Environmental Law – Aravalli Hills – Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Land Notified under Sections 4 & 5 – Treated as Forest – Any non-forest use requires approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Applicants’ plea of exemption for constructions rejected – Court held that once land is notified and treated in government records as forest, it attracts restrictions of Forest (Conservation) Act – Prior Central Government approval mandatory [Paras 7-13, 20-21].

Development Permissions – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Exemption under Section 23 – Not Absolute – Conditions imposed in exemption not complied with – Show cause notice for withdrawal issued – Subsequent notification under Punjab Land Preservation Act overrides earlier exemptions – Applicants cannot rely on exemption to justify constructions [Paras 10, 12].

Construction Activities – Notification under Section 4, Punjab Land Preservation Act – Prohibition on clearing or breaking of land – Bar on fresh construction – Clause (g) exception applicable only to local inhabitants for domestic use – Not available to private developers selling plots across country – Development of plots amounts to prohibited activity [Paras 12-13].

Ecological Concerns – Aravalli Region – Reports of EPCA and Central Ground Water Board – Found violations of Court’s orders, evidence of large-scale constructions, degradation of land, and acute water scarcity – Aravalli Hills require protection at any cost – Sustainable development principle emphasised [Paras 15-19].

Precedent – Earlier Judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – Held that any area recorded as forest in government records is to be treated as forest irrespective of ownership – Applicants cannot resile from earlier stand where such land was consistently treated as forest by the State Forest Department – State cannot now claim earlier treatment was erroneous [Paras 7-9, 13].

Decision – Interlocutory Applications dismissed – Court reiterated that lands notified under Sections 4 & 5 of Punjab Land Preservation Act are forest for purposes of Forest (Conservation) Act – No construction permissible without compliance of statutory requirements – Applicants’ claims rejected [Para 21].

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 – Exemption Notification – Interpretation – Pentazocine (Fortwin) – Respondent pharma company granted exemption from price control till 31-10-1999 under para 25 DPCO, 1995 – Union sought recovery of alleged overcharge on sales made after 31-10-1999 – High Court held exemption applied to drugs manufactured by 31-10-1999 even if sold later – Held, exemption relates to manufacture, not sale – Price control attaches to manufactured drug; sale process beyond manufacturer’s control – Purposive construction requires exemption to cover stock manufactured during exemption period regardless of sale date – Appeal dismissed, High Court order upheld [Paras 23-28].

Statutory Interpretation – Exemption Notifications – Purposive Construction – Applied – Notification exempted “drug manufactured” up to specified date – Must be construed pragmatically to avoid absurdity of requiring sale also before expiry date – Exemption continues to apply to such stock until exhausted – Earlier decisions in Cynamide India, Prag Ice and Oil Mills and Panipat Coop. Sugar Mills distinguished – Principle from New India Assurance v. Nusli Wadia and Oriental Insurance v. Brij Mohan applied [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — Exemption held applicable to drugs manufactured up to 31 October 1999, even if sold thereafter — Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on Union of India.

Service Law – Promotion – Article 14 – Non-communication of ACR entries – Held arbitrary – Appellant denied promotion to post of Superintending Engineer as ACR graded “good” instead of “very good”, though not communicated – Held: Every entry in ACR (poor, fair, average, good, very good, outstanding) must be communicated within reasonable time to allow representation – Non-communication is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 – Office Memoranda restricting communication to adverse entries declared illegal – Orders of Gauhati High Court set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 9-20, 45-49].

Natural Justice – Expanding scope – Fairness and transparency in administration require communication of all ACR entries – Right to be considered for promotion is a legal right – Denial of opportunity to contest non-adverse but benchmark-affecting entry violates principles of fairness – Natural justice not rigid; content expands with constitutional mandate of non-arbitrariness [Paras 13, 26, 30-39].

Promotion – Benchmark requirement – Where benchmark is “very good”, even a single “good” entry operates as adverse and must be communicated – Phraseology irrelevant; effect on rights determines adverse character – Right to representation before DPC consideration recognized [Paras 10-11, 18].

State as Model Employer – Article 14 – State must act fairly toward employees – Non-communication of entries has civil consequences such as denial of promotion, pension, benefits – Communication of all entries boosts morale, ensures fairness and good governance [Paras 19-20, 24, 40].

Decision – Appeal allowed – “Good” entry of 1993-94 to be communicated to appellant within two months – Appellant permitted to make representation; authority to decide within two months – If upgraded, DPC to reconsider promotion retrospectively; if promoted, appellant entitled to higher pension, arrears with 8% interest – No costs [Paras 47-49].

Judicial Tenure – Tenure of Members of Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission – Not Perpetual – Constitution Permits Time-Bound Appointments – Petition challenged the removal and replacement of Judicial Commission members under Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 – Appellant contended members serve until no case is pending, claiming virtual perpetuity – Held: Tenure is not perpetual; members can be reconstituted “from time to time” under Sections 40 and 70 – Interpretation of statutory language must reflect constitutional principles and evolving practical realities – Perpetual tenure violates Articles 14 and 16 – Commission is not immune from periodic reconstitution [Paras 1, 27, 36-41, 49, 59-65].

Interpretation – Phrase “from time to time” in Statutes – Indicates Recurring Power – Not Fixed Tenure – Use of the phrase “from time to time” in Sections 40 and 70 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act implies recurring appointment authority – Literal interpretation that precludes new appointments until Commission is dissolved would lead to absurdity – Held: Past practice shows frequent reconstitution – No life-tenure contemplated – Doctrine of purposive interpretation applied [Paras 59-65].

Administrative Law – Power to Appoint Includes Power to Remove – General Clauses Act Applied – Appellant argued lack of statutory removal mechanism following declaration of Section 79(iv) as ultra vires – Held: Power to appoint includes power to remove – Reconstitution is permissible even without dissolution – Perpetuity would be ultra vires constitutional scheme [Paras 54-56].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 16, 310 – Public Office Cannot Be Held Indefinitely – Doctrine of Equality Before Law – Allowing indefinite tenure of Commission members would violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 – Also incompatible with Article 310’s framework on public employment – Constitution does not envisage office-holding in perpetuity [Paras 43-44, 61-62].

Delegation – Validity of Central Government’s Notification under Punjab Reorganisation Act – No Excessive Delegation – Challenge to 1978 notification whereby Centre authorised Punjab Government to exercise powers under the Act – Held: No excessive delegation – It was a valid nomination, not abdication – Sections 72 and 89 of the 1966 Act interpreted harmoniously – Central Government's direction was legal and necessary to ensure administrative continuity [Paras 67-69].

Mala Fides – Allegation of Malice Against State – No Factual Basis – Estoppel Applied – Appellant’s challenge to removal of Commission on grounds of mala fides rejected – Full Bench held there was no factual foundation – Appellant later accepted reappointment and hence estopped from challenging validity [Para 66].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed in Part and Allowed in Part – Commission Tenure Not Perpetual – Validity of Notifications Upheld – Supreme Court upheld the validity of reconstitution notifications – Rejected perpetual tenure – Upheld State’s power to reconstitute Judicial Commission from time to time – Civil Appeals 7024/2002 and 8171-8172/2003 dismissed; rest allowed – No costs [Para 70].

Service Law – Police Misconduct – Removal from Service – Respondent, a Sub-Inspector, lost ₹17,314 and a service revolver with ammunition while disobeying specific instructions to travel with departmental convoy – Departmental inquiry held charges proved – Competent authority ordered removal – Appellate authority and Single Judge of High Court upheld penalty – Division Bench interfered on ground of mitigating circumstances – Held: Proven misconduct was grave – Respondent held a post of trust and flouted operational orders – Loss involved public funds and official weapon – Removal from service appropriate – High Court erred in interfering with punishment without valid reasons [Paras 3–10]

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Punishment – Scope under Article 226 – High Court’s power to interfere with quantum of punishment is limited – Can only intervene when punishment is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience – No reasons recorded by Division Bench to justify interference – Mere invocation of mitigating factors without analysis insufficient – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing imposition of lesser punishment [Paras 8–9]

Proportionality – Role of Courts in Service Jurisprudence – While considering proportionality of disciplinary punishment, courts must evaluate nature of misconduct, position of delinquent officer, and consequences of misconduct – Respondent was part of a disciplined force entrusted with public money and arms – Misconduct had potential to endanger public safety – Interference by High Court unwarranted – Order of removal restored [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Division Bench of Gauhati High Court set aside – Order of removal from service passed by competent authority restored.

Environment – Diversion of forest land for highways, transmission lines, mining, and Commonwealth Games projects – Conditional clearances granted subject to CEC recommendations, NBWL conditions, FC Act approval, and NPV payments [Paras 6-8, 26, 40-44].

Forest Land Diversion – National Highway Expansion – Wildlife Sanctuary Land – Conditional Approval - NHAI sought use of 4.924 ha. forest land within Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary for widening NH-14 (Palanpur-Swaroopganj) – CEC recommended clearance subject to conditions including compliance with NBWL stipulations, deposit of 5% project cost (~Rs. 8.25 crores) for conservation, prohibition on labour camps/construction materials within sanctuary, sourcing material outside sanctuary, and FC Act approval – Held: Conditions accepted, project cleared subject to compliance [Paras 6-8].

Transmission Line Project – Forest and Sanctuary Land – Conditional Clearance - PGCIL sought use of 0.8694 ha. forest land within Peechi Vazani Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala for relocation of damaged 400 KV Udumalpet-Trichur tower – CEC recommended approval subject to FC Act clearance, minimum felling of trees, compliance with Chief Wildlife Warden’s conditions, and deposit of NPV – Held: Project permitted subject to compliance [Paras 40-44].

Mining Operations – Buffer Zone Condition – Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary, Gujarat – Permission with Restriction - Applications for mining near sanctuary objected to – Applicants claimed location beyond 2.5 km boundary – State Government directed to verify – Mining permitted only if beyond 2.5 km, subject to final orders in Buffer Zone matters [Para 26].

Commonwealth Games Projects – Party Impleadment – Delhi Infrastructure - Authority impleaded as respondent; notices issued; parties directed to file additional documents – Matters listed for further hearing [Paras 14-17].

Procedural Directions – Listing of Matters – Hydel and irrigation projects, public utility projects, transmission lines, road construction, hydroelectric projects, and mining ordered to be heard sequentially – Several IAs adjourned or referred for CEC comments – Interim stay in respect of certain entities continued [Paras 1-5, 9-39].

Decision:

Several projects cleared conditionally subject to compliance with CEC recommendations, NBWL conditions, FC Act approval, and NPV payments. Mining permission restricted subject to buffer zone verification. Commonwealth Games authority impleaded as respondent. Multiple IAs adjourned, notices issued, and CEC directed to file comments within fixed timelines.

Service Law – Suppression of Criminal Cases in Attestation Form – Probationer in RPF – Termination Upheld - Respondent appointed as probationary constable in RPF in 1993, suppressed pendency of criminal cases under IPC including Section 376 in attestation form – Services terminated during probation upon verification report – High Court quashed termination for being stigmatic and violative of natural justice – Held: Suppression of material facts itself justified discharge under Rules 57 and 67; termination was due to false declaration, not criminal involvement; probationary appointment tenuous and could be ended without enquiry – Integrity essential for uniformed service – Appeal allowed, writ petition dismissed [Paras 3, 5-8].

Employment in Uniformed Services – Higher Standard of Integrity – Principle Reaffirmed - Applicants for police or paramilitary service must demonstrate unimpeachable character; concealment of pending criminal cases in attestation forms amounts to deceit and forfeits right to appointment – Later acquittal or discharge immaterial as suppression vitiates appointment from inception [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed — High Court judgments set aside — Writ petition dismissed — Termination of respondent’s probationary service for suppression of criminal cases in attestation form held valid.

PIL - Motor Vehicles – High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) – Enforcement of Statutory Scheme – States directed to take final decision within six months – Petitioner sought implementation of Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India regarding mandatory use of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) under Rule 50 of CMV Rules – Grievance raised that despite judgment, most States and UTs failed to implement the scheme or cancelled tenders – Court noted that public safety and national security are underlying objectives – Held: States and Union Territories must take definitive decision on implementation of amended Rule 50 and HSRP scheme within six months – Decision must align with earlier judgment of the Court [Paras 1, 5, 6, 8, 9].

Public Interest Litigation – Commercial Interest Alleged – Court avoids ruling on maintainability – Respondents alleged petitioner was a proxy for private manufacturers aiming to secure commercial benefit under guise of public interest – Court declined to examine locus standi but emphasized that State action must reflect statutory and constitutional responsibility towards public safety [Paras 7–8].

Administrative Law – Implementation of Judicial Directives – Inaction or delay by State governments in executing centrally mandated schemes – Despite prior directions and detailed guidelines issued by the Union, several States failed to act or deviated from upheld tender norms – Court categorized States based on compliance status and recorded concern over delay – Urged all States and UTs to act in public interest without lethargy [Paras 5–6, 8–9].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of with direction to States and Union Territories to take decision on implementation of amended Rule 50 and HSRP scheme within six months – No order as to costs.

Constitutional Law – Writ - Article 14 – “One-man legislation” – Proviso to Section 11(1A), AIIMS (Amendment) Act, 2007 – Held unconstitutional – Amendment directed only against incumbent Director P. Venugopal, prematurely terminating his five-year tenure without justifiable reasons or safeguards – Such singling out constitutes naked discrimination, impermissible classification, and arbitrary deprivation of tenure rights – Proviso struck down as ultra vires Article 14 [Paras 6, 19-21, 30-32].

Service Law – Tenure Appointment – Director of AIIMS – Appointment is for fixed tenure of five years, not subject to premature termination except on justifiable grounds – Tenure distinct from superannuation; incumbent cannot be retired or removed prematurely by legislative device – Principle reaffirmed in Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India – Impugned proviso equating tenure curtailment with superannuation held erroneous [Paras 25-29].

Legislation – Validity – Article 13(2) – Any statutory provision violating fundamental rights void – Though legislature has power to regulate service conditions under Article 309, it cannot enact targeted provisions depriving a single individual of equal protection of law – Impugned proviso not based on intelligible differentia with rational nexus – Similar to vice-chancellor removal provision struck down in D.S. Reddy v. Chancellor, Osmania University – Hence unconstitutional [Paras 14-18, 31].

Judicial Review – Effect of prior High Court orders – Delhi High Court had recognized petitioner’s right to continue till July 2008 – Parliament’s amendment frustrated binding judicial directions – No non-obstante clause or validating Act included – Impugned proviso could not override prior mandamus and prohibition writs – Comparable to Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Proviso to Section 11(1A), AIIMS (Amendment) Act, 2007 struck down as ultra vires Article 14 – Petitioner restored as Director, AIIMS to complete tenure till 02/07/2008 – Entitled to pay and emoluments from date of termination – No order as to costs [Para 32].