Sale of Mortgaged Property – Powers of Financial Corporations - The UPFC, under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, has the authority to sell mortgaged properties upon default in loan repayment - The sale in question was advertised, and the highest bid was accepted after due process [Paras 13-14].

Validity of Mortgages and Subsequent Sales - Property sold by the original owner during the mortgage period to a third party, who then sold it to the writ petitioner, was invalid as the mortgage subsisted - The High Court’s order favoring the writ petitioner’s claim was incorrect [Paras 12-15].

Public Law Remedy – Appropriate Forum - Issues pertaining to property rights and sale validity should be adjudicated in civil courts, not under public law remedies - The High Court’s intervention in a writ petition for such issues was inappropriate [Paras 15-16].

Decision:

Appeals allowed - The High Court's order dated 5th December 2006 is set aside - The parties were directed to seek remedies through appropriate civil forums [Para 17].

Quo Warranto – Validity of Appointment - The High Court was justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto, holding that the appellant had no authority to continue as the Chairperson of the U.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission due to non-compliance with Section 85(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 - The Selection Committee must satisfy itself that a person does not have any financial or other interests likely to affect prejudicially his functions before recommending him for the appointment [Paras 2-22].

Selection Committee’s Responsibilities - The Selection Committee must comply with the provisions of Section 85(5) of the Electricity Act, which mandates the Committee to ensure that the appointee does not have interests that would prejudicially affect his functions - The Committee failed to exercise this duty, resulting in a void appointment [Paras 9-15].

Locus Standi and Delay - The writ petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the appointment, and delay in filing the petition did not bar the High Court from examining the validity of the appointment [Paras 8, 11-12].

**Writ of Quo Warranto

– Discretionary Remedy - The writ of quo warranto is a discretionary remedy used to challenge appointments made contrary to statutory provisions - Given the clear violation of Section 85(5), the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in issuing the writ [Paras 16-18, 20-22].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed - The High Court's decision to issue a writ of quo warranto and invalidate the appellant's appointment as Chairperson of the U.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission was upheld - The appointment process was found to be in violation of statutory requirements [Paras 22].

Bail under MCOCA – Statutory Restrictions - Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail - The High Court's order granting bail without adhering to these statutory mandates was erroneous [Paras 5-14, 21-23].

Reasonable Grounds for Belief – Confessional Statements and Evidence - The prosecution's evidence, including the confessional statements of co-accused and financial transactions, indicated the respondent's involvement in the organized crime syndicate and handling of funds for criminal activities - These materials satisfied the requirement of "reasonable grounds" under Section 21(4) of MCOCA [Paras 12-18].

High Court's Error – Non-Compliance with Section 21(4) - The High Court failed to appreciate the statutory mandate of Section 21(4) and granted bail based on an incorrect understanding of the law and the materials on record - The order was set aside, and the special court's order rejecting bail was restored [Paras 20-23].

Decision:

Appeal allowed - The High Court's order granting bail to the respondent was set aside - The respondent was directed to surrender before the special court within two weeks, failing which the special court was directed to take appropriate steps for his arrest [Paras 23-24].

Statutory Bail – Right Under Section 167(2) CrPC - The appellant's right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC was established due to the prosecution's failure to file a charge-sheet within the stipulated 90 days - The subsequent application by the prosecution to extend the custody period did not negate the appellant's accrued right to bail [Paras 24-27].

Custody and Investigation Extension – Invalid Retrospective Order - The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's retrospective extension of custody and investigation from 2nd June 2012 was deemed untenable - The appellant’s right to statutory bail was unaffected by the later application for custody extension [Paras 24-27].

Concurrent Findings and Precedent - Reference to the decisions in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra and Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I. Bombay reinforced the principle that the right to statutory bail is indefeasible upon the expiry of the stipulated period without a charge-sheet, unless availed of before filing [Paras 19-20, 24].

Decision:

Appeal allowed - The orders of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the High Court extending the investigation and custody period were set aside - The appellant was granted statutory bail with conditions including surrender of passport and reporting to the local police station [Paras 27].

Vishaka Guidelines – Implementation - The guidelines established in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment at workplaces must be implemented effectively by all employers and institutions - Amendments in Civil Services Conduct Rules and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules were mandated to ensure the Vishaka guidelines are treated as a report in disciplinary actions [Paras 1-17].

State Compliance – Detailed Reporting - The court reviewed the compliance of various states and union territories with the Vishaka guidelines - Many states had not adequately amended their respective Civil Services Conduct Rules or formed sufficient Complaints Committees [Paras 8-12].

Additional Directives – Until Legislation Enacted - Additional directives were issued to ensure the Vishaka guidelines' effective implementation until appropriate legislation is enacted - This included forming adequate Complaints Committees at different levels and ensuring that harassers and complainants are not forced to work together [Para 16].

Professional Bodies – Enforcement Responsibilities - Professional bodies such as the Bar Council of India, Medical Council of India, and other statutory institutes were directed to ensure compliance with the Vishaka guidelines among their members and affiliated organizations [Para 16].

High Court Jurisdiction – Addressing Non-compliance - Aggrieved persons were permitted to approach the respective High Courts for grievances related to non-compliance with the Vishaka guidelines and directives [Para 17].

Decision:

Writ petitions, transfer cases, and appeals disposed of with directions for the implementation of the Vishaka guidelines and further steps to ensure protection against sexual harassment at workplaces - No order as to costs [Para 18].

Judicial Review – Expert Committee Decisions - In matters of appointment/selection by an Expert Committee or Board consisting of qualified persons, courts should be slow to interfere unless there is an allegation of malafides against the experts - Appeal allowed, setting aside the High Court’s decision which interfered with the Selection Committee's opinion [Paras 15-18].

Evaluation and Selection Process – LPG Distributorship - The Selection Committee, consisting of experienced and qualified officials, evaluated the candidates based on guidelines and awarded marks accordingly - The court upheld the committee's decision, emphasizing that no allegations of malafides were made against the selectors [Paras 7-9, 18-19].

Verification of Experience Certificates - The corporation conducted field verification to confirm the genuineness of the experience certificates submitted by the appellant, meeting the issuing authorities who confirmed their issuance [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Precedents – Deference to Experts - Reference to past judgments, such as The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, underscored the principle that courts should defer to expert opinions in academic and technical matters [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal allowed - The judgments of the single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were set aside - The decision of the Selection Committee was confirmed, and no costs were ordered [Paras 20-21].

Compensation for Personal Injuries – Just Compensation - While assessing damages, speculative considerations must be excluded, though some guesswork is inevitable - Courts must compensate not only for physical injuries but also for the loss of the ability to lead a full life, enjoy normal amenities, and earn as before - Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,348,000 with 7.5% interest [Paras 2-10, 27-32].

Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damages - Compensation should cover medical expenses, loss of earnings, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities - Non-pecuniary damages include pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of future prospects [Paras 23-24].

Medical and Future Expenses – Substantial Evidence - The appellant’s ongoing medical needs and treatments were supported by substantial evidence, justifying the awarded amounts for future medical expenses and pain and suffering [Paras 11-13, 27].

Reduction of High Court Award – Unjustified - The High Court's reduction of amounts awarded under certain heads was found unjustified, particularly regarding continuous treatment and transport costs - The reduction was reversed, reinstating appropriate compensation [Paras 17, 27-28].

Judicial Precedents – Consistent Principles - Cited cases (e.g., B. Kothandapani v. TN State Transport Corporation, R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control) support the principles of awarding damages for both physical and non-physical losses, emphasizing a balanced and reasonable approach to "just compensation" [Paras 20-26].

Decision:

Appeal allowed in part - Compensation enhanced and calculated to a total of Rs. 1,348,000 with 7.5% interest from the date of application until payment - Directions issued for deposit and disbursement of the awarded amount [Paras 32-33].

Forfeiture of Earnest Money – Legal Principles - Forfeiture of earnest money is justified if the terms of the contract are clear and explicit - Earnest money is a security for due performance and is forfeited if the purchaser defaults - Part payment of purchase price cannot be forfeited unless intended as earnest money [Paras 17-18].

Contractual Terms – Binding Nature - The contract must stipulate the conditions for forfeiture clearly - In the case at hand, the clause specified forfeiture of earnest money if the purchaser failed to fulfill the contract, justifying the seller's retention of Rs. 700,000 [Paras 8-9].

Case References – Established Precedents - The decision draws on principles from landmark cases such as Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das and Shri Hanuman Cotton Mills v. Tata Air Craft Limited, which establish that earnest money serves as security and is forfeitable upon default by the purchaser [Paras 10-16].

High Court's Error – Misinterpretation of Precedents - The High Court misunderstood the application of these principles and erroneously reduced the forfeiture amount - The Supreme Court reinstated the full forfeiture as per the contract terms [Para 19].

Decision:

Appeal allowed - The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decision upholding the forfeiture of the entire earnest money was restored - No order as to costs [Para 20].

Withdrawal of Petition – Bar on Second Petition - A second petition filed seeking relief against the petitioner's exclusion from a fresh tender notice is not maintainable if the first petition was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh - The Court should be cautious in drawing conclusions about mala fides unless sufficiently supported by evidence [Paras 22-26].

Tender Process – Eligibility and Qualifications - The terms and conditions of the tender required bidders to have experience in completing a breakwater project of at least 400 meters as a single bidder or lead of a consortium within the last 20 years - The evaluation of tenders and qualification criteria should be consistent with the stipulations in the tender document [Paras 8.1.1.1, 8-14].

Decision:

Appeals allowed - The High Court's order is set aside - The Board's resolution to reject the bid and annul the tender process is upheld - The matter is remanded to the High Court to examine the eligibility of the respondent under the original tender terms [Para 49].