Bail – UAPA – Reference to Larger Bench – Divergence in Application of Binding Precedent – Appellants charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 sought bail – During hearing, State counsel pointed to a perceived divergence among coordinate Benches in the application of the three-Judge Bench ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb – A coordinate Bench in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA expressed serious reservations on the manner Gulfisha Fatima applied K.A. Najeeb – Held: Where a coordinate Bench entertains reservations of a fundamental character about the application of a binding larger Bench decision, the matter must be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench – Registry directed accordingly [Paras 3, 14–16, 23, 25].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 vs. Section 43D(5) UAPA – Correct Approach to Bail – K.A. Najeeb holds that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) do not per se oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail where continued detention violates Part III – However, the ratio is neither a charter for indefinite incarceration nor a mathematical command that mere passage of time must automatically result in bail – Held: The true question is how Article 21 is to be applied in a statutory field where Parliament has consciously imposed bail restrictions in respect of offences affecting national security – Neither extreme — mechanical bail on delay alone nor absolute insistence on Section 43D(5) — is constitutionally permissible [Paras 7–8, 20–21].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Coordinate Bench Cannot Unsettle Earlier Coordinate Bench – A coordinate Bench may distinguish, explain, or express doubt about an earlier coordinate Bench decision, but where the doubt goes to the root of the legal principle applied — particularly regarding the application of a larger Bench decision — the matter cannot rest at the stage of criticism – A doubt expressed in emphatic terms is still a doubt and not a declaration of law – Held: Disagreement must be resolved by reference to a Bench of appropriate strength; uncertainty in matters touching personal liberty and national security is itself an institutional cost [Paras 15–18].

Interim Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Pending Reference – Appellants having undergone substantial incarceration and the trial not likely to conclude immediately, it would be unjust to make them suffer continued detention merely because an important question of law has arisen for authoritative settlement – Held: Interim bail granted for six months subject to stringent conditions including personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two local sureties, surrender of passport, restriction on leaving NCT of Delhi, prohibition on contacting prosecution witnesses, and fortnightly reporting to the Investigating Officer [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Leave granted – Matter referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench to settle the correct approach to bail under special statutes where Article 21, prolonged incarceration, and Section 43D(5) of UAPA intersect – Appellants directed to be released on interim bail for six months subject to conditions – Trial Court directed to proceed with utmost expedition.

Criminal Law - Clubbing of FIRs - Constitution of India - Article 32 - Modification of Order - Consonance of relief with reasoning - Miscellaneous Application moved for modification of judgment dated 18.05.2026 - Court previously observed that FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram) arose from the same set of allegations and same transaction as FIR No. 30/2019 (Delhi) - Operative part of original order mistakenly directed clubbing and transfer of earlier FIR No. 30/2019 to subsequent FIR No. 439/2024 - Respondents resisted modification contending accused cannot choose investigating agency - Court found the application did not seek to select an agency but sought to align the relief with the judicial reasoning - Held - Relief granted must be in consonance with reasoning contained in the body of the judgment - Operative part modified to direct that subsequent FIR No. 439/2024 at PS Sector 65 Gurugram be clubbed and transferred to previous FIR No. 30/2019 at PS Economic Offences Wing Delhi - [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law - Procedure - Correction of Operative Part - Where the court has directed clubbing of investigations on the ground of same transaction - the investigation in respect of an earlier FIR cannot be directed to be transferred to the place of a subsequent FIR if it contradicts the internal reasoning of the judgment - Held - Subsequent investigation must be clubbed with the previous FIR in terms of the recitals in the judgment - [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application allowed – Order dated 18.05.2026 modified – FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram) directed to be clubbed and transferred to FIR No. 30/2019 (Delhi).

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Concurrent Conviction – Strangulation – Suicide Note – Appellant, husband of deceased Rupali, convicted by Trial Court under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC for her murder within the matrimonial home – High Court dismissed appeal and affirmed conviction – On further appeal, Supreme Court finds complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant – Medical evidence establishing asphyxia due to strangulation, missing ornaments from the deceased's body, fresh injury marks on cheek, appellant's conduct of taking the body to a second private hospital after declaration of death, and failure to furnish explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Alleged suicide note found to have been written by the deceased under force – Held: No perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice in appreciation of evidence by Trial Court as affirmed by High Court – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 16, 19, 20, 26, 27].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation vs. Hanging – Multiple medical witnesses examined including PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-9 and PW-11 – Post-mortem revealing fracture of hyoid bone, fracture of trachea, three ligature marks encircling the neck, sub-conjunctival haemorrhage, cyanosed nails, and congested lungs – PW-11/Dr. Gore opined cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation – Missing ornaments (left earring, right leg anklet, toe-rings) held to be a strong circumstance inconsistent with hanging and consistent with strangulation – Held: Medical evidence conclusively establishes homicidal death by strangulation [Paras 16, 18].

Circumstantial Evidence – Panchsheel Principles – Burden of Explanation under Section 106 – Appellant failed to offer any satisfactory explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC regarding injury marks, conduct post-death, or presence at the scene – Court reiterates that where prosecution establishes facts from which reasonable inference can be drawn, failure of accused to explain facts within his special knowledge provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances – Held: Chain of circumstances fully established; failure of accused to discharge burden is a relevant additional factor – Principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) fully satisfied [Paras 15, 21, 22, 26].

Suicide Note – Fabricated Defence – Handwriting expert's opinion considered – Trial Court found that the alleged suicide chit was written by the deceased under coercion prior to strangulation – False defence of suicide projected through planted note – Held: Fabricated note constitutes an additional circumstance against the appellant [Para 20].

Article 136 – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings – This Court will not re-appreciate evidence where concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court do not disclose manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice – Absence of proved motive not fatal where chain of circumstances is complete – Held: No ground for interference [Paras 14, 23, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC as affirmed by the High Court upheld – Appellant at liberty to apply for premature release as per State policy [Paras 27, 28].

Service Law – Regularization of Muster Roll and Work Charged Workers – Article 14 of the Constitution – Cabinet Decision dated 22nd July, 2005 – Appellants engaged as Muster Roll/Work Charged workers prior to 1st April, 1993 and rendering continuous service for decades – State regularized nearly 30,000 similarly placed workers pursuant to Cabinet decision of 2005 – Appellants excluded solely due to clerical errors and administrative lapses of the State – Division Bench set aside Single Judge's direction for regularization holding that employees were not appointed against sanctioned posts and Umadevi barred regularization – Held: Appellants' claim is not founded on the one-time exception under Para 53 of Umadevi but on the Cabinet decision of 2005 itself, under which similarly placed employees were regularized – Denial of same benefit to appellants without any cogent distinction amounts to treating equals unequally, violating Article 14 – Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 54-63, 78-79].

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi – Scope and Applicability – Para 53 – Irregular vs. Illegal Appointments – Division Bench held that since appellants were not appointed against sanctioned posts, one-time exception under Para 53 of Umadevi was inapplicable – Held: Division Bench misapplied Umadevi; appellants were not invoking Para 53 but seeking parity under a pre-existing Cabinet policy that predates Umadevi and was acted upon – Umadevi does not impose an absolute embargo against all forms of regularization and cannot be mechanically invoked to deny relief to long-serving employees performing essential and recurring governmental functions – Distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments must be kept in view [Paras 55-59, 73-78].

State as Model Employer – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Approbate and Reprobate – State, through affidavits of Chief Secretary and senior officers, gave categorical undertakings before High Court that policy for regularization of left-out workers was under active consideration and would be implemented – Relying on such representations, High Court passed directions for consequential action – State thereafter filed Miscellaneous Application seeking Court's permission to implement its own policy, citing Umadevi as a hurdle, and subsequently issued 2012 O.M. foreclosing all further regularization – Held: State was fully aware of Umadevi when undertakings were furnished; it cannot approbate and reprobate – Undertakings recorded by a Court are solemn representations and not casual statements – 2012 O.M. effectively defeats and dilutes the Cabinet decision of 2005 – Conduct inconsistent with obligations of a model employer – Legitimate expectation clearly arose in favour of appellants [Paras 65-70].

Regularization – Executive Function – Court's Role – No Requirement to Seek Judicial Permission – State sought leave of High Court to implement its own Cabinet decision on ground of legal embargo under Umadevi – Held: Regularization, where permissible in law, is an executive function within the domain of policy and administration; Courts do not grant prior approval to executive decisions – Seeking such permission amounts to unwarranted surrender of executive authority – State was under obligation to act in furtherance of its own declared policy without seeking judicial sanction [Paras 71-72].

Work Charged Employees – Distinct Class – Observations Without Hearing – Civil Appeals No. 4519 and 4520 of 2025 – Division Bench, while adjudicating claims of Muster Roll and Casual workers, passed adverse observations against Work Charged employees treating them at par with Muster Roll workers without independently examining their distinct legal and factual status and without impleading the appellant-association or hearing them – Held: No adverse finding can be recorded against a class of persons without affording them an opportunity of hearing – Observations in Para 23 of impugned judgment cannot prejudice or foreclose independent claims of Work Charged employees – Members of appellant-association at liberty to agitate claims for pensionary and other benefits before State Government [Paras 91-97].

Muster Roll Workers – Pensionary Benefits – Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 2025 – Appellants engaged between 1993 and 1995 as Muster Roll workers in ferry services – Extended grade pay, dearness allowance and other service benefits on par with regular employees but denied pension – State, in meeting dated 22nd September, 2023, resolved to forward proposal to Finance Department for extending pensionary benefits but failed to act – High Court dismissed writ petition relying on the impugned Division Bench judgment which has now been set aside – Held: Impugned order of dismissal cannot be sustained – Appellants at liberty to agitate claims for pensionary benefits before appropriate authority in accordance with law and applicable policy framework [Paras 100-106].

Decision: Civil Appeals No. 4514-4518 of 2025 allowed – Impugned Division Bench judgment dated 8th June, 2017 set aside – Single Judge's judgment dated 20th December, 2013 affirmed – Appellants to be treated as regularized from the date similarly placed 30,000 employees were regularized under the Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 – State directed to identify eligible appellants, create supernumerary posts where necessary, and extend all consequential benefits including pay fixation, continuity of service, pension, gratuity and terminal dues – Retired appellants to receive notional regularization with monetary benefits – Deceased appellants' benefits to be released to legal heirs – Entire exercise to be completed within one year – Civil Appeals No. 4519 and 4520 of 2025 disposed of – Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 2025 disposed of.

Service Law – University – Disciplinary Jurisdiction – First Registrar – Transitional Provisions – Section 46(b) of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 – First Registrar appointed on probation for one year on 01.03.2019 on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor with approval of the Visitor/President of India – Services terminated during probation on 08/09.01.2020 – Division Bench found earlier termination stigmatic and remitted matter to University – Upon reinstatement, First Registrar placed under suspension, charges framed, enquiry conducted, and services terminated by communication dated 27.04.2022 with approval of the Visitor – Division Bench, by impugned order, held that Visitor had no role in disciplinary proceedings and quashed the termination – Held: Section 46(b), being a transitional provision, exhausts itself upon exercise; power to appoint the First Registrar vested in the Visitor – Section 16 of the General Clauses Act provides that authority having power to make appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss the person so appointed – Visitor, being the appointing authority of the First Registrar, was competent to take disciplinary action; exercise of power by the Visitor was just and proper – Finding of Division Bench that Visitor lacked jurisdiction not sustained [Paras 21-28].

Transitional Provisions – Nature and Scope – Section 46 of the Act – Section 46 is a transitional provision applicable to the First Chancellor, First Vice Chancellor, First Registrar and First Finance Officer – Function of a transitional provision is to make special provision for the application of legislation to circumstances existing when the legislation comes into force – Its operation is temporary and becomes spent when past circumstances with which it is designed to deal have been addressed – Power under Section 46(b) exhausts itself upon being exercised by making an appointment – The First Registrar's appointment, discipline and removal must therefore be read in the light of Section 46(b) and Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, and not merely under Statute 28(1) which governs the regular Registrar appointed by the Executive Council [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Finding of Division Bench that Visitor had no jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings set aside – However, having regard to expiry of the term of appointment of the First Registrar and repeated rounds of litigation, operative directions issued by the High Court not interfered with – No order as to costs.

Succession Law – Validity of Will – Proof of Execution – Attesting Witness – Testator B. Sheena Nairi executed a Will dated 15.05.1983 bequeathing all plaint schedule properties to his sister Laxmi Nairthy (Respondent No. 1) – Wife and children of the testator (Appellants) challenged the Will as false and fabricated – Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently upheld the Will – On further appeal, Supreme Court holds that the Will was duly proved through the testimony of attesting witness B. Jagannatha Nairi (PW2), who categorically deposed that the testator executed the Will in his presence and that both signed in the presence of each other – Principles governing proof of execution of a Will under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act discussed and applied – Held: Will validly proved; concurrent findings warrant no interference [Paras 27–30, 39].

Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of Natural Heirs – Mere exclusion of wife and children from a Will does not, by itself, constitute a suspicious circumstance vitiating the Will – The whole purpose of executing a Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession – Suspicious circumstances must be real, germane and valid, not merely the fantasy of a doubting mind – In the present case, the Will itself recorded that the testator had already given enough to his wife and children residing at Bombay – Held: Exclusion of natural heirs without more is insufficient to invalidate the Will [Paras 32–34].

Delay in Producing Will – Mutation Entries – Contention of seven-year delay in producing the Will rejected – Plaintiff had given a representation to the Tehsildar, Udupi on 10.02.1984 disclosing execution of the Will, supported by postal certificate – Mutation entries obtained by Appellants confer no title and are effected only for fiscal purposes – Non-registration of the Will has no significant bearing on its validity – Held: No unexplained delay; mutation and non-registration do not affect the Plaintiff's title under the Will [Para 31].

Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Substantial Compliance – Contention that First Appellate Court failed to frame proper points of determination rejected – Mere non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 does not vitiate a judgment if there is substantial compliance and justice has not suffered – Where the appellate court has considered and discussed the entire evidence in detail and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, absence of formally framed points does not render the judgment void – Held: First Appellate Court's judgment does not suffer from illegality [Paras 35–37].

Evidentiary Value of Affidavits – Affidavits filed by attesting witnesses purporting to deny execution of the Will cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless the Court passes an order under Order XIX CPC and the deponent is available for cross-examination – Affidavits filed even prior to the written statement, without any notice from the Court, are suspect and cannot be relied upon – Held: Affidavits of attesting witnesses denying the Will are of no evidentiary value [Para 38].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment of the High Court affirmed – Concurrent findings of all Courts upholding the validity of the Will do not warrant interference [Paras 39–40].

Criminal Law - Writ Jurisdiction – Article 32 – Discretionary Relief – Non-Availing of Remedies – Petitioners filed writ petition under Article 32 seeking FIR registration, protection, and CBI transfer arising from family disputes over property and cremation of their deceased father – High Court of Orissa, in suo motu PIL, had directed restoration of land, police protection, and liberty to apply for discharge in pending criminal cases – Petitioners failed to avail any of these remedies despite repeated counseling by Amicus Curiae and opportunities granted by this Court – Held: Article 32 jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised where petitioners have failed to avail remedies accorded by the High Court and have not cooperated with relief extended by the Court and State [Paras 8, 19–20].

FIR – Transfer of Investigation to CBI – No FIR Registered – No Occasion for Transfer – Petitioners sought transfer of investigation to CBI – Held: Since no FIR has been registered at the instance of the petitioners, there is no police action or investigation, and consequently no occasion for considering transfer of investigation to CBI – Petitioners have the remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC/Section 175(3) BNSS [Paras 17–18].

State Relief – Non-Cooperation by Petitioners – Accommodation and Medical Treatment Refused – District Magistrate, Central Delhi, arranged suitable accommodation and medical appointments for the petitioners acting on directions of this Court – Petitioners refused accommodation and declined to appear before doctors despite multiple arrangements – Crime Branch inquiry found petitioners' father died a natural death, petitioners were never assaulted, and the principal cause of dispute was social boycott arising from elder sister's inter-caste marriage – Held: Petitioners are not aware of what they actually want and have refused every form of assistance offered in their interest [Paras 14–18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Other remedies, including those permitted by the High Court, left open to the petitioners – Pending applications disposed of.

Urban Planning – Transferable Development Rights – Additional Amenity TDR – Section 126(1)(b) MRTP Act – Landowner surrendered land reserved for garden under the Development Plan to the Corporation and received TDR against the land area – Landowner also developed the garden at its own cost but had signed an LOI, Undertaking and Maintenance Agreement stipulating it would not claim additional amenity TDR – Corporation rejected claim for additional amenity TDR citing contractual waiver, delay of 17 years, supersession of DCR 1991 by DCPR 2034, and non-amenity character of the garden – High Court allowed the writ petition – Held: Corporation's appeal dismissed; Landowner entitled to additional amenity TDR under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act [Paras 2–4, 38–71].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Statutory Compensation – Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act provides a two-fold compensation: TDR against land surrendered and additional TDR against development or construction of amenity on the surrendered land – Such compensation is a manifestation of the right to property under Article 300A – Once fair compensation is prescribed by statute, no deprivation of land without strict compliance thereof is permissible – State cannot contractually derogate from the statutory right of the landowner to receive fair compensation [Paras 41–44].

Waiver – Contracting Out of Statute – Inequal Bargaining Power – Corporation portrayed the condition of non-claim of additional amenity TDR as a pre-requisite for grant of DRC against the land itself – Held: Statutory right to compensation under Section 126(1)(b) cannot be waived by contractual conditions imposed by the acquiring authority, particularly where there is inherent inequality of bargaining power between the authority and the landowner – What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly – LOI, Undertaking and Maintenance Agreement cannot override the statutory scheme [Paras 43–51, 57].

Maintenance Agreement – Independent Transaction – The Corporation itself had pleaded in its counter affidavit before the High Court that the entitlement to TDR and the grant of garden on adoption basis were two separate transactions having nothing to do with each other – Held: High Court erred in holding that the right to maintenance was in lieu of the right to additional amenity TDR; the maintenance agreement is entirely independent of the statutory right to compensation under Section 126(1)(b) – Alleged misuse of the garden cannot affect the Landowner's statutory right to fair compensation [Paras 52–57, 70].

Delay and Laches – Compensation Claims – Continuing Cause of Action – Claim for additional amenity TDR made approximately 17 years after surrender of land – Held: Delay and laches cannot defeat a claim for statutory compensation against acquisition of land – Duty is cast on the State to pay compensation even without a representation or request by the landowner – No third-party rights shown to have been created – Corporation has not demonstrated prejudice on account of delay – Distinction drawn between delay in challenging acquisition proceedings and delay in seeking fair compensation; only the former may attract non-condonable laches [Paras 58–66].

Applicable Regulations – DCR 1991 vs DCPR 2034 – Right to receive additional amenity TDR crystallised on the date of surrender of land in 2002 when DCR 1991 was in force – DCPR 2034 which came into force in 2018 cannot be applied to extinguish rights that had already accrued – T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member held inapplicable on facts [Paras 58].

Nature of Amenity – Garden – 'Garden' falls within the definition of 'amenity' under Section 2(2) of the MRTP Act and Regulation 2(7) of the DCR 1991 – Corporation itself certified completion of the garden and made its development a pre-requisite for grant of DRC – Corporation estopped from raising at a late stage a plea that the garden was not an amenity, which was neither part of the rejection order nor the counter affidavit – Development of amenity prior to formal surrender cannot disentitle the landowner from claiming additional TDR [Paras 67–69].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's order allowing the Landowner's claim for additional amenity TDR under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act upheld – Corporation directed to comply with directions of the High Court within two months.

Electricity Law – Declared Capacity – Misdeclaration – Strict Liability – Distinction from Gaming – Appellant-generating station (TSPL) found by PSLDC to have failed to demonstrate its Declared Capacity (DC) on four days in January 2017 upon notice issued under the Punjab State Grid Code, 2013 – SERC affirmed misdeclaration and imposed penalty – APTEL reversed, holding no time limit for demonstration and requiring proof of intent – Supreme Court sets aside APTEL order and restores SERC order – Held: Failure to demonstrate declared capability under Regulation 11.3.13 invites strict liability and does not require mens rea, deliberate intention, or motive to make money; those ingredients are sine qua non only for gaming under Regulations 11.3.4 and 11.3.12 [Paras 20–22, 31–32].

Gaming vs. Demonstration of Declared Capacity vs. Deviation – Three Distinct Concepts – Gaming defined as intentional misdeclaration of a parameter to make undue commercial gain, requiring mens rea, illegal enrichment, and inquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice – Demonstration of declared capability under Regulation 11.3.13 is a standalone provision attracting strict liability upon failure to achieve declared capacity within the 4th time block from receipt of notice – Deviation simpliciter, governed by DSM Regulations, constitutes neither gaming nor misdeclaration for failure to demonstrate DC – A failure to demonstrate DC does not by itself constitute gaming, though both may co-exist – Held: The three concepts are distinct and must not be conflated [Paras 19–20, 24–25, 27].

Time Block for Demonstration – 4th Time Block Applicable – APTEL's finding that no time limit is prescribed for demonstrating DC rejected – Regulation 11.5(xi) mandates that revised schedules become effective from the 4th time block; this provision, read with Regulation 11.3.13, governs demonstration of declared capability – Demonstration must be achieved within the 4th time block from receipt of the demonstration notice, the time block of receipt being counted as the first – Held: The 4th time block rule is applicable to demonstration of DC and is not confined to mere revision of schedules [Paras 22–23, 31].

Ramp Rate – Not Determinative – Ramp up/ramp down rate of 1% per minute declared by the SGS under Regulation 5.3.8 is a recommended normative value under 'Governor Action' and is not the applicable measure for demonstration of declared capability under Regulation 11.3.13 – DSM Regulations also inapplicable to demonstration of DC or gaming [Paras 26–27].

Factual Analysis – Misdeclaration Established on All Four Days – On 15.01.2017, declared capacity revised upward by SGS to 1841.40 MW during the day; not achieved even in the 4th time block after demonstration notice – On 17.01.2017, SGS sought downward revision of declared capacity within the 2nd time block after receipt of demonstration notice, reducing it to 250 MW and subsequently to 150 MW – On 24.01.2017, declared capacity of 1650 MW not achieved at the 4th time block or at any subsequent time – On 31.01.2017, declared capacity not achieved at the 4th time block from the first notice, achieved only at the 7th time block – Misdeclaration established unequivocally on all four dates [Paras 33–36].

Penalty – Civil Liability – Mens Rea Immaterial – Obligation of SGS to generate power in accordance with declared capability flows from the Power Purchase Agreement, a civil obligation – Penalty under Regulation 11.3.13 arises from breach of a civil obligation and its imposition is imperative upon failure to demonstrate DC, without requirement of any finding of guilty intent or illegal profiteering – Held: The mere use of the word 'penalty' does not make proceedings criminal or quasi-criminal; mens rea is not a necessary ingredient where breach of a civil obligation is established [Para 32].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of APTEL set aside – Order of SERC restored with modification that the finding equating Regulation 11.3.13 with gaming under Regulations 11.3.4 and 11.3.12, and the requirement of deliberate intention and motive to make money for imposing penalty under Regulation 11.3.13, are set aside – Penalty and consequential interest liability affirmed – Surcharge paid by PSPCL on bills consequent upon deductions reversed by APTEL to be refunded by SGS with interest/surcharge at the same rate.