Constitutional Law – Contempt of Court – Compensation for Endosulfan Victims – Petitioners affected by Endosulfan sought enforcement of the Supreme Court's order dated January 10, 2017, directing the State Government to compensate affected persons and provide medical facilities – State Government's inordinate delay in compliance exacerbates the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 – Right to health integral to the right to life – State directed to disburse compensation and provide medical facilities promptly [Paras 1-5].

Contempt of Court – Enforcement of Court Orders – Directions issued for monthly meetings by the Chief Secretary to ensure diligent implementation of the Court's judgment – Costs awarded to petitioners for delayed compensation – Compliance report to be filed indicating progress [Para 5].

Decision: Petition partially allowed – State Government directed to compensate victims and provide medical facilities – Compliance to be monitored through monthly meetings and reports [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law – Bail – Grant of Bail – Respondent accused granted bail by the High Court – Appellant, wife of the deceased, challenged the bail order – Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the threat to witnesses – Order granting bail was unreasoned and showed non-application of mind – Bail order set aside and respondent directed to surrender forthwith [Paras 1-34].

Criminal Procedure – Section 439 CrPC – Discretion in Granting Bail – Courts must exercise discretion judiciously and consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and potential threats to witnesses – High Court's order lacked proper reasoning and assessment of these factors [Para 16-19, 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the respondent by the High Court set aside – Respondent directed to surrender forthwith – High Court's judgment in bail matters to be detailed and reasoned [Para 32-34].

Electricity Law – Captive Generating Plants – Open Access – Appeal by power distribution company against the order of Electricity Regulatory Commission allowing captive power plant to supply electricity to its sister concern – Supreme Court held that the establishment of a captive power plant primarily for own use or for use by an association of persons (including corporate bodies) is permissible under the Electricity Act – Conditions of Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 satisfied – No interference warranted with orders of the Regulatory Commission and Appellate Tribunal [Paras 1-26].

Regulatory Framework – Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Sections 2(8), 9, and 42(2) of the Electricity Act and Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules – Liberal interpretation to promote establishment of captive power plants for reliable and cost-effective power, facilitating industrial growth and employment – Policy under Section 3 of the Electricity Act aligns with the provisions promoting captive power generation [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Orders of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 25-27].

Service Law – Pay Scale – UGC Scale of Pay – Respondent appointed as Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant in an Ayurvedic college sought UGC pay scale as per 1990 Rules – State contended 1990 Rules not applicable as college under Ayush Department – Supreme Court held 1990 Rules applicable to institutions under Higher Education Department, not Ayush Department – Respondent governed by 1987 Rules at appointment and later by 2013 Rules – No parity with librarians under Higher Education Department – High Court orders set aside [Paras 6-23].

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Doctrine applicable when employees are similarly circumstanced in every way – Differing eligibility criteria and governing rules preclude application of UGC scales to respondent – Policy decisions on pay scales not interfered with by courts unless discriminatory or arbitrary [Paras 18-20, 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Respondent not entitled to UGC scale of pay [Paras 26-27].

Property Law – Cancellation of Allotment – Default in Installment Payments – Appellant, a 55-year-old woman, allotted a plot under the Middle-Income Group Scheme – Made initial payments but defaulted on four installments due to husband's ill-health – Paid balance with interest before cancellation notice was served – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging cancellation – Supreme Court held that appellant's payments and willingness to pay additional compensation showed no willful delay – Cancellation order set aside on payment of additional Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation [Paras 1-6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cancellation order set aside on condition of appellant paying additional Rs. 2 lakhs within six weeks – Respondents to hand over possession and execute necessary documents thereafter [Para 6].

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Respondents found guilty of contempt for not complying with Supreme Court and High Court orders – Despite multiple opportunities to settle the dispute or comply, respondents failed – Supreme Court sentenced respondent No. 1 to seven days of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs – Fine to be deposited before the High Court with Rs. 4 lakhs to the petitioner and Rs. 1 lakh to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority – Sentence kept in abeyance for two weeks to allow compliance [Paras 1-5].

Decision: Respondent No. 1 sentenced to seven days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on respondents – Sentence suspended for two weeks for compliance [Para 4].

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 and Rule 11 CPC – Court has wide powers to appoint a commissioner for local investigations to elucidate any matter in dispute or to ascertain the market value of any property, mesne profits, damages, or annual net profits – Commissioners do not perform judicial acts but ministerial acts to aid the court – Court can confirm, vary, or set aside the commissioner's report [Paras 1-26].

Arbitration – Reference to Arbitration – Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 – For a matter to be referred to arbitration, all parties must agree in writing and apply to the court for an order of reference – Agreement must be explicit and reflect a meeting of minds – Court cannot refer a matter to arbitration based solely on the submission of one party without the explicit agreement of the other [Paras 15-26].

Decision: Appeal Disposed of – Orders of the lower courts set aside – Chartered Accountant’s report treated as a commissioner’s report under Order 26 Rule 11 CPC, not as an arbitration award – Case remanded to trial court for reconsideration of objections to the commissioner’s report [Paras 36-37].

Constitutional Law – Education – Regulation of Fees – Section 87 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – Notification requiring unaided educational institutions to disclose income expenditure accounts and balance sheets on their websites and prohibiting them from charging any costs from parents – Supreme Court held clause (a) of the notification as substantive and not peripheral, thus ultra vires Section 87 – Clause (b) held consistent with legislative intent and valid [Paras 1-18].

Administrative Law – Power of Government – Notification under Section 87 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – Government's power to make peripheral or insubstantial changes – Substantive changes require legislative action – Enhancement of penalty amounts under Section 14 of the 2016 Act struck down as it constituted a substantive change [Paras 9-17].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Clause (a) of the notification struck down – Clause (b) upheld – Enhancement of penalty amounts under Section 14 struck down [Paras 21-23].

Service Law – Selection – Posts of Constable (General) – Appellant’s application found with incorrect and incomplete information regarding criminal antecedents – Application liable to be rejected at any stage of selection process – Supreme Court held suppression of material information in application form as ground for rejection of candidature [Paras 2-4].

Criminal Antecedents – Disclosure – Misrepresentation – Appellant did not disclose pending FIRs and criminal cases in job application – Court emphasized necessity of honesty in uniformed services – Candidate’s suppression of facts and false statement justified rejection of application [Paras 6.1-6.3].

Judicial Precedents – Relevant Cases – Reference made to past judgments highlighting suppression of material facts and misrepresentation by candidates in service applications – Previous rulings supported the decision to reject candidature based on suppression and dishonesty [Paras 6.4-6.11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside – Rejection of respondent’s candidature for the post of constable upheld [Para 9].