Writ Petition (Criminal) – Consolidation of FIRs – Petitioner seeking consolidation of multiple FIRs registered in different states – Contention that cases are unrelated and should be consolidated for a fair and speedy trial – Disagreement by Respondents – Examination of pending cases – Decision to consolidate FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh – Transfer of cases to the District of Devas, Madhya Pradesh – Jurisdictional courts directed to take immediate steps for consolidation and adjudication by one trial – Rejection of transfer of cases from Karnataka and Jharkhand to Madhya Pradesh. [Para 1-7]

Limitation Act – Applicability to proceedings under the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – Whether Article 116 of the Limitation Act 1963 applies – Held that the Jogighopa Act is not governed by the prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the appeal thereunder, from an order of the Commissioner of payments cannot be said to be an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the Legislature of the State of Assam has been categorical in limiting the application of the code to certain aspects of the Act only. Given that the Jogighopa Act allows for a Judge of the High Court to be the Commissioner of Payments and then categorically provides for an appeal to lie therefrom, Division Bench of the High Court further evidences the sui generis nature of the appeal procedure provided therein. [Para 30.1]

Maintainability of Appeal – In the absence of a prescribed period of time for filing an appeal – Governed by the principle of ‘reasonable time’ – Held that the appeal is not barred by time as it was filed within a reasonable time, considering the sequence of events and the absence of a specific period of limitation. [Para 30.2]

Decision – The appeal is allowed, and the file is restored to the docket of the concerned District Judge for further proceedings. The District Judge is directed to decide the matter possibly within a period of three months from the date of this judgment and order. [Para 31]

Caste Certificate Cancellation – Challenge to High Court’s decision – High Court upheld the cancellation of the caste certificate of respondent No. 15 and related land sale transactions under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Supreme Court examined the legality of High Court’s decision. [Para 1-2, 21-22]

Land Sale Transactions – Scheduled Tribes Land Protection Under West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Dispute regarding whether respondent No. 15, belonging to Scheduled Tribe community, required permission for land sales – Examination of various land transactions by late father of respondent No. 15 and subsequent sales by respondent No. 15. [Para 3-8, 26-28]

Caste Certificate Authenticity and Misrepresentation – Respondent No. 15’s caste certificate as ‘Chik Baraik’ (Scheduled Tribe) and subsequent affidavits claiming belonging to general caste – Investigation into the validity of caste certificate and related land sales. [Para 4-6, 11, 31-33]

Judicial Review of Caste Certificate Cancellation – Examination of the procedure followed for cancellation of respondent No. 15’s caste certificate – Actions by various authorities including SDO, District Magistrate, and Committee in handling the caste certificate issue. [Para 10-11, 13-18, 33-35]

Committee Jurisdiction and Retrospective Amendment – Analysis of Committee’s jurisdiction in caste certificate cancellation matters under Section 8A of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 – Consideration of whether the 2017 amendment to the Act is retrospective. [Para 38]

Final Decision and Rationale – Supreme Court’s decision allowing the appeal, setting aside High Court’s judgment – Detailed reasoning considering the conduct of respondents and undisputed facts about respondent No. 15’s late father not belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. [Para 39-41]

Certiorari Jurisdiction - Principles governing the issuance of a writ of certiorari - Examination of the scope and limitations of this jurisdiction - Discussion on the circumstances under which a writ of certiorari can be granted - Emphasis on the high prerogative nature of the writ and the need for a clear case to warrant its issuance. [Para 1, Para 4]

Issue of Applicability of Superannuation Age Extension – Whether the respondent, who served as a Researcher in the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), is entitled to claim the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years as applicable to AYUSH doctors working under the Ministry of AYUSH – High Court allowed the claim, but the appellants challenge this decision in appeal. [Para 1, 17]

Error of Law and Fact - Delineation between errors of law and errors of fact - Examination of instances where an error of law or fact may arise in the proceedings - Clarification that a mere error, whether of law or fact, is not sufficient to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction - Emphasis on errors that are manifest on the face of the record and those that touch upon issues of jurisdiction, legality, or fundamental fairness. [Para 9, Para 10, Para 13]

High Prerogative Writ - Understanding the nature and purpose of the writ of certiorari - Discussion on the distinction between correcting errors of law and being an appellate court - Clarification that certiorari does not transform the superior court into an appellate court to reevaluate factual findings or alternative interpretations of law made by lower tribunals. [Para 15, Para 17, Para 20]

Civil Appeal - Superannuation Age Dispute for AYUSH Doctors - Interpretation of Bye-Laws and Ministry Clarification - Appellant Council challenged High Court decision regarding superannuation age for AYUSH Doctors - Issue involves the application of Clause 34 and 35 of the Bye-Laws - Appellant Council is an autonomous body under the Ministry of AYUSH - Applicability of Fundamental Rules (FR) to determine superannuation age - Ministry's clarification letter - The central question revolves around whether the superannuation age for AYUSH Doctors under the Council should be 60 years or 65 years based on government rules. [Para 23-34]

Finality of Decisions - Recognition of the principle that findings on matters of fact and interpretation of law by inferior tribunals are generally final - Clarification that a writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every error committed by lower tribunals, but rather to address instances of jurisdictional errors, excesses, or failures to exercise jurisdiction. [Para 25, Para 28]

Jurisdictional Error - Discussion on errors relating to jurisdiction - Examination of situations where a tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction, enters into an inquiry it is not entitled to undertake, or deprives itself of jurisdiction through its own actions - Emphasis on the need to establish a clear jurisdictional error to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction. [Para 32, Para 34, Para 36]

Distinctive Errors - Differentiating between patent errors and errors requiring substantial analysis or debate - Clarification that errors that are self-evident, manifest, or apparent on the face of the proceedings are eligible for correction through certiorari - Recognition that complex or arguable errors are not suitable for such correction. [Para 42, Para 45, Para 48]

Appellate Role of Certiorari - Reiteration of the principle that certiorari is not a tool for reevaluating the correctness of decisions made by lower tribunals - Emphasis on the importance of adherence to procedural fairness, jurisdictional competence, and legality rather than re-examining factual or legal assessments. [Para 53, Para 55, Para 58]

Decision - Proper Application of Certiorari Principles:

The High Court's order dated 17.12.2020 in Writ Petition (C) No. 30620 of 2020 is deemed unsustainable in law and is set aside. The judgment reinforces the importance of confining tribunals within their jurisdiction - limited scope of a writ of certiorari, and reiterates the principle that certiorari is not intended for reevaluating lower tribunal decisions but for ensuring their legality and proper jurisdiction. [Para 78, 79, 80]

Income Tax Act – Deduction under Section 80 IA – Market value of electricity – Distinction between market value and contracted price – Assessee’s right to claim higher deduction based on market value as against contracted sale rate to State Electricity Board – Tribunal and High Court’s view upheld. [Para 15-34]

Depreciation on Assets – Written Down Value (WDV) method – Option exercised by assessee for WDV method in depreciation claim – Lack of specific mode of exercising option in statute – Tribunal and High Court’s decision in favor of assessee upheld. [Para 35-45]

Expenditure Claim – Payment to Consultant – Disallowance by Revenue based on initial statement of consultant – Subsequent retraction by consultant and lack of opportunity for cross-examination – Tribunal and High Court’s decision allowing expenditure claim upheld. [Para 46-52]

Carbon Credits – Nature of receipt – Tribunal’s classification of carbon credit as capital receipt – Revenue's non-contestation of this issue at High Court – Issue not addressed by Supreme Court. [Para 53-55]

Decision – Appeals by Revenue on issues related to deduction under Section 80 IA, depreciation method, and expenditure claim dismissed – Carbon credit issue left open for future adjudication. [Para 56]

Civil Appeal – Breach of Provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 – Challenge against the High Court's dismissal of appeal regarding the sale transaction and eviction order – Remand for fresh consideration on facts and law. [Para 2, 17]

Property Law – Partition and Sale of Ancestral Agricultural Land – Dispute over legality of sale transaction under the Act of 1947 – Controversy over partition and demarcation of land, and its classification as irrigated or dry land. [Para 4, 5, 12, 15]

Procedural Fairness – Lack of Proper Hearing in Original and Revisional Authorities – Absence of opportunity for appellant to present case on merits – Remand for fresh consideration with opportunities for both parties to adduce evidence. [Para 14, 17]

Legal Address – Discrepancy in Appellant's Address in Official Records – Impact on the service of notice and filing of revisions – Issue of impersonation in filing first revision. [Para 10, 14]

Administrative Law – Revisional Authority's Application of Res Judicata Principle – Challenge of its applicability in the context of previous orders and the need for a full hearing on merits. [Para 8, 14]

Judicial Review – High Court's Overlooking of Relevant Facts – Failure to consider executed sale agreement and its implications on the partition and demarcation of land – Requirement for detailed examination of evidence and legal issues. [Para 15, 16]

Decision – Setting aside of High Court's and authorities' orders – Restoration of case to original authority for fresh consideration – Directive for expeditious and reasoned decision within six months. [Para 17]

Custody Dispute - Child's Welfare Paramount - Challenge against High Court's custody order favoring respondent - Matrimonial dispute involving child custody - Importance of child’s welfare as the paramount consideration in such cases [Para 3, 7, 11].

Non-compliance with Court Orders - Appellant failed to comply with the order to hand over the child's custody to respondent - Child custody remained with appellant since the beginning [Para 4].

Child’s Preference and Welfare - Interaction with child in court - Child's reluctance to live with or talk to mother - Importance of child’s preference and psychological state in determining custody [Para 7, 9, 11].

Court's Effort in Facilitating Parent-Child Relationship - Request to Senior Advocate Ms. V. Mohana to counsel and interact with child and parents - Child agreed to monthly meetings and phone calls with mother, indicating gradual improvement in mother-child relationship [Para 8, 8.1, 9, 10].

Final Decision - Maintaining Status Quo with Conditional Visitation Rights - Considering child's age, preference, and welfare, custody remains with father - Respondent granted rights to call and monthly visits with child [Para 11, 12].

Regulatory Jurisdiction – Application for review based on the discovery of new evidence – Letter dated 24.05.2011 indicating a ‘new and important piece of evidence’ – Alleged error apparent in previous judgment regarding the calculation of Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB) – Contention that HRAB should be computed on the basis of ‘single till’ mechanism – Categorization of fuel throughput charge (FTC) as an aeronautical service – Prayer for modification of the judgment or remittal to the TDSAT for fresh consideration of HRAB computation – Court’s reluctance to re-appreciate evidence and facts when TDSAT has not opined on it – Direction to examine the impact of the new evidence on HRAB computation by the TDSAT – TDSAT to determine whether ‘single till’ mechanism should be the basis of computation – Parties to have a remedy before the Court in either situation. [Para 1-16]

Service Law - Falsification of Date of Birth Allegation – Dismissal of Ram Lal, a constable, for allegedly altering his date of birth in educational documents – Charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and departmental proceedings initiated. [Paras 2-4]

Departmental Enquiry and Criminal Trial – Inconsistencies in findings – Departmental enquiry proved charges, leading to dismissal; Criminal trial initially convicted but was later acquitted in appeal. [Paras 5-6, 23-24]

Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court scrutinized enquiry process, noting material evidence omission by Disciplinary Authority. Acknowledged limited scope of judicial review but found enquiry vitiated due to ignored crucial evidence. [Paras 11, 19-21]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and crucial evidence (original 8^th class marksheet) ignored in departmental enquiry, which showed no alteration in date of birth. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings – Examination of enquiry process, evidence, and witness statements – Acknowledgement of limited power of judicial review, yet consideration of material evidence ignored by Disciplinary Authority. [Paras 11, 19-21]

Acquittal in Criminal Case – Impact on departmental proceedings – Similarity in charges and evidence in both proceedings; the appellate judge in criminal case found prosecution evidence failed to prove the charge. [Paras 23-27]

Discrepancies in Evidence – No alteration found in the 8^th class marksheet, which was the basis for employment; discrepancies in 10^th class certificate irrelevant as employment was based on 8^th class qualification. [Paras 14, 17-18, 28-29]

Decision – Supreme Court’s reversal of disciplinary action – Reinstatement of appellant with 50% back wages, seniority, notional promotions, and other benefits. [Paras 30-32]