Constitutional Law - Failure of State Compliance - Writ Petition under Article 32 – Examination of non-compliance by States and Union Territories with the Supreme Court's directives to implement protective provisions for children under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 – Supreme Court noted lack of progress despite earlier orders – Issuance of further mandatory directions for compliance. [Paras 1-8]

State Responsibility - Child Protection - Enforcement of Statutory Provisions – Analysis of States’ failure to establish functional State Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights as mandated under Section 17 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 – Examination of the non-appointment of Chairpersons and Members – Directed Chief Secretaries to file affidavits with detailed implementation status – Non-compliance to result in contempt proceedings. [Para 2-7]

Directive Orders - Further Mandate – Supreme Court re-emphasized the duty of States under Articles 21, 21A, 23, 24, 45, and 51A(k) of the Constitution to protect children – Directed States to provide detailed affidavits on the establishment of State Commissions, appointment of necessary officials, and framing of relevant rules – Ordered personal appearance of high-ranking officials in cases of non-compliance. [Paras 3-8]

Decision - Mandatory Compliance Required – Court ordered Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories to submit affidavits within eight weeks detailing compliance with child protection laws – Specified information required in affidavits to include establishment and functionality of State Commissions, appointment of Chairpersons and Members, and designation of Special Courts and Public Prosecutors – Format for submission annexed. [Paras 6-8]

Royalty on Mining Leases – Civil Appeal – Legal Character and Applicability – Appeals filed against Madras High Court judgment dismissing writ petitions challenging the levy of full royalty on mining leases over patta lands – Appellants (cement companies) claimed right to pay only 50% royalty based on historical conventions and agreements – High Court dismissed writ petitions noting lack of specific pleadings and imprecise identification of issues. [Paras 1-13]

Ryotwari Pattadars – Subsoil Rights – Legal Analysis – Examination of rights of ryotwari pattadars in subsoil minerals under Madras Estates Land Act and subsequent abolition statutes – Court noted imprecision and lack of specific information in pleadings by appellants – Highlighted need for detailed inquiry into historical rights and legislative provisions. [Paras 14-21]

Pleading Requirements in Writ Petitions – Civil Procedure – Critique of vague and imprecise pleadings by appellants – Importance of specific details regarding lease agreements, survey numbers, and extent of mining operations – Court emphasized the need for precise and detailed pleadings to adjudicate complex legal issues. [Paras 22-24]

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Application and Interpretation – Examination of provisions relating to royalty on minerals – Differentiation between major and minor minerals – Authority of the state to levy and collect royalty – Analysis of historical and statutory framework governing mining leases and royalty rates. [Paras 25-33]

Royalty as Tax or Contractual Consideration – Legal Character – Pending Reference – Noted that the legal character of royalty (tax or contractual consideration) is a question referred to a larger bench – Potential impact on uniform application of law across the country – Opportunity provided to appellants to amend pleadings and place complete facts for adjudication. [Paras 34-38]

Decision – Directions for Further Proceedings – Appeals tagged with pending case (Mineral Area Development Authority vs. Steel Authority of India) on similar issue – Appellants directed to file detailed affidavits with necessary facts – State of Tamil Nadu allowed to file counter affidavits – Emphasis on coherent and uniform interpretation of law. [Paras 39-41]

Criminal Law - Continuation of Trial Against Husband - Appeal against High Court's decision reversing the Sessions Court's discharge of four accused and maintaining trial against the husband under Sections 306 and 498A IPC - Supreme Court reviews evidence of dowry demands and spousal abuse supported by contemporaneous letters from the deceased - Held that the High Court correctly appreciated the material on record to establish a prima facie case for trial against the husband and his immediate family, except one accused (Sangeeta) - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Dowry Demands and Abetment of Suicide - Evidence Analysis - Court considers contemporaneous letters and testimonies indicating persistent dowry demands and abuse - Notes that dowry demands are often encouraged by in-laws and are a social malaise - Rejects arguments regarding time lapse and limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 498A IPC. [Paras 2-5]

Section 319 CrPC Application - Summoning Additional Accused - High Court's decision supported by Supreme Court's precedents on the sufficiency of prima facie evidence to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC - Held that the learned Single Judge correctly applied the legal principles and maintained the trial against the parents and brother of the husband. [Paras 3, 7]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals and Continuation of Trial - Supreme Court upholds High Court's order for trial continuation against the husband, parents, and brother, reversing the discharge by the Sessions Judge - Recognizes the necessity of addressing social anathemas like dowry - Appeals dismissed, no imposition of costs due to reversal of Sessions Court's order. [Para 8]

Land Acquisition - Compensation Enhancement - Basis of Valuation -

Land acquired by the Government of Haryana in the Revenue Estate of Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana, for the construction of godowns and rice mills. Compensation initially assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and enhanced by the Additional District Judge (ADJ), yet further appeals for enhancement were dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court revisited the assessment, taking into account strategic location and potentiality of the acquired land, applying the formula of 12% per annum increase on land value from 1993 to 2001. The compensation was thus enhanced to Rs. 514 per square yard. [Paras 1-12]

Evidence - Reliance on Sale Deeds and Documentary Evidence -

Held: The Supreme Court found the High Court's reliance on a single sale deed (Ex. P-15) to be erroneous and underscored the necessity of considering other relevant documents demonstrating higher land value, such as Government documents (Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-4) and commercial plot allotments (Ex. P-18). The Court highlighted the significance of strategic location and future potential of the land, reflecting the error in the High Court's approach of undervaluing the land. [Para 5-10]

Decision - Formula Application for Valuation -

Decision: Applying a 12% per annum increase on the 1993 land value and accounting for a period of attrition in prices, the Court set the compensation at Rs. 514 per square yard. This enhanced compensation reflected a reasonable increase over a seven-year period, justifying the Appellants' claim for higher compensation. [Para 11-12]

Transfer of Property Act - Section 100, Section 59 - Charge Creation – Analysis – Appeal arises from the issue of whether an undertaking not to dispose of properties, given by a borrower, creates a charge over the property. The undertaking was given on an unregistered document.

Fraudulent Decrees – Validity and Enforceability – Held – Decree obtained collusively to defeat the undertaking by the borrower, even if fraudulent, does not create a charge over the property. No charge can be created without a registered instrument or deposit of title deeds as per Sections 100 and 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. [Paras 7-13]

Undertaking and Charge Creation – Legal Requirements – Court emphasizes the need for registration or deposit of title deeds for creating a charge on immovable property. An unregistered undertaking is insufficient to create a charge. [Para 11]

Decision – Appeal Dismissal – Court dismisses the appeal by Haryana Financial Corporation, upholding that the unregistered undertaking did not create any charge over the properties. Decrees obtained collusively do not affect this legal position. No costs imposed. [Paras 13-14]

Administrative Law - Subsequent Events - Examination in Larger Public Interest - Special Leave Petitions challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court dismissing the plea of the petitioner firm against the suspension of quarry operations due to unauthorized activities - State officials found large scale unauthorized quarrying by the petitioner - Division Bench of High Court permitted reliance on subsequent events in light of larger public interest - Supreme Court upheld the High Court's approach and decision - Held, subsequent materials supporting the decision can be considered when larger public interest is involved - Principle from Mohinder Singh Gill's case distinguished. [Paras 7-13]

Mining Law - Unauthorized Quarrying - Suspension of Operations - Evaluation report by state authorities indicated large scale unauthorized quarrying by the petitioner firm - Violations of mining plan, encroachment, and illicit quarrying noted - Show cause notices issued under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Supreme Court upheld suspension orders and subsequent notices, noting pending writ petitions before the High Court addressing these issues - Held, suspension of operations justified in light of substantial evidence of unauthorized activities. [Paras 8-12]

Decision - Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions - Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions filed by PRP Exports - Upheld the Madras High Court's judgment permitting state authorities to take action based on subsequent events and reports indicating large scale unauthorized quarrying - Emphasized that public interest and statutory compliance take precedence over the petitioner's business operations. [Para 13]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 9A - Change in Service Conditions – Held:

Refusal by workmen to carry production bags to weighing scale after shift hours without additional remuneration constitutes a justified refusal under Section 9A. Instructions requiring additional work beyond shift hours without complying with statutory requirements under Section 9A were improper. [Para 13]

Proportionality of Punishment – Judicial Review – Held:

The penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct of workmen refusing to perform additional tasks post-shift hours without extra pay. The Tribunal’s discretion in setting aside the dismissal was justified, and the High Court rightly refused to interfere under Article 226. [Para 17]

CPC - Order 41 Rule 22 – Supporting Decree on Grounds Decided Against – Held:

Respondents can support the decree by challenging findings against them even without a cross-appeal, as per principles underlying Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, applicable even in appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 14]

Appeal - Powers of the Supreme Court – Article 142 – Held:

Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to pass necessary orders for complete justice, independent of CPC provisions. It can maintain, modify, or reverse lower court decisions to ensure justice. [Para 15]

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed. The Industrial Tribunal's order of reinstatement with 50% back wages is upheld, with costs of Rs. 25,000/- assessed against the appellant. [Para 17]

Constitutional Law - Equal Protection under the Law - Article 14 and 21 - Discrimination among Persons with Disabilities:

The Supreme Court held that discrimination among different categories of persons with disabilities, such as treating hearing impaired persons differently from visually impaired or orthopedically handicapped persons concerning transport allowance, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that all persons with disabilities should be treated equally regarding benefits, including transport allowance. [Paras 18-22]

Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - Non-Discrimination - Sections 2(i), 44, 45, 46, and 47:

The Act's provisions aim for equal treatment and non-discrimination among all persons with disabilities. The government is obligated to provide necessary accommodations and benefits to ensure their equal participation in societal activities. The refusal to extend transport allowance to hearing impaired employees, while providing it to visually impaired and orthopedically handicapped employees, is discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of the Act. [Paras 13-18]

Transport Allowance for Hearing Impaired Employees:

The court acknowledged the recommendations of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and other authorities advocating for transport allowance for hearing impaired employees on par with other disabled employees. It noted the additional challenges faced by hearing impaired persons in commuting, which justify the need for equal transport allowances. [Paras 5-7, 20]

International Conventions - Obligations and Compliance:

India, being a signatory to international conventions such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is committed to upholding the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. The court emphasized that India must comply with these international obligations, which mandate non-discrimination and equal treatment of all persons with disabilities. [Paras 10-12]

Decision:

The writ petition was allowed. The Supreme Court directed the Respondents to grant transport allowance to deaf and dumb employees on par with visually impaired and orthopedically handicapped employees of the Central and State Governments and other establishments wherever such benefits have been extended. The court affirmed that any form of discrimination among persons with disabilities is unconstitutional and contrary to the Disabilities Act. [Para 23]

Equal Protection and Non-Discrimination – Transport Allowance for Disabled Employees – Writ of Mandamus –

The Supreme Court addresses the denial of transport allowance to government employees with hearing impairments while it is provided to those who are blind or orthopedically handicapped. The Court held that such discrimination violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and contravenes the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The Court directs the Central and State Governments to extend the transport allowance to employees with hearing impairments at the same rate as that given to blind and orthopedically handicapped employees. [Paras 1-25]

Statutory Interpretation – Scope of Disabilities Act –

The Disabilities Act does not envisage discrimination among various types of disabilities. The Act defines disability inclusively and aims for equality in treatment for all persons with disabilities. The Court clarifies that the travel hardships faced by hearing-impaired employees are comparable to those faced by other disabled employees, thus justifying equal transport allowances. [Paras 12-21]

Human Dignity and Equality –

The inherent dignity of hearing-impaired persons is compromised when they are marginalized or devalued compared to other disabled persons. The Court emphasizes that such differential treatment violates their right to equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. [Para 22]

Decision – Grant of Transport Allowance to Hearing-Impaired Employees –

The Supreme Court directs the Respondents to grant transport allowance to hearing-impaired government employees at double the normal rates, aligning with allowances provided to blind and orthopedically handicapped employees. The decision ensures non-discriminatory treatment of all disabled employees under the Disabilities Act. [Paras 23]