Auction Sales – Public Auction – Finality – Auction held in 1998 with 45 participants – Appellant declared highest bidder and sale confirmed – Re-auction ordered by High Court after 23 years based on presumed higher property value criticized – Sanctity of public auction and finality of completed sales emphasized – Order of re-auction set aside [Paras 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.13].

Public Interest Litigation – Locus Standi – Challenge to auction by non-participant – High Court’s order for re-auction influenced by non-participants’ offers made post-auction deemed inappropriate – PIL by individuals with ulterior motives discouraged – Locus standi of objectors scrutinized – High Courts cautioned against entertaining PILs without substantial public interest [Paras 8.3, 8.4, 8.12].

Judicial Review – Delay and Finality – Revisiting auction sale after two decades deemed inappropriate – Value assessment should consider time of auction, not future escalations – Orders affecting settled transactions to maintain judicial prudence and uphold contractual obligations [Paras 8.7, 8.8, 8.11, 8.13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order for re-auction quashed – Sale in favor of appellant confirmed – Appellant directed to pay additional amount considering interest and inflation – Auction's original sale deed to be honored [Paras 9].

Service Law – Promotion – Eligibility Criteria – Appellant's promotion to B.T. Assistant (English) quashed by High Court based on Rule 14, which disqualifies teachers with simultaneous B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed degrees during the same academic year – Appellant obtained B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) degrees in different academic years – Rule 14 not applicable – High Court’s decision materially erred in interpreting eligibility criteria – Promotion restored [Paras 5, 5.1, 6, 7].

Interpretation of Rules – Academic Year – Degrees obtained in different academic years – Rule 14’s restriction specific to same academic year acquisitions – M.A. (Tamil) not equatable with B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed degrees – Appellant’s degrees acquired under distance education in distinct periods – Misapplication of Rule 14 by High Court [Paras 5, 5.1].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgments quashed – Promotion to B.T. Assistant (English) restored – Appellant's promotion order dated 06.08.2016 reinstated [Paras 6, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Supplementary Investigation Reports – Conjoint Reading – Initial report under Section 173(2) CrPC found prima facie case against appellants – Supplementary report under Section 173(8) concluded no case made out – Magistrate must consider both reports together – Vinay Tyagi (2013) and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (2019) cases emphasized cumulative reading of reports [Paras 10-12, 16].

Judicial Review – Revisional Jurisdiction – Magistrate’s Duty – Sessions Judge correctly set aside Magistrate's acceptance of supplementary report without considering both reports – Order for remand based on flawed Single Judge decision in Joseph (2018) counter to Supreme Court precedents – Remand necessary for Magistrate to reassess both reports holistically [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Protest Petitions – Impact – Dismissal of protest petition by complainant for non-prosecution does not invalidate requirement to consider supplementary report – Magistrate’s acceptance of final report without full review improper – Sessions Judge’s intervention justified [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – Magistrate to reassess original and supplementary reports per Vinay Tyagi and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya precedents – Magistrate directed to decide expeditiously within one month [Paras 16-17].

Constitutional Law – Gender Discrimination – Licensing Conditions – Conditions limiting the number of female performers in bars under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Licensing Rules, 1960 found to directly transgress Article 15(1) and 19(1)(g) – Justifications for the restriction aiming to protect women deemed to entomb their aspirations and curtail their employment choices – State duty to facilitate women's employment rather than stifle it emphasized – Impugned conditions on gender cap declared void – Overall limit of performers set at eight but gender composition to be flexible [Paras 32-33, 46-49].

Statutory Interpretation – Rule-Making Powers – Licensing authorities' powers to impose conditions under Act and Rules – Conditions to be reasonable and not violate fundamental rights – Imposition of gender-specific caps on performers not traceable to statutory provisions – Disproportionate restrictions without rational basis held unconstitutional [Paras 21-23, 31].

Judicial Precedents – Public Morality and Gender Discrimination – Reliance on previous judgments rejecting similar justifications for restrictions on women’s employment in establishments – Analysis of precedents emphasizing equality, non-discrimination, and the right to choose occupation – Applicability of standards from IHRA-I, IHRA-III, and Anuj Garg judgments reaffirmed [Paras 26-27, 42-44].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned conditions imposing gender cap on performers set aside – Conditions restricting number of performers to eight upheld, with no gender-specific restrictions – Licensing authorities directed to amend conditions accordingly [Paras 49].

Service Tax – Exemption – Job Work vs. Contract Labour – Appellant entered into agreements to provide personnel for various activities, claiming exemption from service tax under Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20 June 2012 – CESTAT held services were in the nature of contract labour and not job work – Agreement lacked specifications of job work and resembled contract labour agreement – Appeal dismissed – Exemption not applicable as services did not qualify as job work [Paras 3-7, 12-17].

Contract Interpretation – Nature of Agreement – Agreement between appellant and Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. involved supply of manpower rather than specific job work – Essential elements of a job work contract missing – Tribunal's interpretation upheld – Agreement primarily regulated manpower supply [Paras 12-17].

Legal Precedents – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act – Definition of contractor includes job workers and manpower suppliers – Appellant’s role as manpower supplier upheld by Tribunal – Relevant CESTAT decisions distinguished based on facts [Paras 14-15, 17].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s judgment affirmed – Services categorized as contract labour not eligible for service tax exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax [Paras 18-19].

Disciplinary Inquiries – Judicial Review – Scope – Judicial review of disciplinary inquiries conducted by departmental/appellate authorities is limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of natural justice principles – High Court's interference in domestic inquiry by setting aside punishment imposed on respondent for gross negligence in handling keys of cash/strong room unjustified – High Court's decision quashed – Disciplinary proceedings upheld [Paras 18-26].

Disciplinary Authority – Findings and Punishment – Inquiry officer found respondent guilty of negligence resulting in theft of Rs. 12 lakhs from the cash safe – Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal, modified by appellate authority to compulsory retirement and pay reduction – High Court’s intervention on factual inaccuracies deemed erroneous – Findings of inquiry officer supported by evidence [Paras 5-14, 19-25].

Procedural Fairness – Natural Justice – Respondent's claims of bias and non-supply of documents rejected – Inquiry officer provided relevant documents and allowed inspection of confidential records – No procedural lapses found – High Court's error in re-evaluating disciplinary findings without sufficient grounds highlighted [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing disciplinary proceedings set aside – Disciplinary actions against respondent upheld – No costs [Paras 26-27].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Scope of Observations – High Court made general observations beyond the scope of the writ petition regarding wrongful evaluation of bids and discrimination against Indian bidders – Supreme Court advises restraint in making unwarranted general observations not directly related to the case – Observations regarding representation to PMO ordered to be expunged [Paras 3-4].

Public Interest Litigation – Nature of Proceedings – High Court’s observations resembled a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) despite not being one – Supreme Court emphasizes the need for judicial restraint in non-PIL cases – Courts should focus on the specific controversy at hand [Paras 3-4].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – High Court’s observations directing petitioner to approach the Prime Minister’s Office expunged – High Courts advised to avoid making sweeping generalizations not warranted by the specific issues before them [Paras 4-5].

Constitutional Law – Policy Decision – Interference – Court would not interfere with policy decisions if the State demonstrates intelligible differentia in application and such differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved – Policy of Rajasthan to restrict bonus marks to employees within the State upheld as non-arbitrary [Paras 16, 22-23].

Administrative Law – Bonus Marks – Experience in Different States – Policy restricting bonus marks to those with experience in Rajasthan justified by unique topographical and operational challenges within the State – Experience in NHM/NRHM schemes outside Rajasthan not equated with local experience – Policy does not violate Article 14 [Paras 14-15, 19-21].

Judicial Precedents – Policy Discrimination – Precedent supports State's right to grant weightage for local experience in public employment – References to cases upholding similar policies for local governance and employment criteria [Paras 17-18, 23].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Policy restricting bonus marks upheld – No interference with the High Court’s decision [Paras 24-25].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – Telecom Services – Section 7B of the Telegraph Act provides for arbitration of disputes between telecom authorities and consumers – Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being a special and subsequent legislation, includes telecom services within its ambit – Existence of arbitration clause under the Telegraph Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum – Consumer Protection Act aims to provide additional remedies for consumers [Paras 5-19].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of Statutes – Consumer Rights – Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its successor, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, intended to protect consumer interests – Remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act are additional and not in derogation of other laws – Telecom services fall within the definition of 'service' under both the 1986 and 2019 Acts [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Judgment of NCDRC affirmed – Consumer forums have jurisdiction to entertain complaints related to telecom services despite the provision of arbitration under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act [Paras 21-23].