Appointment on Deputation – Legal Right – Difference between transfer on deputation and appointment on deputation – Appellant was selected and offered appointment following due process – Cancellation of appointment offer without valid reason is arbitrary and violates Article 14 – Appellant has a right to join the post of Director, AICTE [Paras 11-15].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Any person selected for appointment through due process must be treated fairly and equally – Arbitrary cancellation of appointment offer is unconstitutional – High Court erred in not recognizing appellant's entitlement to the post [Paras 9-12].

Administrative Law – Terms of Deputation – Terms and conditions of deputation should be honored once accepted – Appellant accepted the terms including the pay scale – Respondent cannot withdraw the offer arbitrarily after acceptance [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of withdrawal of appointment and High Court order set aside – Respondents directed to accept appellant's joining for the post of Director, AICTE, for a period of one year on deputation – North Gujarat University to relieve the appellant and AICTE to accept his joining within one week of reporting​​.

Representing Advocates:

Nikhil Goel for the Appellant

Amitesh Kumar and Navin Prakash for the Respondents

Lease Cancellation – Public Purpose – State Government's order cancelling the lease and resuming possession for extension of the Allahabad High Court and the office of the Advocate General is valid under Clause 3(C) of the lease deed – No discrimination or violation of Article 14 as similar actions were taken in the past under similar circumstances [Paras 3-15].

Government Grants Act – Unfettered Discretion – Section 3 of the Government Grants Act grants the State unfettered discretion to impose conditions on its grants, which take effect notwithstanding any statutory or common law provisions – Lease terms, including resumption clauses, are valid and enforceable [Paras 10-14].

Resumption Procedure – State Government followed the proper procedure under Clause 3(C) of the lease deed – No additional legal procedures required for resumption beyond those specified in the lease – High Court's decision to the contrary set aside [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – State Government's cancellation of the lease and resumption of possession upheld – High Court's order preventing forcible dispossession set aside – Appellants given three months to hand over possession – State Government to issue fresh compensation cheques if necessary – If appellants fail to comply, State may take forcible possession​​.

Reinstatement and Departmental Enquiry – Employee acquitted on benefit of doubt must be dealt with under Clause 19.3(d) of Bipartite Settlement – Reinstatement deemed from the date of dismissal and placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry – No need for formal reinstatement before proceeding with the enquiry [Paras 13-15].

Disciplinary Procedure – Clause 19.3(c) and 19.3(d) – Differentiation in treatment of acquitted employees – Employee acquitted during trial is entitled to full pay and allowances minus subsistence; those acquitted on appeal get subsistence allowance during suspension – Shri Tiwary’s case falls under Clause 19.3(d), thus entitled to subsistence allowance only [Paras 12-15].

Employee Rights – Pay and Allowances – Post-acquittal, the employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension, not full pay and allowances – Bank followed proper procedure in treating suspension and conducting departmental enquiry [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Orders of termination, and decisions of Single Judge and Division Bench of Patna High Court upheld – No order as to costs​​.

Representing Advocates:

Mohit Kumar Shah for the Appellant

Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Rajesh Kumar, and Shri Ram Krishna for the Respondent

Fixation of Fair Rent – Market Value – Rent Controller and Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent for properties considering the market value of land at Rs. 65 lakhs per ground based on the classification report and other evidence – Concurrent findings on 'classification of building,' 'plinth area,' 'construction charges,' and 'basic amenities' upheld – Appeal allowed in part for re-evaluation of the market value of land considering prior determination for adjacent property [Paras 8-17].

Legal Consistency – Adjacent Property – Fair rent for adjacent property fixed at Rs. 25 lakhs per ground should be considered in current case despite pending appeal – Market value determination in adjacent property is relevant and should not be ignored by appellate authority [Paras 15-16].

Article 227 – High Court's Interference – High Court should have intervened under Article 227 to ensure consistent application of market value determination – Failure to consider adjacent property’s market value a ground for remand [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – Remitted to Appellate Authority to re-determine market value of land considering evidence and adjacent property valuation – Other findings on classification, depreciation, plinth area, construction charges, and basic amenities upheld – No order as to costs​​.

Representing Advocates:

Siddharth Bhatnagar, Pratik Jalan, Pavan Kr. Bansal, and T. Mahipal for the Appellant

K. Ramamurthi, P.B. Balaji, and A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondent

Land Acquisition – Compensation Assessment – Petitioner’s claim for enhanced compensation for acquired land was based on comparable sale deeds, but the claim was not substantiated with sufficient evidence – The application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A was entertained despite petitioner’s failure to initially file a reference under Section 18 – Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions which had adequately compensated the petitioner based on existing evidence [Paras 1-18].

Procedure under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Special provision intended to benefit the poor and inarticulate individuals who failed to seek reference under Section 18 – Petitioner, owning significant land, did not fall within this intended beneficiary class – No legal basis for further enhancement of compensation as sought by petitioner [Paras 5-6].

Claim of Substantial Justice vs. Technicalities – Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance technicalities and substantial justice – Found that the petitioner’s delayed appeals and failure to specify enhanced compensation demands indicated a lack of diligence rather than a mere technical shortfall [Paras 3, 12-17].

Decision:

Special Leave Petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld lower court’s decisions on compensation – No further enhancement granted [Para 18].

Regulatory Fee – Validity and Reasonableness – The appellant challenged the enhanced license fees under the Delhi Race Course Licensing (Amendment) Rules 2001, contending excessive delegation of power and lack of quid pro quo – The Supreme Court upheld the fee as regulatory, not requiring strict quid pro quo, emphasizing the broad correlation between the fee and regulatory purpose [Paras 1-30].

Delegation of Legislative Power – The Court reiterated the principle that delegation of non-essential legislative functions is permissible provided there is sufficient legislative policy or guidance – Found the Mysore Race Courses Licensing Act 1952 and the Delhi Race Course Licensing Rules 1985 contained adequate guidelines for fee fixation [Paras 8-28].

Nature of the Impost – The Court differentiated between a fee and a tax, holding that the license fee in question was regulatory, aimed at controlling and supervising horse-racing activities, thus not requiring specific services in return but needing to be reasonable and not excessive [Paras 18-27].

Constitutional Challenge – The appellant’s late challenge to the constitutionality of Section 11(2) of the Mysore Race Courses Licensing Act 1952 was dismissed due to the unreasonable delay and the lack of substantial change in circumstances other than inflation-based fee revision [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision upholding the validity of the enhanced license fees and the underlying legislative provisions, imposing costs on the appellant [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of Archideb Bhattacharjee – Trial court sentenced all accused to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court – Supreme Court examined reliability of witness testimonies, evidence of motive, and procedural propriety [Paras 1-12].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Reliability – Court scrutinized testimonies of witnesses who saw the deceased last with the accused and those who witnessed the disposal of the body – Witnesses’ statements were found credible despite some delays in recording and minor inconsistencies [Paras 13-24, 32-35].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Events – Court emphasized the importance of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is lacking – Established that the prosecution proved a complete chain linking the accused to the crime [Paras 25-31, 36-38].

Motive – Demand for Money – Prosecution established that the motive for the crime was the accused’s demand for money from the deceased, which was not met – Witnesses corroborated this motive, establishing a clear reason for the murder [Paras 15-16, 39-40].

Absconding – Adverse Inference – Court noted that the accused absconded immediately after the incident – Absconding was considered a significant factor corroborating the guilt of the accused [Paras 41-44].

Last Seen Theory – Application – Court applied the 'last seen theory' due to the proximity of time between when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the discovery of his body – Held that the accused failed to explain the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased [Paras 42-44, 50-53].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences as awarded by the High Court, finding no merit in the appeals and reinforcing the adequacy of the prosecution’s case [Paras 54-55].

Preventive Detention – Pre-Execution Challenge – Supreme Court examined the legality of challenging preventive detention orders at the pre-execution stage – Held that grounds for such challenges are not limited to the five exceptions set out in Alka Subhash Gadia's case (1992) 1 SCC 496 – Judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be restricted by judicial pronouncement [Paras 1-12, 24-29].

Right to Information Act – Applicability – Detenus not entitled to grounds of detention at the pre-execution stage under the Right to Information Act 2005 – Constitutional provisions under Article 22(5) prevail over statutory rights under the RTI Act – Disclosure of grounds only after actual detention [Paras 20-23].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court emphasized the untrammeled nature of judicial review powers under Articles 226 and 32 – Self-imposed restraints by courts do not limit their powers but are exercised to prevent abuse – Judicial review extends to examining all relevant aspects beyond the five exceptions in Alka Subhash Gadia's case [Paras 24-29].

Grounds for Detention – Disclosure Requirements – Under Article 22(5), grounds for detention are to be communicated to the detenu as soon as possible after detention – Right to receive grounds prior to detention under RTI Act not supported [Paras 20-23].

Decision – The Court did not find merit in the argument for extending RTI provisions to pre-execution challenges – Affirmed that judicial review can extend to additional grounds beyond those enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia's case – Ordered listing of the petitions for final hearing and disposal on a specified date [Paras 30].

Civil Law – Eviction and Tenancy Rights – Petitioner claimed tenancy rights over the property mortgaged to Indian Bank and contested the eviction order – Supreme Court examined the legality of eviction without adjudicating tenancy rights – Court held that recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, including eviction, must follow due process of law [Paras 21-27].

Recovery of Debts – Jurisdiction – Tribunal's jurisdiction over eviction disputes – Petitioner contended Debts Recovery Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to evict non-debtors – Supreme Court held that tribunals can evict persons under possession if mortgagee rights are established, but disputes over tenancy need adjudication in civil courts [Paras 27-30].

Abuse of Process – Delayed Suits – Petitioner had previously filed and allowed dismissal of a suit claiming tenancy rights and later filed a fresh suit after a significant delay – Court found this conduct as an abuse of legal process and barred fresh suits under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC [Paras 38-44].

Mortgage and Tenancy – Validity of Claims – Mortgage created prior to the petitioner’s possession – Supreme Court found petitioner’s tenancy claims dubious and emphasized legal procedures to ascertain possession rights – Directed eviction could proceed under statutory recovery process while allowing petitioner to pursue restitution claims in appropriate forums [Paras 37-40].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the eviction orders by lower courts and tribunals, allowing Indian Bank to proceed with recovery and sale of the property – Petitioner's right to seek restitution subject to outcomes in civil suits was preserved [Paras 41-42].