Environmental Law - Illegality of Mining Operations - Suspension of Environmental Clearances - Supreme Court holds that the deemed mining leases in Goa expired on 22.11.1987 and the renewal period expired on 22.11.2007 - Mining operations post-22.11.2007 declared illegal - Order of Government of Goa dated 10.09.2012 and MoEF order dated 14.09.2012 suspending mining operations and environmental clearances upheld - Directions issued for strict regulation of mining activities. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Environmental Impact - Protection of Ecosystems - Mining Dumps - Supreme Court finds that dumping of minerals outside the leased area is not permissible under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder - Directions issued for creation of a permanent fund for sustainable development and inter-generational equity. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Interim Measures - Cap on Mining - Expert Committee Recommendations - Until final report, a maximum annual excavation of 20 million MT allowed - Strict monitoring and regulation by Department of Mines and Geology, Goa State Pollution Control Board, and other statutory bodies. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Decision - Supreme Court upholds the suspension of mining operations and environmental clearances - Declares mining post-22.11.2007 illegal - Orders creation of a permanent fund for sustainable development and caps annual excavation at 20 million MT pending final report. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Limitation Act, 1963 - Calculation of Limitation Period – Civil Appeal against High Court order affirming lower courts' judgments on limitation period for filing suit – Respondent filed suit seeking seniority and continuity of service from 1964 despite fresh appointment in 1967 after termination – Representation-based delay in filing suit – Held that mere making of representations does not extend limitation period absent statutory provision – Suit filed 13 years post-cause of action deemed barred by limitation. [Paras 1-15] Employment Law - Fresh Appointment and Seniority Claims – Analysis – Held – Respondent's service termination due to unauthorized absence – Fresh appointment in 1967 considered new employment – Claim for continuity of service from original appointment date rejected – Limitation period starts from the date of fresh appointment or final seniority list publication, not from rejection of representations. [Para 12-14] Decision – Dismissal of Suit for Limitation Bar – Court sets aside High Court and lower courts' decisions – Suit dismissed as barred by limitation – Appeal allowed, no order as to costs. [Para 15]

\

Administrative Law - Cancellation of Tender Process - Validity and Arbitrariness - Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Kandla Port Trust to cancel the tender process initiated in 2005 due to a significant delay in obtaining Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) clearance. The decision to cancel was found to be in larger public interest as the market rates had escalated significantly, and re-tendering would fetch a higher premium. The court finds the action neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The Port Trust acted within its administrative powers, prioritizing public interest over private interests. [Paras 16-23]

Promissory Estoppel - Applicability in Administrative Actions - The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply in the present case. The letter of intent (LOI) issued to the appellant did not amount to a concluded contract, and the appellant did not alter its position to its detriment based on the LOI. The cancellation of the tender process due to supervening public interest overrides any individual equity claimed by the appellant. [Paras 24-26]

Contract Law - Concluded Contract - Judicial Review under Article 226 - Supreme Court holds that the LOI did not constitute a concluded contract. The terms of the tender process reserved the right of the Port Trust to cancel the tender, and the formal allotment was contingent upon obtaining CRZ clearance, which was delayed by over five years. The court emphasizes that disputes purely in the realm of contract law should be pursued in civil courts, and the writ jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the administrative action. [Paras 27-34]

Decision: The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision and upholding the cancellation of the tender process by the Kandla Port Trust. The court awards costs against the appellant. [Para 37]

Presumption of Marriage - Long Cohabitation - Legitimate Children:Criminal Law - Validity of Observations on Marriage: Special Leave Petition filed by an Advocate challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment which suggested that long-term cohabitation could presume a valid marriage, thereby legitimizing children born from such unions. Supreme Court reiterates that such observations were case-specific and supported by precedent, dismissing concerns over the universal application of these principles. [Paras 1-11]

Marriage and Cohabitation - Legal Presumptions - Rebuttal:Judicial Approach - Evidence Requirement: Held – Courts have historically presumed marriage and opposed concubinage when continuous cohabitation is proven, though such presumptions can be countered with strong evidence. The Supreme Court, referencing multiple cases, underscores this legal standpoint while addressing the appeal's context. [Paras 7-9]

Decision - Disposal of Special Leave Petition:No Universal Application - Case-specific Observations: Supreme Court finds that the High Court’s observations regarding the institution of marriage were confined to the specific facts of the case under review, reaffirming the legitimacy of children born from such cohabitation. The SLP is disposed of without further deliberation. [Paras 9-11]

Civil Procedure - Hearing Appeals - Order 41 CPC - Dismissal in Default vs. Merits:Appeal filed by appellant dismissed in default due to non-appearance of counsel on the hearing date - High Court erred by deciding on merits instead of dismissal for default - Appeal dismissed on the grounds of procedural error but no sufficient cause shown for recall of dismissal. [Paras 1-19]

Ex-parte Hearing of Appeal - Applicability of Order 41 Rule 17 CPC:Where the appellant fails to appear, appeal should be dismissed in default, not on merits - High Court's decision on merits transgressed procedural limits prescribed under Order 41 Rule 17 CPC. [Para 13]

Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance - Requirement under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC:High Court correctly found no sufficient cause for non-appearance of counsel - No reasonable grounds presented for absence on the date of hearing - Application for recall of dismissal rightly dismissed. [Para 18]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals:Appeals dismissed due to lack of procedural adherence by High Court - High Court’s decision to dismiss on merits overturned - Appeals dismissed for failure to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance. [Paras 16-19]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Summary Trial Procedures – Writ Petition for Guidelines – Banking sector significantly affected by delays in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the NI Act – Petitioners seek uniform procedures for summary trials to expedite disposal of cases – Supreme Court emphasizes the need for speedy trial and prescribes detailed procedural guidelines for magistrate courts – Guidelines to be followed for scrutinizing complaints, issuing summons, managing examination of witnesses, and ensuring trials are conducted expeditiously. [Paras 1-22]

Constitutional Law – Article 32 – Writ of Mandamus – Petition under Article 32 seeking mandamus for legislative and policy changes to address delays in cheque dishonour cases – Supreme Court directs compliance with guidelines to facilitate efficient handling of such cases, emphasizing legislative intent behind amendments to the NI Act for speedy trial and reduced case backlog. [Paras 3-5, 18-19]

Criminal Procedure – Sections 262 to 265 – Summary Trials – Procedures under CrPC Sections 262 to 265 applied to trials under Section 138 of the NI Act – Court elucidates the importance of following summary trial procedures for swift justice – Comprehensive steps outlined for magistrates to follow during the trial process to ensure quick resolution. [Paras 10, 15-17]

Decision:

Directions Issued for Expeditious Disposal of Cheque Dishonour Cases – Supreme Court provides clear guidelines for magistrate courts dealing with Section 138 cases to ensure prompt and efficient trials – Directions include steps for scrutinizing complaints, issuing summons, handling affidavit evidence, and conducting day-to-day trials – Emphasis on adopting a pragmatic approach and utilizing technological aids for service of summons. [Paras 21-23]

Company Law - Priority of Claims in Liquidation - Civil appeals against High Court judgment regarding claims of ONGC for dues owed by Ambica Mills (in liquidation) - High Court ruled ONGC could not claim preferential payment over secured creditors and workmen under Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 - Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that ONGC's claim did not create an enforceable charge on the assets of Ambica Mills, and ONGC could not be treated as a secured creditor. [Paras 1-26]

Enforceability of Undertakings - Analysis - Held - The interim order dated 15th April 1987 and the undertaking provided by Ambica Mills did not create an enforceable charge on the company’s assets - ONGC’s undertaking not to encumber or alienate assets did not specify particular immovable assets and thus did not constitute a secured charge - Priority of claims must be determined in accordance with statutory provisions. [Para 22-23]

Registration of Charges - Interpretation - Held - Charges on company assets must be registered under Section 125 of the Companies Act to be enforceable against liquidators and creditors - ONGC's claim lacked such registration, therefore, it could not be considered a secured creditor. [Para 20-21]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals - The civil appeals by ONGC were dismissed, affirming that ONGC could recover its dues at par with other unsecured creditors - The Gujarat High Court’s findings were upheld, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions regarding liquidation. [Paras 24-26]

Constitutional Law - Powers of CAG - Scope of Article 149 - Civil appeals addressing whether the CAG can audit the accounts of private telecom service providers under revenue-sharing agreements with the Union of India - Supreme Court held that CAG has the authority under Article 149 of the Constitution read with Sections 16 and 18 of the CAG Act, 1971, to audit such accounts to ensure proper collection and allocation of revenue due to the Consolidated Fund of India. [Paras 33-47]

Telecom Law - Maintenance and Audit of Accounts - Legality of TRAI Rules - Challenge to Rule 5 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Service Providers (Maintenance of Books of Accounts and other Documents) Rules, 2002, on the grounds of being ultra vires to Section 16 of the CAG Act and Article 149 of the Constitution - Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 5, stating it facilitates the constitutional mandate of the CAG to audit receipts payable into the Consolidated Fund of India. [Paras 49-50]

Licence Agreement - Interpretation - Scope of Clauses 22.3, 22.5, and 22.6 - Analysis of the audit provisions under the UAS Licence Agreement - Supreme Court clarified that Clause 22.3 empowers the DoT to call for books of accounts without recording reasons, while Clauses 22.5 and 22.6 pertain to audits ordered by the DoT, independent of CAG's audit authority. [Paras 62-70]

Decision - Appeals by Service Providers Dismissed - Appeals by the DoT Allowed - Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by the service providers challenging the CAG’s audit authority and allowed the appeals by the DoT, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment that restricted the DoT’s and CAG’s audit powers. [Paras 67-70]

Public Trust - Determination of Property Status - PILs challenging the status of Galta Peeth properties as public or private – High Court's direction to Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department to decide pending inquiries – Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision to refer matters to statutory authorities for determination, rejecting the notion that High Court should have addressed these issues directly. [Paras 1-42]

Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner - Review and extent of Assistant Commissioner’s powers under Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 – Assistant Commissioner found competent to adjudicate issues of public trust properties and succession as per statutory framework – Comprehensive powers including those akin to civil court powers under Sections 16-24, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 53, and 67 of the Act affirmed. [Paras 27-39, 41-42]

Concurrent Jurisdiction - Simultaneous litigation before Assistant Commissioner and Supreme Court – Appeals to the Commissioner against Assistant Commissioner’s decisions pending – Supreme Court emphasizes proper forum utilization and dismisses appeals as abuse of process. [Paras 43, 50]

Mandate for Government Action - Public trust management under amended Section 53 – High Court's dismissal of writ petition regarding the management committee upheld – No directive for immediate reconstitution of committee under the amended discretionary provision. [Paras 44-46]

Public Interest Litigation Scope - PILs in religious trust disputes – Supreme Court highlights limited judicial intervention where statutory mechanisms are available – Emphasis on judicious PIL acceptance to prevent misuse and uphold statutory processes. [Paras 47-49]

Decision - Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court endorses the High Court's decision to refer the matters to the Assistant Commissioner and declines to interfere with pending appeals before the Commissioner. [Para 51]