogighopa Act allows for a Judge of the High Court to be the Commissioner of Payments and then categorically provides for an appeal to lie therefrom, Division Bench of the High Court further evidences the sui generis nature of the appeal procedure provided therein. [Para 30.1]

Maintainability of Appeal – In the absence of a prescribed period of time for filing an appeal – Governed by the principle of ‘reasonable time’ – Held that the appeal is not barred by time as it was filed within a reasonable time, considering the sequence of events and the absence of a specific period of limitation. [Para 30.2]

Decision – The appeal is allowed, and the file is restored to the docket of the concerned District Judge for further proceedings. The District Judge is directed to decide the matter possibly within a period of three months from the date of this judgment and order. [Para 31]

Caste Certificate Cancellation – Challenge to High Court’s decision – High Court upheld the cancellation of the caste certificate of respondent No. 15 and related land sale transactions under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Supreme Court examined the legality of High Court’s decision. [Para 1-2, 21-22]

Land Sale Transactions – Scheduled Tribes Land Protection Under West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Dispute regarding whether respondent No. 15, belonging to Scheduled Tribe community, required permission for land sales – Examination of various land transactions by late father of respondent No. 15 and subsequent sales by respondent No. 15. [Para 3-8, 26-28]

Caste Certificate Authenticity and Misrepresentation – Respondent No. 15’s caste certificate as ‘Chik Baraik’ (Scheduled Tribe) and subsequent affidavits claiming belonging to general caste – Investigation into the validity of caste certificate and related land sales. [Para 4-6, 11, 31-33]

Judicial Review of Caste Certificate Cancellation – Examination of the procedure followed for cancellation of respondent No. 15’s caste certificate – Actions by various authorities including SDO, District Magistrate, and Committee in handling the caste certificate issue. [Para 10-11, 13-18, 33-35]

Committee Jurisdiction and Retrospective Amendment – Analysis of Committee’s jurisdiction in caste certificate cancellation matters under Section 8A of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 – Consideration of whether the 2017 amendment to the Act is retrospective. [Para 38]

Final Decision and Rationale – Supreme Court’s decision allowing the appeal, setting aside High Court’s judgment – Detailed reasoning considering the conduct of respondents and undisputed facts about respondent No. 15’s late father not belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. [Para 39-41]

Certiorari Jurisdiction - Principles governing the issuance of a writ of certiorari - Examination of the scope and limitations of this jurisdiction - Discussion on the circumstances under which a writ of certiorari can be granted - Emphasis on the high prerogative nature of the writ and the need for a clear case to warrant its issuance. [Para 1, Para 4]

Issue of Applicability of Superannuation Age Extension – Whether the respondent, who served as a Researcher in the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), is entitled to claim the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years as applicable to AYUSH doctors working under the Ministry of AYUSH – High Court allowed the claim, but the appellants challenge this decision in appeal. [Para 1, 17]

Error of Law and Fact - Delineation between errors of law and errors of fact - Examination of instances where an error of law or fact may arise in the proceedings - Clarification that a mere error, whether of law or fact, is not sufficient to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction - Emphasis on errors that are manifest on the face of the record and those that touch upon issues of jurisdiction, legality, or fundamental fairness. [Para 9, Para 10, Para 13]

High Prerogative Writ - Understanding the nature and purpose of the writ of certiorari - Discussion on the distinction between correcting errors of law and being an appellate court - Clarification that certiorari does not transform the superior court into an appellate court to reevaluate factual findings or alternative interpretations of law made by lower tribunals. [Para 15, Para 17, Para 20]

Civil Appeal - Superannuation Age Dispute for AYUSH Doctors - Interpretation of Bye-Laws and Ministry Clarification - Appellant Council challenged High Court decision regarding superannuation age for AYUSH Doctors - Issue involves the application of Clause 34 and 35 of the Bye-Laws - Appellant Council is an autonomous body under the Ministry of AYUSH - Applicability of Fundamental Rules (FR) to determine superannuation age - Ministry's clarification letter - The central question revolves around whether the superannuation age for AYUSH Doctors under the Council should be 60 years or 65 years based on government rules. [Para 23-34]

Finality of Decisions - Recognition of the principle that findings on matters of fact and interpretation of law by inferior tribunals are generally final - Clarification that a writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every error committed by lower tribunals, but rather to address instances of jurisdictional errors, excesses, or failures to exercise jurisdiction. [Para 25, Para 28]

Jurisdictional Error - Discussion on errors relating to jurisdiction - Examination of situations where a tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction, enters into an inquiry it is not entitled to undertake, or deprives itself of jurisdiction through its own actions - Emphasis on the need to establish a clear jurisdictional error to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction. [Para 32, Para 34, Para 36]

Distinctive Errors - Differentiating between patent errors and errors requiring substantial analysis or debate - Clarification that errors that are self-evident, manifest, or apparent on the face of the proceedings are eligible for correction through certiorari - Recognition that complex or arguable errors are not suitable for such correction. [Para 42, Para 45, Para 48]

Appellate Role of Certiorari - Reiteration of the principle that certiorari is not a tool for reevaluating the correctness of decisions made by lower tribunals - Emphasis on the importance of adherence to procedural fairness, jurisdictional competence, and legality rather than re-examining factual or legal assessments. [Para 53, Para 55, Para 58]

Decision - Proper Application of Certiorari Principles:

The High Court's order dated 17.12.2020 in Writ Petition (C) No. 30620 of 2020 is deemed unsustainable in law and is set aside. The judgment reinforces the importance of confining tribunals within their jurisdiction - limited scope of a writ of certiorari, and reiterates the principle that certiorari is not intended for reevaluating lower tribunal decisions but for ensuring their legality and proper jurisdiction. [Para 78, 79, 80]

Income Tax Act – Deduction under Section 80 IA – Market value of electricity – Distinction between market value and contracted price – Assessee’s right to claim higher deduction based on market value as against contracted sale rate to State Electricity Board – Tribunal and High Court’s view upheld. [Para 15-34]

Depreciation on Assets – Written Down Value (WDV) method – Option exercised by assessee for WDV method in depreciation claim – Lack of specific mode of exercising option in statute – Tribunal and High Court’s decision in favor of assessee upheld. [Para 35-45]

Expenditure Claim – Payment to Consultant – Disallowance by Revenue based on initial statement of consultant – Subsequent retraction by consultant and lack of opportunity for cross-examination – Tribunal and High Court’s decision allowing expenditure claim upheld. [Para 46-52]

Carbon Credits – Nature of receipt – Tribunal’s classification of carbon credit as capital receipt – Revenue's non-contestation of this issue at High Court – Issue not addressed by Supreme Court. [Para 53-55]

Decision – Appeals by Revenue on issues related to deduction under Section 80 IA, depreciation method, and expenditure claim dismissed – Carbon credit issue left open for future adjudication. [Para 56]