Service Law – Promotion Eligibility – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondents were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director under the 1987 Rules, as they had completed the requisite five years of experience as Scientific Officers by the time the amended rules were published in the Gazette in 1990 – The Court rejected the state's contention that the experience should be counted from the date of preparation of the rules [Paras 1-15].

Legal Principle – Rule Publication – Emphasized that rules attain legal sanctity and are enforceable only upon publication in the official Gazette, not from the date of preparation – The respondents had completed the necessary experience by the time the 1990 amendments were published [Paras 9-10].

Proviso Application – The Court also noted the proviso to Rule 5 of the 1987 Rules, which allowed consideration of temporary and officiating personnel for promotion if permanent officers were unavailable – The respondents' eligibility was thus confirmed even under the proviso [Paras 11-15].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – The High Court's judgment was upheld, confirming the respondents' eligibility for promotion and directing the state to grant consequential benefits if found suitable – The appeals by the State of U.P. were dismissed [Para 16].

Mining Lease – Execution and Conditions – Supreme Court examined the appeal against the High Court’s directive to execute a mining lease in favor of the respondent-company, which was previously conditionally approved by the State Government – The lease was for extracting iron ore, subject to setting up two full-fledged steel plants and using the extracted ore for these plants, without commercial trading [Paras 2-10].

Interdepartmental Communication – Prematurity of Writ Petition – The Court held that the writ petition by Mesco Steels Ltd. was premature, as it challenged an interdepartmental communication which did not finally determine any rights or obligations – The communication was part of an ongoing administrative process and no final decision had been taken by the State Government [Paras 11-15].

Show Cause Notice – Validity and Response – The Court discussed the show cause notice issued by the State Government regarding the reduction of the lease area – It held that the High Court erred in ignoring the notice simply because it was issued in violation of an interim status quo order – The proper course was to allow the respondent to respond to the notice and for the State Government to make a final decision based on the response [Paras 16-19].

Jurisdiction and Recall of Recommendation – The Court recognized the State Government’s authority to recall or modify its recommendations but emphasized that this power must be exercised judiciously – The show cause notice's grounds and merits should be examined by the State Government, and the Court refrained from making any comments on the merits of the notice at this stage [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – The High Court’s order was set aside – Respondent-company directed to respond to the show cause notice within three months, and the State Government to pass a reasoned order within two months of receiving the response – Liberty granted to the respondent to pursue appropriate legal proceedings if the final decision is found unacceptable [Paras 19-20].

Female Foeticide – Effective Implementation – Supreme Court highlighted the persistent discrimination against the female child in Indian society, leading to female foeticide despite legislative measures – Emphasized the need for effective implementation of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PN&PNDT Act) and compliance with previous Court directions [Paras 1-8].

Supervisory and Advisory Bodies – Role and Responsibilities – Directed the Central and State Supervisory Boards, State Advisory Committees, and District Advisory Committees to actively monitor and ensure compliance with the Act – Highlighted deficiencies in their functioning and the need for regular meetings and reporting [Paras 1, 5-6, 9-11].

Legal Framework – Amendments and Compliance – Addressed recent amendments to the Act and the rules aimed at regulating the use of diagnostic techniques and devices – Emphasized the importance of maintaining proper records and preventing unauthorized sales of ultrasound machines [Paras 7-8].

Awareness and Education – Directed State Governments and Union Territories to conduct workshops and awareness campaigns to educate the public about the Act's provisions and the importance of preventing female foeticide – Emphasized that awareness efforts should be sincere, serious, and effective [Paras 10-11, 20-21].

Judicial Review – Monitoring and Directions – Ordered the Registrar Generals of High Courts to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases under the PN&PNDT Act – Directed all State Governments to file status reports on compliance within three months [Paras 22-32].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Issued comprehensive directions to ensure the effective implementation of the PN&PNDT Act – Directed relevant authorities to take specific actions for compliance, awareness, and monitoring – Ordered expeditious disposal of pending cases under the Act [Paras 33].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Corruption – Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Held that the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000 by the appellant, a public servant, from the complainant for allotting transport loads – The recovery of the amount was established, and the explanation offered by the appellant was not credible [Paras 7-10, 38-42].

Judicial Conduct – Hearing in Absence of Counsel – The Court addressed the issue of whether the High Court could decide a criminal appeal in the absence of the appellant's counsel – Held that it is permissible to decide the appeal on merits after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court, even if the counsel does not appear deliberately or shows negligence – The previous judgment in Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam was held per incuriam as it conflicted with the larger bench decision in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [Paras 10-36].

Sentence Reduction – The Supreme Court reduced the sentence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) from four years to one year in light of the appellant's age and ailments – The sentence under Section 7 of the Act remained undisturbed – Emphasized that the statutory minimum sentence should not be reduced based on mitigating factors as it would supplant the legislative mandate [Paras 43-44].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – Conviction affirmed, sentence under Section 13(1)(d) reduced to one year, sentence under Section 7 and fines maintained – The appeal was disposed of with the modification in the sentence [Para 45].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Notification – Supreme Court held that the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, issued on 01.05.1980, had lapsed since the declaration under Section 6 was made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981 – The mandatory time limit for issuing a declaration under Section 6 in respect of a notice issued under Section 4(5) before the commencement of the 1981 Amendment Act was two years, which was not met in this case [Paras 1-12, 29-32].

Urgency Powers – Invocation of Section 17 – The Court found that the State Government had invoked the urgency powers under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, and dispensed with the inquiry under Section 5-A after a lapse of seven years from the issuance of the preliminary notification – Held that such invocation of urgency powers was legally unsustainable as the urgency must be of such nature that it cannot brook the delay of even a few weeks or months – Emphasized that the right to file objections under Section 5-A is a substantial right and cannot be taken away without real urgency [Paras 16-28].

Judicial Review – The Court reiterated that while the satisfaction of the Government regarding urgency is subjective, it must be based on material considerations and is subject to judicial review – The absence of any material justifying the urgency in this case rendered the exercise of urgency powers invalid [Paras 16-28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980 had lapsed, and the declaration under Section 6 made on 19.03.1987 was legally unsustainable – If possession of the subject land had been taken from the appellants, it must be restored to them without any delay – No orders as to costs [Paras 32-33].

Civil Procedure – Settlement and Compromise – The Supreme Court dealt with the appeals concerning the settlement and compromise recorded in civil suits – Held that the trial court rightly allowed the pursis (statements on record) indicating settlement and compromise between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – The objections by certain plaintiffs and defendants were addressed and found insufficient to invalidate the settlements [Paras 16-42].

Abatement and Legal Representation – The Court discussed the issue of abatement due to non-representation of deceased plaintiffs – Held that the heirs of the deceased plaintiff did not take timely steps to get themselves impleaded in the suits, leading to abatement – The acknowledgments and confirmations executed by the plaintiffs were found binding on their heirs [Paras 35-42].

Legal Principles – Compromise under CPC – Emphasized the distinction between withdrawal of suits under Order XXIII Rule 1 and compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 – Stressed that the satisfaction of the court regarding a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties is essential for passing a decree – The trial court's decision to record the compromise and dispose of the suits was upheld [Paras 36-42].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – The High Court’s judgment setting aside the orders of the trial court was overturned – The orders dated 14.08.2008 and 08.09.2009 by the trial court accepting the settlement and compromise were reinstated – No order as to costs [Paras 43-45].

Inter-State Water Disputes – Interpretation of Agreement and Award – Dispute between Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra regarding the construction of Babhali barrage – Andhra Pradesh claimed violation of agreements endorsed by Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal – Supreme Court interpreted the agreements and award, highlighting that Maharashtra’s utilization of 60 TMC of water for new projects was not restricted to flowing waters but included stored waters, provided it did not exceed the allocated limit and did not interfere with natural flow into Pochampad reservoir – No substantial injury of serious magnitude to Andhra Pradesh established – Suit by Andhra Pradesh dismissed [Paras 1-88]​​.

Supervisory Committee – Constitution of a three-member supervisory committee to oversee operation of Babhali barrage – Committee to include representatives from Central Water Commission and the states of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra – Committee to ensure compliance with Maharashtra’s commitments regarding Babhali barrage’s operation and water release [Paras 83-86]​​.

Decision – Original suit by Andhra Pradesh dismissed – Supervisory committee constituted – Directions provided to ensure compliance with water sharing agreement – No costs imposed [Paras 82-87]​​.

Ex-Cadre vs. Cadre Posts – Dispute over whether the Respondent's post was ex-cadre – Respondent appointed as Ore Dressing Engineer, claimed it should be included in the cadre – State treated it as ex-cadre – Supreme Court examined historical context and rules, found post was created as ex-cadre for a specific scheme and continued as such – Tribunal and High Court orders directing cadre integration set aside [Paras 1-26]​​.

Promotion Prospects – Examination of Respondent's promotional avenues – Tribunal suggested considering Respondent for career advancement vis-à-vis comparable Class-I Engineers – Supreme Court found no jurisdiction to issue such direction – Promotion determined by existing cadre rules, which did not support Respondent's claim [Paras 20-26]​​.

Decision – Civil Appeals allowed – Orders by Tribunal and High Court set aside – Respondent’s post affirmed as ex-cadre, not eligible for cadre integration – Promotion to be governed by prevailing rules without judicial interference [Paras 25-28]​​.

Development Control Regulations – Unauthorized construction – Petitioners sought regularization of buildings constructed in violation of sanctioned plans – Municipal Corporation issued notices for demolition – Trial Court and High Court upheld action of Corporation – Supreme Court dismissed appeals, refused regularization – Held: Municipal laws must be implemented strictly to prevent unauthorized constructions [Paras 16-47].

Municipal Corporation – Action against illegal constructions – Role of Corporation – High Court directed appearance of Commissioner for failing to stop illegal constructions – Commissioner assured necessary steps – Notices for demolition issued – Petitions for injunction against demolition dismissed – Appeals to Supreme Court also dismissed – No regularization of constructions [Paras 21-30].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Exercise of powers – Court declined to regularize unauthorized construction – Emphasized need for adherence to planning laws – Directed Corporation to implement demolition notices without hindrance – Protection of rights of innocent buyers through appropriate remedies [Paras 31-48].