Service Law – Appointment Denial – Candidate denied appointment on the sole ground of being tried for an offence under Section 498A IPC despite acquittal – High Court erred in denying appointment – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-9].

Acquittal and Employment – Previous trial under Section 498A IPC resulted in acquittal due to settlement – No suppression of facts by candidate – Employment denial solely on past trial deemed unjustified – High Court's reliance on Avtar Singh case misplaced as facts differ significantly [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Appellant to be appointed as Police Constable – Entitled to benefits from the date of actual appointment only [Para 9].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation decision to declare land acquisition lapsed due to non-tendering of compensation – Supreme Court held reliance unsustainable as Pune Municipal Corporation overruled by Indore Development Authority – Possession of land taken in 2012 and compensation deposited due to apportionment dispute – Appeal allowed, High Court judgment quashed [Paras 1-3].

Compensation and Possession – Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority clarified that non-deposit of compensation in court does not cause acquisition lapse – Possession taken and compensation tendered sufficient to avoid lapse – Acquisition proceedings not invalidated by non-deposit in court treasury [Paras 2-3].

Precedents Overruled – Pune Municipal Corporation and related decisions overruled by Indore Development Authority – Compensation tendering and possession taking evaluated under clarified legal standards – High Court decision based on overruled precedent set aside [Para 3].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – High Court judgment declaring acquisition lapse quashed – Possession and compensation actions upheld – No costs [Para 3].

Civil Procedure – Indigent Person Application – Trial Court and High Court rejected the application to sue as indigent persons, citing lack of cause of action and res judicata – Supreme Court upheld rejection under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC but granted appellants time to pay requisite court fees to proceed with the suit – Observations on res judicata and cause of action limited to indigent person application, not affecting merits of the suit [Paras 1-6].

Rejection Grounds – Cause of Action and Res Judicata – Order 33 Rule 5 CPC allows rejection of indigent person application if no cause of action or suit is barred by law – Prima facie findings of no cause of action and res judicata justify rejection – Appellants granted opportunity to pay court fees and pursue suit [Paras 6-6.5].

Procedure for Indigent Persons – On rejection of indigent person application, court may grant time for payment of court fees – Upon payment, suit deemed instituted on original application date – Defendants may file appropriate applications, including under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for plaint rejection [Paras 6.6-6.6].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Appellants granted four weeks to pay court fees – Suit deemed instituted on original application date – Observations on res judicata and cause of action confined to indigent person application – Defendants may seek plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC [Para 6.6].

Taxation – Rebate of Duty – Limitation Period – Appellant filed claims for rebate of duty paid on exported goods beyond the period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act – Supreme Court held that the limitation period of one year under Section 11B is applicable to rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules – The parent statute’s provisions cannot be overridden by subordinate legislation – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-15].

Rebate Claims – Procedural Requirements – Merely because Rule 18 and the relevant notification do not mention Section 11B does not mean the limitation period is inapplicable – The statutory provisions of Section 11B are applicable to rebate claims, and applications must be made within the stipulated one-year period from the relevant date [Paras 9-12].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Earlier Judgments – The Court distinguished the present case from previous rulings cited by the appellant, noting that the earlier decisions involved different contexts and provisions – Emphasis placed on maintaining the integrity of the statutory framework [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that the rebate claims were time-barred as they were filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act [Paras 14-15].

Constitutional Law – Transfer of Criminal Trial – Petitioners, being the daughter and wife of the deceased, sought transfer of trial and further investigation from Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad or New Delhi – Supreme Court held that the petitioners’ apprehensions of a biased trial and investigation due to the influence of state authorities and threats to key witnesses were reasonable – Fundamental right to fair trial under Article 21 upheld – Transfer of trial to CBI Special Court Hyderabad ordered to ensure justice is seen to be done [Paras 1-15].

Fair Trial – Witness Protection – Significant threats to witnesses and attempts to influence key testimonies noted – Witnesses granted protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fair and independent investigation free from external pressures [Paras 6-10, 13-15].

Judicial Fairness – Article 21 of the Constitution – Supreme Court reiterated that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done – Ensuring public confidence in the judicial system by transferring the trial to a neutral venue [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Trial transferred to CBI Special Court Hyderabad – CBI directed to complete the further investigation on the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence independently and unbiasedly [Paras 14-15].

Environmental Law – Felling of Trees – Aarey Forest – Permission sought for the felling of trees in Aarey Forest for the construction of a metro car depot – The Supreme Court permitted Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to apply to the Tree Authority for felling 84 trees needed for the shunting segment of the car depot project – Court emphasized the need for a balance between environmental concerns and public infrastructure projects, highlighting sustainable development [Paras 20-23].

Metro Project – Public Interest – The project involves significant public investment – Court noted that 95% of the project work had been completed and emphasized that substantial dislocation would occur if the project were halted – Court allowed the felling of additional trees necessary for the project, subject to the Tree Authority’s approval and compliance with environmental safeguards [Paras 21-23].

Government Decisions – Change in Stance – The State Government initially decided to relocate the car depot from Aarey to Kanjurmarg but later reverted to the original plan – Court acknowledged the Union Government’s concerns about operational and maintenance challenges at the alternative site – Court upheld the State Government’s revised decision to proceed with the Aarey site [Paras 9-11, 13-14].

Decision – IAs disposed of – MMRCL permitted to move the Tree Authority for permission to fell 84 trees – Tree Authority directed to make an independent decision, considering environmental conditions – Batch of petitions scheduled for final hearing on February 7, 2023 [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Defamation – Second Complaint – Appellant filed a second complaint identical to the first, alleging defamation by the respondents through media reports. The first complaint was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, and the dismissal was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court reiterated that a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable unless there are exceptional circumstances or new facts that were not available during the first complaint [Paras 1-20].

Section 499 IPC – Fourth Exception – The first complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the allegations fell under the fourth exception to Section 499 IPC, which pertains to expressing opinions in good faith. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the dismissal was based on a proper judicial assessment and could not be revisited through a second complaint [Paras 11-17].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Complaints – The High Court's decision to quash the second complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was upheld, emphasizing that revisiting the same facts through multiple complaints is an abuse of the judicial process [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, maintaining that the second complaint was not maintainable and the initial judicial assessment was valid. Liberty was granted to the appellant to seek appropriate remedies if new facts emerge in the future [Paras 20-21].

Pension Scheme – Applicability and Retrospective Implementation – Appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh against High Court's decision to grant revised pay structure and pensionary benefits to employees of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board) as per a new pension scheme brought into force from January 1, 1996 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting the legislative and regulatory framework under the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, which empowers the Board to frame Regulations for service conditions of its employees – The Court emphasized that statutory regulations framed by the Board under Section 95(1)(f) have the force of law and cannot be overridden by executive orders unless rules are framed by the State Government under Section 94(1)(nn) [Paras 25-30, 34].

Service Conditions – Regulatory Framework – The Supreme Court clarified that the appointment and service conditions of the Board's employees are not functions of the Board but are governed by the regulatory framework established under the Adhiniyam, 1965 – The Court distinguished between the power of the Board to appoint officers and servants and the power to determine their service conditions, which is vested in the Board subject to any rules framed by the State Government under Section 94(1)(nn) [Paras 25-30, 34].

Revised Pay Structure – Notional Application – The revised pay structure approved by the State Government in 2010 was applicable on a notional basis from January 1, 2006, but actual benefits were granted from January 14, 2010 – The Supreme Court upheld this approach, noting that the actual financial burden would be borne from the date of the Government's approval while ensuring that pension calculations reflect the notional pay revisions [Paras 40].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – State Government and Board directed to implement the new pension scheme and revised pay structure as per the established regulatory framework – No recovery proceedings against employees who have already received arrears [Paras 25-30, 34, 40-41].

Service Law – Regularization – Contractual Basis – The High Court ordered regularization of the respondent who had served as a driver on a contractual basis for over ten years – Supreme Court held that mere continuation in service does not entitle an employee to regularization, especially when the initial appointment was contractual and without a selection process – The policy decision to outsource services through a contractor was upheld – Appeal allowed [Paras 6.1-6.2].

Termination and Tender Process – The respondent's appointment was terminated following a completed tender process awarding the contract to an external agency – Supreme Court found the High Court erred in setting aside the termination order without a specific challenge to it – The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to policy decisions and contractual terms in public employment [Paras 6.1-6.2].

Judicial Precedents – The Court distinguished the present case from previous rulings on regularization, noting differences in facts and circumstances, such as the absence of a selection process and specific contractual terms limiting the respondent’s employment [Paras 6.3].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, including the order for regularization and the quashing of the termination – The writ petition by the respondent was dismissed – No cost orders [Paras 7].