Kerosene Dealer License – Jurisdiction – Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal, lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the District Magistrate's order under Paragraph 11 of the Control Order – State’s inherent power to alter or set aside District Magistrate's order must follow procedure prescribed by law – Impugned order by Principal Secretary passed in his capacity and not on behalf of the State [Paras 1-21].

Appellate Authority – Control Order – Under Paragraph 10, appeals against orders under Paragraphs 8 and 9 can be made to the State Government or Director, not to the Principal Secretary – Order of District Magistrate enhancing quota for respondents and reducing appellant’s quota was not appealable before Principal Secretary [Paras 14-18].

Procedural Compliance – Withdrawal of Writ – Withdrawal of writ petition to move before competent authority does not confer jurisdiction upon an authority not empowered under statute – Courts or individuals cannot confer jurisdiction not provided by law [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld decisions of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court – Principal Secretary's order set aside due to lack of jurisdiction – Appeal dismissed with costs borne by respective parties [Paras 22].

Family Law – Consolidation of Suits – Respondent-wife sought consolidation of two suits filed by appellant-husband, one for divorce and the other for an injunction restraining her from entering matrimonial home – Family Court rejected consolidation – High Court admitted appeal and stayed operation of ex parte injunction and hearing of suits until appeal decided – Supreme Court found High Court erred by granting relief not prayed for by respondent [Paras 1-3].

Consolidation – Judicial Discretion – Supreme Court emphasized proper relief was consolidation and joint trial of suits, not interfering with interim injunction – Relations between parties deteriorated, preventing appellant-husband from spending time with respondent-wife – Court avoided making merits-based observations, directing Family Court to expedite trial [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court order set aside – Suits filed by appellant-husband to be consolidated and tried together – Family Court directed to expedite trial – Appeals disposed of with no order as to costs [Paras 5-6].

Petroleum Law – Termination of Dealership – BPCL terminated the dealership of respondent-firm for non-compliance with quality standards – Samples not tested in government laboratory but in company laboratory – High Court quashed termination due to procedural lapses and directed restoration of dealership – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for fair and transparent sample testing as per Petroleum Act and guidelines [Paras 1-16].

Sample Testing – Procedural Fairness – Samples collected and tested without presence of respondent’s representative – Lack of adherence to guidelines requiring dealer's presence during testing – Supreme Court stressed adherence to principles of natural justice and opportunity for retest upon dealer's request as per Section 20 of the Petroleum Act [Paras 7-13].

Jurisdiction – High Court’s Power – Under Article 136, Supreme Court found no perversity in High Court’s order – Affirmed High Court’s jurisdiction to quash termination and restore dealership due to violation of procedural norms and principles of natural justice [Paras 5-16].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s directive for BPCL to restore respondent's dealership within four weeks – Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 15-16].

Mercy Petition – Constitutional Powers – Supreme Court analyzed the nature of powers vested in the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161 – Reiterated that these powers must be exercised with aid and advice of the Council of Ministers – Emphasized that delay in disposal of mercy petitions can be a ground for commutation of death sentence, but each case must be examined on its own merits, including the nature of the crime and its impact on society [Paras 18-21].

Delay in Execution – Commutation of Death Sentence – Noted that inordinate delay in execution due to the pendency of mercy petitions causes psychological stress, which can be grounds for commutation – Cited international jurisprudence and emphasized that the delay attributable to state authorities should not result in inhumane treatment [Paras 10-13].

Mental Illness – Human Rights – Highlighted that mental illness developed during incarceration can be a mitigating factor for commutation – Relied on medical reports indicating the appellant's severe mental illness, making the execution incompatible with contemporary standards of human decency [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Clarified the limited scope of judicial review in examining the President's or Governor's decision under Articles 72 and 161 – Stressed that the decision must be based on relevant considerations and free from arbitrariness, and that judicial intervention is warranted if there is evidence of non-application of mind or extraneous considerations [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar to life imprisonment, citing inordinate delay in the disposal of his mercy petitions and his deteriorating mental health – Directed the authorities to provide appropriate medical treatment to the appellant [Paras 22-24].

Civil Procedure – Striking Out Pleadings – Supreme Court held that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be decided based on the face of the plaint or petition to determine if a cause of action is made out – Once a party consents to the court hearing a petition under Order 7 Rule 11, the same party cannot later seek to strike out pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 for being unnecessary, vexatious, or scandalous – All necessary pleas should be raised at the same time – Court emphasized procedural consistency and not allowing new objections post-consent order [Paras 1-28].

Election Petition – Recrimination Petition – Election of appellant contested by respondent on grounds of improper vote counting – Appellant’s recrimination petition raising issues of criminal cases against respondent and allegations of corrupt practices – High Court’s dismissal of recrimination petition under Order 7 Rule 11 set aside by Supreme Court, allowing recrimination petition to be heard on merits [Paras 2-8].

Verification and Corrupt Practices – Affidavit Requirement – Supreme Court clarified that defects in verification or affidavit in election petitions are curable and not fatal to the maintainability of the petition – Emphasized the need for material facts and specific allegations in the petition – Allowed consideration of corrupt practices alleged by appellant, directing expeditious trial [Paras 21-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order striking off pleadings – Directed the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the recrimination petition – Each party to bear its own costs [Paras 31].

Compensation – Future Prospects – Supreme Court directed that for self-employed or fixed-wage earners, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased if below 40 years, and 30% if aged between 40 to 50 years, while computing future prospects – The actual income should be considered after tax deductions – For victims aged 50 to 60 years, an addition of 15% is deemed just and equitable [Paras 11-12].

Just Compensation – Determination – Emphasized that 'just compensation' must be adequate, fair, and equitable, aligning with the settled principles – Relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd., and other precedents to standardize norms for assessing damages in motor accident claims [Paras 7-10].

Conventional Heads – Updated Amounts – Directed courts to award at least Rs. 1 lakh for loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses, acknowledging inflation and the increased cost of living – Revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness [Paras 20-21].

Excess Compensation – Tribunal’s Power – Affirmed that the Claims Tribunal can award compensation in excess of the amount claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, provided it is just, equitable, fair, and reasonable – Highlighted the duty of the Tribunal to award proper compensation irrespective of the claimed amount [Paras 13-19].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and the Award of the Tribunal – Directed enhanced compensation of Rs. 22,81,320 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 26.11.2007 till realization – Specific instructions for distribution of compensation among the claimants, including the deposit of amounts in the names of minor children in a nationalized bank till they attain majority [Paras 24-25].

Urban Development – Applicability of Government Order – Supreme Court held that the Government Order dated October 22, 2002, issued by the Housing Department, did not apply to NOIDA, an industrial development authority constituted under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act 1976 – Emphasized the distinct administrative controls and the specificity of the order to the development authorities under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 [Paras 15-18].

Khodaiji Committee Recommendations – Cooperative Housing Societies – Supreme Court determined that the Khodaiji Committee’s recommendations, which limited benefits to societies existing before May 1, 1976, did not apply to Sarvpriya and Shivalik cooperative housing societies as they were registered after this date – High Court's contrary interpretation was held erroneous [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Review – Administrative Orders – Examined the scope of judicial review of administrative orders and the applicability of inter-departmental directives – Clarified the non-applicability of orders addressed to specific administrative domains to entities outside those domains unless explicitly stated [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court – Directed that the writ petitions filed by the respondents be dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Rape – Appellant convicted for the rape and murder of Seeso – Trial court's judgment affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court reverses conviction due to major discrepancies in witness testimonies and procedural errors – Appellant's presence at crime scene not conclusively proven [Paras 1-35].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Discrepancies – Key witnesses PW-8 and PW-9 provided contradictory statements about the appellant's presence – Testimonies found unreliable due to inconsistencies – Prosecution failed to establish a coherent narrative [Paras 6-10, 20-21].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – PW-7's testimony about extra-judicial confession made by co-accused after 16 days deemed unreliable – Delay in reporting confession rendered it suspicious – Supreme Court emphasizes caution in relying on weak evidence of extra-judicial confessions without corroboration [Paras 11-13, 23-25].

Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistencies and Lack of Substantive Evidence – Supreme Court grants benefit of doubt to appellant due to discrepancies and lack of substantial evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence without a complete chain of events was insufficient for conviction [Paras 18, 31-32].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant and other accused acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence – Supreme Court orders release of appellant and extends the benefit to non-appealing co-accused under Article 142 [Paras 34-35].

Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Decree – Appeals against High Court's order setting aside trial court's rejection of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – High Court's order deemed unsustainable – Application under Order 9 Rule 13 not maintainable by non-party – Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to reopen settled matters unless no other remedy exists [Paras 1-22].

Inherent Powers – Scope and Limitations – Section 151 CPC allows for procedures consistent with justice – Cannot be used to conflict with express provisions or where specific remedies are provided – Appropriate in cases of fraud upon the court but not for fraud upon a party [Paras 8-13, 20].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Claims – Legal heirs and vested remainder interests – Proper procedure under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Reference Court's jurisdiction limited to matters referred by the Land Acquisition Collector [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court's order set aside – Respondents directed to seek appropriate remedy through permissible legal proceedings [Paras 21-22].