Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Limited Scope – Held, policy decisions are open for judicial review by the Court for a very limited purpose – Court can interfere if the policy is absolutely capricious, totally arbitrary, or not informed by reasons – Petitioners sought mandamus to direct respondents to provide an additional attempt for CSE 2020, which was denied [Paras 43-45].

Civil Services Examination – Additional Attempt – Policy Decision – Petitioners contended that COVID-19 pandemic impeded their preparation, seeking an extra attempt as a matter of right – Supreme Court held that such claims do not merit judicial intervention as policy decisions rest with the executive – Previous relaxations granted in different circumstances do not establish a precedent for the current situation [Paras 13-18, 41-45].

Discretion of Executive – Relaxation Not Permissible – Court acknowledged the unprecedented impact of the pandemic but reiterated that relaxation in attempts or age limits not provided under the scheme of rules is beyond judicial intervention – Executive discretion in policy matters must be exercised based on prevailing circumstances [Paras 32-37, 48].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to additional attempt for CSE 2020 – Court refrained from exercising plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief not permissible under the scheme of rules [Paras 46-50].

Medical Education – Establishment of Medical College – Essentiality Certificate (EC) – State Government’s power to withdraw EC – Held, the State Government can withdraw the EC if obtained by fraud or if the foundational circumstances for its grant vanish or for similar reasons – Appellant failed to remove deficiencies since 2004 despite multiple opportunities – EC withdrawal justified [Paras 20-24].

Grant of Essentiality Certificate – Not a Ministerial Act – Issuance of EC involves assessment of feasibility and infrastructure by the State Government – Court held grant of EC and CoA is not merely a ministerial function but involves substantial scrutiny to ensure compliance with Medical Council of India norms – Appellant’s contention that EC grant is ministerial rejected [Paras 19-21].

Inspection and Deficiencies – Persistent Lack of Facilities – Multiple inspections revealed severe deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty, and clinical material – Findings of the inspection teams indicated the appellant’s hospital lacked the necessary facilities to run a medical college – Appellant’s compliance reports were insufficient to address the noted deficiencies [Paras 26-28].

Adherence to Time Schedule – Importance of Compliance – Court emphasized strict adherence to the time schedule prescribed for establishing new medical colleges – Appellant’s applications for the academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 were time-barred – No relief could be granted for the lapsed academic sessions [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Directions issued to the appellant to apply afresh for subsequent academic years after rectifying deficiencies – Authorities directed to consider fresh applications as per the prescribed procedures [Paras 33-34].

Municipal Law – Multi-Member Wards – Constitutionality – Challenge to provisions allowing multiple members to be elected from a single ward in Gujarat – Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution do not limit to one member per ward – Provisions of Sections 5(3)(iii)(a), 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Rules 4 and 5 of 1994 Rules, and Rule 2(b) of 2007 Rules not ultra vires Articles 243R and 243S – Multi-member wards found to enhance representation and empowerment of women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes [Paras 22-70].

Representation – Empowerment of Weaker Sections – Multi-member wards ensure fair representation and empowerment of weaker sections – Reservation of seats for women, SC, ST in multi-member wards increases their participation and voice in municipal governance [Paras 65-70].

Administrative Procedure – Validity of Notification – Issuance of notification amending ward rules before the expiry of the objection period – Notification dated 04.12.2014 issued without waiting for 30 days from draft notification dated 27.11.2014 – Court held the issuance of notification within the stipulated period without considering objections as illegal [Paras 71-74].

Decision – Appeals and writ petition disposed of – Provisions for multi-member wards upheld as constitutional – Directions issued for proper procedure to be followed in issuing notifications for ward delimitation and reserved seat allocation [Para 74].

Criminal Procedure – Default Bail – Computation of Period – Appeals against Bombay High Court order granting default bail – Respondents arrested for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Issue of whether the remand day should be included or excluded in the computation of the 60-day period for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC – Conflicting judicial opinions noted – Some judgments exclude the remand day, while others include it [Paras 1-7].

Judicial Conundrum – Need for Authoritative Pronouncement – Conflicting views on the computation of remand period under Section 167(2) CrPC – References made to various cases – Importance of uniform application of law emphasized – Matter referred to a larger Bench for resolution [Paras 8-10].

Interim Relief – Stay of High Court’s Order – High Court's order stayed earlier on 03.09.2020 – Respondents seeking benefit of High Court’s bail order – Case to be placed before a three-judge bench for interim relief consideration [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals directed to be placed before a larger Bench – Interim relief to be considered by a three-judge bench [Para 10-11].

Insolvency Law – Contempt Proceedings – Allegations against DVI for frustrating resolution process post-CoC approval – Legal rights exercise by DVI not constituting contempt – DVI's actions seen as lacking bona fides – Despite no wilful breach, DVI's conduct in setting up untenable pleas criticised – Supreme Court declined to invoke contempt jurisdiction but directed NCLAT to resolve the appeal expeditiously [Paras 31-38].

Rectification of Order – DVI's plea for rectification of Supreme Court's order dated 18 June 2020 – Court rejected claims of factual misconceptions – DVI's actions post-CoC approval indicated an attempt to resile from commitments – Application for rectification dismissed [Paras 24-29].

Legal Rights and Contempt – Exercise of appellate remedies under Section 61 IBC by DVI deemed not contemptuous – Plea of force majeure by DVI post-Supreme Court's order seen as obstructive but within legal bounds – Contempt jurisdiction to be exercised circumspectly, not warranted in this instance [Paras 33-35].

Decision – Rectification application dismissed – Contempt petition dismissed – DVI precluded from setting up plea of force majeure in pending NCLAT proceedings – NCLAT directed to dispose of appeal within one month [Para 39].

Companies Act – Award of Interest – Appeals against NCLAT's order reducing interest from 9% to 6% – CLB appointed valuer to determine fair share price – NCLT directed sale of shares at determined value with 9% interest from 01.04.2007 – NCLAT reduced interest to 6% without reasons – Supreme Court reinstated 9% interest, holding that the company utilized appellant’s funds for business – Shareholder’s argument of profit percentage dismissed – NCLAT's suo moto removal of the company from buy-back responsibility reversed – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 1-12].

Interest on Share Valuation – Equity and Fairness – Interest at 9% upheld due to prolonged utilization of funds by the company – NCLT's interest commencement date from filing of petition justified – Supreme Court rejected further reduction of interest or alternate profit-sharing approach [Paras 8-10].

NCLAT Suo Moto Decisions – Procedural Fairness – NCLAT erred in raising and deciding new points suo moto without hearing affected parties – Supreme Court restored initial NCLT order including company’s role in share buy-back [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Civil Appeals No. 5087, 8907, and 8912 of 2019 allowed to the extent indicated – Civil Appeal No. 9617 of 2019 dismissed – Respondents to pay appellants with 9% interest per annum from 01.04.2007 within four months [Paras 12-13].

Service Law – Disciplinary Control – Manipulation in Weight Measurement – Respondent accused of manipulating weight measurement by creating a hidden chamber in milk tankers, causing financial loss – Inquiry Officer found charges partially proved – Punishment order of reversion to minimum pay scale passed after approval from Commissioner (Dairy Milk)/Registrar – Held, Chairman of the Administrative Committee is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority under Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules – Approval from Commissioner (Dairy Milk)/Registrar, even if the same person as Chairman, does not vitiate proceedings [Paras 1-35].

Approval Requirement – Rule 15 vs. Regulation 87 – Dairy Service Rules framed under Section 122-A of the Act take precedence over general Service Regulations – Rule 15 does not require prior concurrence from any authority, hence Regulation 87 inapplicable – Resolution dated 20.09.1984 and Office Order dated 08.08.2016 cannot override statutory rules [Paras 18-30].

Natural Justice – Bias and Necessity – Administrative necessity allows for the same individual to hold dual roles of Registrar and Chairman without causing bias – Approval by Registrar (also Chairman) upheld as per statutory mandate [Paras 31-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court orders set aside – Punishment order by Administrative Committee upheld – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 35].

Freedom Fighter's Pension – Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme – Appeal against High Court's direction for grant of pension – Respondent's initial application in 1997 rejected – Second application in 2017 without fulfilling scheme requirements – High Court issued directions without notice to appellant – Supreme Court emphasized compliance with scheme criteria and procedural fairness [Paras 1-32].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – High Court’s direction for grant of pension without notice and opportunity for appellant to respond – Rejection of initial application not disclosed in second application – High Court erred in issuing positive directions for pension without examining compliance with scheme conditions [Paras 16-28].

Eligibility Criteria – Scheme Compliance – Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme mandates specific documents and recommendations – Respondent failed to provide required proof – Competent authority to evaluate eligibility – High Court’s order set aside for not considering documentary evidence and procedural requirements [Paras 24-31].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Compliance with scheme criteria mandatory for pension eligibility [Para 32].

Arbitration Law – Appointment of Arbitrator – Dispute over Development Agreement for Wind Farm Project – Arbitration clause under the Agreement – Respondent's invocation of arbitration and nomination of arbitrator – Appellant's registration under MSMED Act and referral to Facilitation Council – High Court's observation on lack of provision for counter-claims under MSMED Act – Agreement to refer disputes to arbitration under 1996 Act – Appointment of Sole Arbitrator by Supreme Court [Paras 1-8].

MSMED Act – Counter-Claims – No provision under MSMED Act for counter-claims – Parties’ Development Agreement referred all disputes under 1996 Act – MSMED Act's overriding effect not applicable due to absence of provision for counter-claims – Facilitation Council proceedings closed [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – Justice K. Kannan appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Arbitral proceedings to be conducted under 1996 Act by Madras High Court Arbitration Centre – Facilitation Council proceedings closed [Para 10].