Electricity Act - Section 63 - Adoption of Tariff by Local Authority – Section 63 does not limit the right to apply for tariff adoption to distribution licensees or generating companies – Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), a local authority under Rule 15 of the SWM Rules 2016, is empowered to conduct transparent bidding and seek tariff adoption for WTE projects – Appeal allowed, DERC orders upheld [Paras 10, 27, 35-36].

Solid Waste Management Rules - Statutory Mandate – Rule 15 of the SWM Rules requires local authorities to construct, operate, and maintain WTE projects – Held: MCD’s actions comply with the statutory obligations for managing municipal solid waste – APTEL’s conclusion that MCD lacked authority overturned [Paras 20-22, 38].

Harmonious Construction - Section 63 and 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act – Section 63’s bidding process for tariff determination must be read alongside Section 86(1)(b), which mandates State Commissions to regulate power procurement and pricing – APTEL erred by narrowly interpreting Section 63 [Paras 39-42, 44-46].

National Tariff Policy and SWM Rules - Integration with Electricity Act – Rule 6.4 of the National Tariff Policy requires compulsory procurement of energy from WTE projects – SWM Rules and Electricity Act must be read in tandem – Held: MCD's tender process aligned with statutory and policy mandates [Paras 25-26, 49].

Decision – Appeals allowed – APTEL’s judgment set aside – DERC orders of 6th March 2023 and 7th March 2023 approving the project and tariff reinstated [Paras 58-59].

Tenancy Rights - Land Law – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Occupancy Rights – Manipulation of Proceedings – High Court’s Judgment in Writ Appeals Set Aside – Supreme Court Finds Non-Disclosure of Crucial Facts and Manipulation by Respondent No.1 – Restores Single Judge’s Judgment [Paras 1-14].

Occupancy Rights – Land Tribunal Proceedings – Rejection in LRF No.835/74-75 Final – Misrepresentation of Facts by Respondent No.1 – Tribunal’s Later Decision in LRF No.1114/74-75 Incorrectly Linked – Supreme Court Highlights Manipulative Changes in Names and Records by Respondents [Paras 8-13].

Procedural Lapses – Delay Condonation – Delay of 1378 Days in Writ Appeal No.206/2007 – Supreme Court Criticizes Non-Disclosure of Consequential Orders Passed After Single Judge’s Decision – Observes Abuse of Process by Respondent No.1 [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Integrity – Litigant’s Conduct – Non-Disclosure of Material Facts and Manipulative Changes in Records – Supreme Court Relies on Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India to Deny Relief to Respondent No.1 Due to Lack of Clean Hands [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed; judgments in Writ Appeals Nos.1708, 1705, 1707, 1709, 206, and 1738 of 2006 set aside – Judgments in the original Writ Petitions restored for further proceedings [Para 14].

Civil - Tariff-based bids - Scope of Section 63, Electricity Act – Applicability to Local Authorities – Expanded Interpretation Adopted – APTEL ruled that Section 63 could only be invoked by distribution licensees or generating companies – Held: Section 63 is not restricted to licensees or generating companies; local authorities implementing waste-to-energy projects under statutory obligations may also invoke its provisions. The interpretation by APTEL imposed unwarranted limitations and was set aside [Paras 27, 30-31, 56].

Harmonious Construction of Section 63 and Section 86(1)(b), Electricity Act – Regulatory Oversight Affirmed – DERC’s powers to regulate electricity procurement under Section 86(1)(b) include adopting tariffs determined under Section 63 – Held: The powers under these sections must be read in harmony to achieve statutory objectives. Restricting Section 63's application to specific entities undermines the broader regulatory role of State Commissions [Paras 41-43, 56].

Mandate under Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Local Authorities' Role in WTE Projects – Recognized – Municipal authorities are mandated to establish WTE projects for effective waste management under Rule 15 of SWM Rules – Held: MCD's actions complied with its statutory duty and were in public interest, emphasizing the role of local authorities in renewable energy initiatives [Paras 47-49].

Public Interest and Environmental Goals – Priority in WTE Projects – The WTE project addressed environmental and public health concerns in Delhi through renewable energy generation – Held: APTEL failed to appreciate the larger public interest served by the project, justifying regulatory approval [Paras 54-56].

Decision – Appeals allowed. APTEL’s judgment dated 31/08/2023 is quashed, and DERC’s orders dated 06/03/2023 and 07/03/2023 are affirmed [Paras 57-59].
 

Definition of Shamlat Deh – Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Amendment Analysis – Land classified as Shamlat Deh excludes certain lands under specific conditions, such as allotment on quasi-permanent basis to displaced persons or transfer by sale or any other manner before 09/07/1985 – Held: Leasehold rights do not qualify as "allotment" or "transfer," and lessees cannot claim statutory protection under the amended Act [Paras 4, 10-12].

Lease vs Allotment – Legal Distinction – Interpretation of Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act – Lease is a temporary grant for specified use and duration, distinct from allotment or transfer of ownership rights – Held: The petitioner’s claim based on leasehold possession cannot override the ownership rights of Gram Panchayat [Paras 8-9, 44].

Eviction Proceedings – Unauthorized Occupation – Section 7 of the Act – Unauthorized occupation of Shamlat Deh land post-expiry of lease term leads to eviction – Held: Authorities and High Court correctly ordered eviction of the petitioner for unauthorized occupation following lease expiry [Paras 14, 17].

Long-Drawn Litigations – Absence of Prejudice from Procedural Irregularities – Non-framing of issues does not vitiate proceedings if parties understood the dispute and led evidence – Held: Lack of issues framing did not prejudice the petitioner; eviction upheld [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed. The petitioner’s claim for protection under the amended Act is untenable. The land remains vested in the Gram Panchayat, and eviction was appropriately ordered [Paras 14, 17, 45-46].
 

Civil – MACT - Accident Claim - Reliance on Police Records – FIR and Chargesheet – Validity in Accident Claims – Tribunal and High Court relied on police records, including FIR and final report, to establish negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle – Held: Use of police records for determining negligence in motor accident claims is permissible, provided they support the claim on the preponderance of probabilities.

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities in Motor Accident Claims – Strict proof of negligence is not required; the standard is preponderance of probabilities – Held: Tribunal correctly applied this standard based on evidence, including police reports and eyewitness accounts.

Allegations of Connivance and Fraudulent Chargesheet – Unsupported by Evidence – Appellant's contention of connivance between claimants and police in preparing a fraudulent chargesheet was unsupported by evidence – Held: Such unsubstantiated allegations cannot undermine the Tribunal’s findings.

Concurrent Findings by Tribunal and High Court – Scope of Interference – Findings of fact based on evidence were upheld by both the Tribunal and High Court – Held: No perversity in findings; Supreme Court declines to interfere.

Decision – Appeal dismissed. Findings of the Tribunal and High Court affirmed, holding the insurer liable for compensation awarded to the claimants.
 

NDPS Act – Grant of Bail – Procedural Compliance under Section 52A – The High Court granted bail solely on the grounds of delayed compliance with Section 52A concerning disposal of seized narcotics – Held: The delay in compliance constitutes a procedural irregularity but not an illegality vitiating the trial. Bail under the NDPS Act requires compliance with Section 37’s twin conditions, which the High Court failed to evaluate, rendering its order untenable [Paras 8-10, 24-27, 40].

Judicial Interpretation – Literal vs. Liberal Approach in NDPS Cases – Provisions of the NDPS Act must be interpreted literally to uphold the stringent intent of the legislature, avoiding constructions that undermine its objectives. Procedural lapses like delayed compliance with Section 52A are insufficient grounds for bail without demonstrating prejudice to the accused [Paras 7, 39(i)-(ii)].

Statutory Presumptions – Section 54 NDPS Act – Burden on Accused – The statutory presumption of guilt under Section 54 remains unchallenged unless rebutted during trial. Granting bail merely due to procedural lapses disregards the substantive evidence, undermining the Act’s deterrent purpose [Paras 24-25].

Admissibility of Evidence – Procedural Irregularities in Search and Seizure – Illegally or irregularly conducted searches do not inherently render evidence inadmissible unless tampering or prejudice to the accused is proved. Properly documented primary evidence like panchnamas retains its evidentiary value [Paras 26-33].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The High Court’s order granting bail to the respondent was set aside. The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing adherence to the conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act. The respondent was granted an extended bail period of four weeks, within which the High Court was requested to decide the application.

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Factors to Consider – High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondents accused under Sections 302, 341, 323, 307, 504, and 34 of IPC – Appellant challenged the order, citing specific allegations in FIR and chargesheet indicating respondents’ involvement in setting the deceased ablaze with intent to kill – Supreme Court held: High Court failed to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, role of the accused, and materials on record – Anticipatory bail granted in a cryptic and mechanical manner without application of judicial mind – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 12-14].

Criminal Law – Murder – Anticipatory Bail Rejected – Respondents accused of pouring kerosene oil on the deceased and setting him on fire, resulting in death – Investigation found allegations true, with chargesheet naming all accused – Supreme Court held: Such heinous crimes necessitate careful judicial scrutiny before granting anticipatory bail – High Court’s order quashed, and respondents directed to surrender – Liberty granted to seek regular bail before Trial Court [Paras 4-7, 13-15].

Judicial Discretion – Grant of Bail – Application of Law – Supreme Court reiterated principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail – Nature and gravity of the offence, specific allegations, and evidence must guide judicial decisions – Cryptic or mechanical orders undermine justice delivery [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail set aside – Respondents directed to surrender within four weeks – Trial Court to consider applications for regular bail on their merits, uninfluenced by observations in this judgment [Para 15].
 

Civil Law - Limitation Act – Suit for Possession – Applicability of Article 58 vs. Article 65 – Suit originally filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction – Amendment at appellate stage to include recovery of possession – Appellants argued that the suit was barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act (three years from when the right to sue first accrued) – Held: The relief for possession is governed by Article 65, which allows a 12-year limitation period when possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff – Appellants did not plead or prove adverse possession – Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 10-18, 21, 31-32, 39].

Amendment of Pleadings – Doctrine of Relation Back – Plaintiff amended plaint during first appeal to include recovery of possession – Appellate court allowed the amendment – Held: Amendment of pleadings relates back to the date of the original suit unless directed otherwise – Appellate courts have the same powers as trial courts to allow amendments for effective adjudication – No mala fides or prejudice found in the amendment – Amendment was necessary to resolve the dispute and did not change the nature of the suit [Paras 23-30, 39].

Possession and Title – Adverse Possession Not Proved – Title of plaintiff established by concurrent findings of all courts – Appellants in possession since 1981-82 but failed to plead or prove adverse possession – Mere possession without hostile intent or overt acts does not constitute adverse possession – Plaintiff entitled to possession based on title [Paras 9, 18, 21, 31, 33-38].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court and First Appellate Court judgments upheld – Plaintiff’s suit for possession, based on title, held to be within the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Appellants directed to hand over possession of the suit property [Paras 31, 39].
 

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC – Petitioner driving a Qualis vehicle at high speed collided with a motorcycle, causing the death of the rider and injuries to the pillion – Trial Court convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to 6 months S.I. under Section 304A IPC and a fine of ₹1,000 under Section 279 IPC – Conviction upheld by First Appellate Court and High Court – Held: Evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and post-mortem report, established rash and negligent conduct – Road width of 24 feet negated petitioner’s claim of contributory negligence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-15, 17].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Allegations of Contradictions – Petitioner claimed that testimonies of PW2, PW3, and PW4 were contradictory and unreliable – Supreme Court held: Minor contradictions do not render testimonies untrustworthy – Testimonies corroborated by documentary evidence, including spot sketch and MVI report [Paras 7-12].

Section 304A IPC – Leniency in Sentencing – Petitioner pleaded for conversion of sentence to fine citing personal hardships – Supreme Court declined, holding that the petitioner’s actions caused the death of one person and injuries to another – No justification for leniency in the circumstances [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence of 6 months S.I. under Section 304A IPC and fine under Section 279 IPC upheld – No interference warranted by the Supreme Court [Paras 19-20].