Environmental Law – Public Hearing Requirement – SHEP received environmental clearance in 1985, before the enactment of the EIA Notification, 1994 – Supreme Court held that public hearing was not required as the project was an ongoing one nearing completion – Public hearing considered unnecessary at advanced construction stage [Paras 8-18].

Relocation of Religious Structures – Dhari Devi Temple relocation challenged on grounds of violating Article 25 – Court found no infringement of religious rights as the temple structure remains attached to its sacred rock – Expert committee reports endorsed relocation plan to protect the temple from submergence [Paras 27-34].

Dam Safety and Environmental Concerns – Emphasized the need for compliance with environmental management plans and safety regulations – Referred to expert committee recommendations on muck management and catchment area treatment [Paras 35-37].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – High Court’s direction for public hearing set aside – Expert committee recommendations on Dhari Devi Temple relocation and environmental safeguards upheld [Para 33].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – High Court reduced the sentence of respondents from two years to three months due to the protracted nature of proceedings – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proportional sentencing – Held that the reduction was unjustified and restored the trial court's sentence [Paras 1-20].

Proportionality in Sentencing – Courts must balance the gravity of the crime with the punishment – Lenient sentencing for serious offences undermines public confidence in the justice system – Deterrence and societal impact must be considered [Paras 8-16].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Trial court's original sentence restored – Respondents directed to surrender within four weeks, or be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence [Para 20].

Service Law – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Employer's onus to prove gainful employment – Denial of back wages to an employee who has suffered due to illegal act of employer amounts to rewarding the employer and punishing the employee. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision for reinstatement with full back wages, as the management failed to prove the employee's gainful employment during the suspension [Paras 1-33].

Principles of Natural Justice – Inquiry proceedings against the appellant were found to be vitiated due to non-adherence to principles of natural justice – The Inquiry Committee was not validly constituted, and the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses – The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings [Paras 7-14, 16-22].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Tribunal’s order reinstating the appellant with full back wages upheld – The appellant is entitled to full back wages from the date of termination until reinstatement [Paras 33-36].

Service Law – Appointment – Appellants, having secured qualifying marks in LDCE for promotion to Section Officer's Grade, were denied appointment – Despite DoP&T's requisition for six candidates to fill vacancies, UPSC forwarded only three names – Supreme Court found this arbitrary and discriminatory – Mandated UPSC to forward names of next three candidates including the appellants [Paras 1-19].

Public Employment – Filling Vacancies – Legal position affirmed that inclusion in select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment – However, when vacancies are available and requisitioned within permissible limits, non-recommendation of qualifying candidates is unjustified – Directive for filling vacancies to avoid discrimination and ensure fair opportunity [Paras 12-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court and Tribunal orders set aside – Mandamus issued to UPSC to forward names of next three candidates – Appellants to get seniority from date of Rajesh Kumar Yadav's appointment – Pay fixed notionally without arrears [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal against acquittal of the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting bribe – High Court acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence and possible tampering – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, citing procedural and evidentiary shortcomings [Paras 1-11].

Evidentiary Standards – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Mere recovery of money insufficient without substantive evidence of demand and acceptance – Prosecution failed to establish a foolproof case [Paras 7-10].

Witness Credibility – Testimony of Complainant – Considered partisan and unreliable without independent corroboration – Supreme Court emphasized careful evaluation of complainant’s evidence due to vested interests [Para 8].

Procedural Lapses – Trap Case – High Court noted procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the prosecution's trap case – Executive Magistrate’s testimony highlighted discrepancies in planning and execution [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s acquittal upheld – Supreme Court emphasized adherence to stringent evidentiary and procedural standards in corruption cases [Para 11].

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Review petition filed by Kamlesh Verma challenging the quashing of the FIR against Ms. Mayawati – Supreme Court reiterated the narrow scope of review jurisdiction – Review is maintainable only on grounds of discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons analogous to those specified – Review dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent or new evidence [Paras 1-25].

Review Principles – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Court emphasized that an error must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish – Reiteration of existing arguments and disagreement with the view taken in the original judgment does not constitute grounds for review [Paras 7-12].

FIR Quashing – Jurisdiction and Directions – The original judgment correctly interpreted the scope of directions regarding the Taj Corridor case – No specific direction to investigate disproportionate assets of Ms. Mayawati – FIR quashed as the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction [Paras 20-24].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No sufficient grounds for review established – Court upheld its original decision quashing the FIR against Ms. Mayawati [Para 25].

Stamp Duty – Deficient Stamp Duty – Agreements for sale executed by the appellant impounded for deficient stamp duty – Deputy Registrar referred the matter for adjudication – Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) directed payment of deficit stamp duty, penalty, and interest – High Court modified the amount of deficit stamp duty and penalty but upheld the requirement for payment of deficient stamp duty – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision [Paras 2-18].

Stamp Act – Applicability of Provisions – Conjoint reading of Section 28 and Article 5 (b-1) of Schedule 1B of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to Uttarakhand mandates payment of stamp duty on 50% of the value of consideration of the sale agreement – Appellant’s argument based on Sections 2, 3, and 10 rejected due to state amendment – Section 33 invoked correctly for impounding documents [Paras 10-14].

Cancellation of Agreements – No Relief – Subsequent cancellation of agreements within two months does not nullify action taken under Sections 33/38 of the Stamp Act for deficient stamp duty at the time of presentation for registration [Para 17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No further relief granted – High Court’s decision regarding deficit stamp duty and reduced penalty affirmed [Para 18].

Environment Law – Coastal Regulation Zone – Vembanad Lake identified as a Critically Vulnerable Coastal Area (CVCA) under CRZ Notification 2011 – Appellant's property classified as Filtration Pond (FP) and included in CRZ-I – Appellant challenged the inclusion and classification as ultra vires CRZ Notification 1991 and 2011 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision maintaining the classification and inclusion under CRZ-I based on scientific evidence and larger public interest [Paras 1-25].

CRZ Notifications – Validity and Application – CZMP prepared based on guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) – CZMP 1995 classified Vettilla Thuruthu as FP and included it in CRZ-I – High Court and Supreme Court found no illegality in the map and techniques used for classification – Satellite imagery and expert reports supported the classification [Paras 6-21].

Construction Regulations – Demolition Orders – Appellant's constructions found in violation of CRZ Notification 1991 and 2011 – High Court directed demolition of illegal constructions to protect Vembanad Lake's ecological sensitivity – Supreme Court upheld demolition orders [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Directions for demolition of illegal constructions in CRZ-I maintained [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal against the acquittal of the accused previously convicted of murder – High Court reversed the conviction on the grounds of non-mentioning of the accused’s name in the FIR, non-disclosure of the accused’s name by the deceased, and the non-examination of certain witnesses – Supreme Court held the High Court’s reasoning as flawed and restored the trial court’s conviction [Paras 1-34].

FIR and Witness Testimony – Non-Mentioning of Accused’s Name – The Supreme Court reiterated that non-mentioning of the accused’s name in the FIR is not fatal if the name surfaces at the earliest opportunity during investigation – Emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence over minor discrepancies [Paras 19-24].

Evidence – Minor Discrepancies – Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies should not undermine the overall credibility if the testimonies are trustworthy – The Court stressed that evidence should be read as a whole, and undue emphasis on minor contradictions is unwarranted [Paras 28-29].

Non-Examination of Witnesses – Non-examination of certain witnesses, including a treating doctor, does not necessarily affect the prosecution’s case if the available evidence is credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 30-31].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – The non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime is not detrimental to the prosecution’s case if there is ample ocular and corroborative evidence establishing the accused’s guilt [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment of acquittal set aside – Trial court’s conviction restored – Respondent directed to surrender to custody to serve out the sentence [Para 34].