Education – Affiliation and Admission – High Court directed JNTU to proceed with the notification of institutions for the second phase of counselling despite JNTU awaiting State Government approval – Supreme Court held that JNTU’s regulations require prior permission from the State Government for starting new programs or increasing intake capacity – High Court's interim directions issued without State Government’s NOC and completion of JNTU's affiliation process were inappropriate and likely to prejudice students – Interim direction stayed [Paras 1-14].

Role of State Government – JNTU’s regulations mandate State Government’s approval for new courses and increased intake capacity – The importance of the State Government's role in ensuring educational needs and preventing mushrooming of substandard institutions emphasized – Supreme Court reiterated that affiliation by JNTU must be conducted with scrupulous care to protect students' interests [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – JNTU to complete affiliation process within ten days following State Government's NOC – Interim direction of the High Court stayed pending completion of the affiliation process – High Court to make final orders based on JNTU’s decisions post-affiliation process [Paras 15-19].

Compassionate Appointment – Delay and Laches – Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general rule of public appointments based on merit – If the family has survived for a substantial period after the death of the breadwinner, there is no justification for compassionate appointment at the cost of others’ interests – Application for appointment made after 18 years is unsustainable – Respondent’s son not entitled to compassionate appointment [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Principles – Delay and Laches – Supreme Court emphasized that delay in making claims for compassionate appointment militates against the purpose of providing immediate relief to the family – Cited precedents affirming the necessity of timely applications for such appointments to ensure immediate amelioration to the family [Paras 5.2-5.3].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s and Central Administrative Tribunal’s judgments set aside – Second son of the respondent not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds due to delay – No order as to costs [Paras 6].

Arbitration – Interest Award – Arbitrator awarded pendente lite and future interest despite Clause 16(2) of GCC barring such interest – Supreme Court held that as per Clause 16(2), no interest shall be payable on earnest money, security deposit, or amounts payable to the contractor under the contract – Arbitrator and High Court erred in awarding interest contrary to the contractual terms – Award quashed [Paras 1-14].

Contractual Interpretation – Specific Bar on Interest – Clause 16(2) of GCC explicitly bars interest on any amounts payable under the contract – Principle of "ejusdem generis" not applicable as the clause uses "or" to cover different situations – Parties bound by their contractual agreement prohibiting interest [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and arbitral award set aside – Contractor not entitled to any pendente lite or future interest on amounts due under the contract – No order as to costs [Paras 14-15].

Rent Control – NRI Landlords – Right to Eviction – NRI purchasers of property can invoke summary jurisdiction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act after five years of ownership, irrespective of who initially let out the premises – Distinction between 'landlord' and 'owner' critical – High Court order upheld, confirming eviction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Legal Interpretation – Distinction in Terms – 'Landlord' vs 'Owner' – Provisions for NRIs under Section 13-B crafted to recognize ownership status and differentiate from general landlord-tenant relationships – Requirement to wait five years from ownership acquisition before invoking eviction rights ensures balance and compliance with legislative intent [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – NRI owners required to wait five years from ownership acquisition before invoking eviction rights under Section 13-B – Tenant granted six months to vacate premises upon providing undertaking within two weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Jurisdiction – Civil Court – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act – Whether the bar on jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, applies even when the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed in a proceeding under Section 14A of the Act – Supreme Court held that the validity of orders under Section 14A is open to scrutiny in a Civil Court when the tenant disputes the landlord-tenant relationship – Mere plea by the tenant should not render authorities powerless if found frivolous [Paras 1-54].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Dispute – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar under Section 25 of the Act does not prevent civil courts from adjudicating the existence of landlord-tenant relationship when disputed – Authorities under the Act lack power to conclusively determine landlord-tenant relationship if genuinely contested [Paras 47-53].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Contention raised by the appellants found meritless – Civil courts retain jurisdiction to scrutinize orders when the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 54-55].

Reservation in Promotion – Gradation List – Appellants challenged the gradation list prepared based on the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules 2005, contending it should not apply to inter se seniority for promotion – High Court set aside the gradation list and promotion orders based on it – Supreme Court found the High Court's reliance on an unrelated case (Ashok Kumar) unnecessary – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration without reliance on the unrelated case [Paras 1-13].

Seniority Determination – High Court’s Administrative Powers – Supreme Court noted the High Court accepted the invalidity of the gradation list independent of other considerations – Remanded matter for High Court to decide the main issue of whether seniority for the gradation list can be based on roster points [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Writ petition remanded to the High Court for fresh decision – Directions based on the gradation list to be held in abeyance pending High Court's decision [Para 12].

Civil Procedure – Injunction – Appellants challenged the High Court's injunction order which was granted without giving them an opportunity to be heard and without making them party-defendants – High Court had granted injunction regarding 1/7th share of properties – Supreme Court held that no injunction could be granted without proper hearing and impleading necessary parties – Appeal allowed and High Court's order set aside [Paras 1-8].

Necessary Parties – Impleading – Supreme Court emphasized that parties with a direct interest in the properties must be impleaded and heard before granting an injunction – Directed trial court to first decide on applications to implead appellants before reconsidering the injunction [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashed – Matter remanded to trial court to decide on impleading applications and reconsider the injunction application afresh if necessary [Para 8].

Motor Vehicles Act – Notional Income – Fixation of notional income for non-earning members at Rs.15,000/- per annum is outdated and unjust – Supreme Court raises the notional income to Rs.25,000/- per annum considering inflation and cost of living – Compensation for death of a child aged 7 years reassessed at Rs.4,70,000/- including filial consortium and funeral expenses [Paras 14-17].

Compensation – Dependency and Consortium – Tribunal and High Court awarded compensation based on outdated notional income – Supreme Court increases compensation to reflect current economic conditions – Total compensation includes Rs.3,75,000/- for loss of dependency, Rs.80,000/- for filial consortium, and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization – Insurance Company entitled to recover from the owner of the motorcycle as driver lacked a valid license [Paras 17-18].

Environmental Law – Forest Clearance – Appellant challenged Stage-I Forest Clearances and sought remedy under Section 14 of the NGT Act – Tribunal dismissed the application, suggesting it should have been an appeal under Section 16 – Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in its dismissal and allowed the appeal, remanding the case to the Tribunal [Paras 8-16].

Public Participation – Right to Information – Appellant argued that the permission for tree felling was not placed in the public domain – Supreme Court highlighted the need for transparency in environmental clearances to ensure public participation and accountability [Paras 11-12].

Remedy – Appellate Jurisdiction – Court clarified that the appellant has the right to appeal the DFO’s order under Section 16(e) of the NGT Act and directed the Tribunal to consider the appeal on merits without rejecting it on the ground of limitation [Paras 14-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NGT's order set aside – Case remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration – Interim order restraining further tree felling until 26 November 2021 [Paras 18-21].