Writ Jurisdiction – Abuse of Process – Civil Suit Pending – High Court allowed writ petition seeking demolition of appellant’s construction on disputed property without issuing notice – Held: Respondent No.1 had already filed a civil suit seeking identical relief – Filing writ petition was an abuse of process to bypass the suit – Petition not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Paras 6–10]

Natural Justice – Violation – Appellant (respondent No.6 in writ petition) was not issued notice nor heard before adverse order passed – Held: Decision rendered without hearing affected party violates principles of natural justice – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 3, 7]

Civil Procedure – Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Bar on Multiple Proceedings – Writ petition filed seeking same relief already claimed in pending civil suit – Held: Relief could not be pursued simultaneously in separate forums – Relief must be sought only through the suit [Paras 9–10]

Relief – Suit to Proceed Independently – Supreme Court clarifies that the suit before District Judge may continue unaffected by this decision – All actions taken pursuant to High Court order quashed – Appellant permitted to use premises subject to outcome of civil suit [Paras 12–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order in writ petition and review dismissed – Writ petition held to be an abuse of process – Suit may proceed independently – All consequential actions quashed – No costs imposed [Paras 10–15]

Arbitration – Subsequent Legislation – BOCW Act and Welfare Cess Act – Reimbursement of Cess – Batch of appeals arising out of arbitral awards between NHAI and contractors – Core issue whether BOCW Act, 1996 and Cess Act, 1996 could be treated as “subsequent legislation” under Clauses 14.3 and 70.8 of NHAI contracts – Arbitral tribunals held that liability to pay cess arose only after constitution of Welfare Boards and State notifications – Held: Though Acts were brought into force in 1995–96, they remained dormant and inoperative in absence of implementation machinery – Welfare Boards’ constitution is sine qua non for levy and collection of cess – Arbitral view upheld [Paras 1, 35–37, 50–52].

BOCW Act – Cess Act – Scheme and Implementation – Dormant Legislation – Detailed statutory analysis undertaken – Despite enactment, no effective steps taken by Central or State Governments for years – Welfare Boards not constituted, authorities not appointed – Supreme Court’s monitoring in National Campaign Committee cases noted – Held: Acts remained on paper and could not be enforced till Welfare Boards were constituted – Levy prior thereto impermissible [Paras 13–17, 35–37].

Cess – Fee vs Tax – Quid Pro Quo – Cess under Cess Act held to be a fee earmarked for Welfare Boards – Levy in absence of Boards would result in cess being credited to Consolidated Fund, destroying quid pro quo – Such levy would convert fee into tax and render collection constitutionally suspect – Reinforces necessity of Welfare Boards prior to levy [Paras 36–37, 45].

Contracts – NHAI Standard Clauses – Clause 14.3 and Clause 70.8 – Bid prices to include levies existing 28 days prior to bid submission – Any later statutory or regulatory change causing additional cost qualifies as “subsequent legislation” – Arbitral tribunals correctly linked enforceability of cess to date of State notifications and constitution of Welfare Boards – Interpretation found reasonable and plausible [Paras 38–40, 52].

Judicial Review – Arbitral Awards – Limited Scope – Reiterated settled law under Sections 34 and 37 of Arbitration Act – Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute interpretation of contract – Interference permissible only where award is perverse, patently illegal or against fundamental policy of Indian law – None of these grounds established – Awards upheld [Paras 23–33, 52–53].

Precedents – Dewan Chand Builders and A. Prabhakara Reddy Explained – Observation in Dewan Chand Builders that Acts became operative only upon framing of Rules and constitution of Boards affirmed – A. Prabhakara Reddy clarified that Welfare Board constitution is condition precedent for levy, though registration of workers is not – Harmonious reading applied [Paras 21–22, 50, 53].

Prakash Atlanta (JV) – Execution Proceedings – Retrospective Recovery – Impermissible – Contract entered in 2001 and terminated in 2008 – UP notification enforcing cess issued in 2010 with effect from 04.02.2009 – NHAI sought adjustment during execution of arbitral award in 2012 – Held: Recovery after termination of contract and long after arbitral proceedings impermissible – Deduction held to be afterthought – Appeal allowed [Paras 41–43, 54].

State-wise Analysis – Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Odisha – In each case, contractors’ bids preceded State notifications constituting Welfare Boards or enforcing Rules – Liability to pay cess arose only thereafter – Contractors could not have factored cess into bids – Arbitral awards directing reimbursement upheld across all States [Paras 44–48, 51].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 5301, 5302, 5304, 5412 and 5416 of 2025 filed by NHAI dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 4513 of 2025 filed by Prakash Atlanta (JV) allowed – Orders permitting deduction of cess set aside – NHAI directed to refund adjusted amount with interest as per arbitral award [Para 60].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Disputed Facts – Article 226, Constitution of India – High Court Erred – High Court entertained a writ petition filed after a gross and unexplained delay of over 10 years, involving seriously disputed questions of fact, despite previous similar litigation being withdrawn – Such belated petitions with disputed facts are generally not maintainable under Article 226 – The High Court's approach was self-contradictory and erroneous [Paras 30, 36, 41, 61, 70].

Contract Law – Apartment Buyers' Agreement – Fraud/Misrepresentation – High Court Erred – High Court's finding that developers duped buyers by misrepresenting facts in the Apartment Buyers' Agreement was conjectural and unsupported by foundational pleadings or credible evidence – The agreement itself was not challenged in the writ proceedings, and allegations of fraud were raised belatedly in a rejoinder – Such conclusions are unsustainable in law [Paras 61, 62, 77, 86-87].

Urban Planning Law – De-licensing of Land Use – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Legally Permissible – High Court held that "de-licensing" of residential land for commercial purposes was without statutory authority – However, the DTCP's subsequent detailed reasoned order (5th August 2021) found such de-licensing and re-licensing for commercial use to be legally permissible, supported by prior legal opinion and retrospectively validated by Section 3(3A) of the 1975 Act, introduced by the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 2020 – The Supreme Court found the High Court's conclusion on this point erroneous [Paras 43-45, 51, 71, 83, 86].

Environmental Law – Jurisdiction of NGT – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 14 – NGT Lacked Jurisdiction – NGT intervened in issues related to building plan violations and land use changes that were already subject to High Court proceedings – The Supreme Court held that these issues did not constitute a "substantial question relating to environment" under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, and were intrinsically connected to matters under adjudication before the High Court – NGT was not justified in interfering with such issues [Paras 94, 102, 104, 105, 107].

Criminal Procedure – CBI Investigation Direction – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 173(2) – Uncalled For – High Court's direction for a CBI investigation was based on unverified and inconclusive material – While CBI's subsequent chargesheet found misrepresentation in the Apartment Buyers' Agreement, it found no criminality in the de-licensing process – The direction was deemed uncalled for, and the High Court's judgment prejudiced the outcome of the pending criminal trial [Paras 37, 38, 75, 76].

Judicial Review – Effect of Subsequent Administrative Orders – Prejudice to Pending Litigation – High Court Erred – The DTCP, pursuant to a High Court direction in a connected writ petition, passed a detailed reasoned order on 5th August 2021, ruling out illegality in the developer's actions – This order is under challenge in a separate pending writ petition – The High Court's impugned judgment, by quashing the earlier orders, prejudiced the outcome of this pending writ petition and foreclosed available defenses of the appellants-developers [Paras 28, 39, 42, 63, 71, 74, 78].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 10th July, 2020 rendered by the High Court is set aside – Proceedings before the NGT shall remain in abeyance till disposal of Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025 before the High Court, which shall proceed uninfluenced by this judgment – No order as to costs [Paras 77, 78, 79, 109, 110, 111].

Criminal Law – Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Intention to Cause Alarm – Mere use of threatening words without intention to cause alarm does not constitute offence of criminal intimidation – Prosecution must prima facie establish intention to cause alarm irrespective of actual alarm caused – Vague and general allegations insufficient to sustain prosecution [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Improved Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Allegations against appellant absent in initial statement under Section 161 CrPC – Name of appellant surfaced after seven days through improved version in Section 164 statement – Such material improvement creates serious doubt about prosecution version – Proceedings based solely on such improved statement liable to be quashed [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Contradictions Between Section 161 and Section 164 CrPC Statements – Statement under Section 161 CrPC contained no allegation of threat by appellant – Subsequent Section 164 CrPC statement introduced vague reference to “uncle” allegedly threatening prosecutrix – Timing and contradiction weaken prosecution case at threshold stage [Paras 5–6].

Criminal Law – Vague Allegations – Abuse of Process – Vague reference to “an uncle” without specific role or overt act cannot disclose offence under Section 506 IPC – Criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on conjectures or generalized accusations unsupported by cogent material [Para 7].

Advocates – Professional Duty – Criminal Liability – Mere presence of an advocate or giving advice in professional capacity, absent foundational facts of intimidation or coercion, cannot amount to criminal intimidation – Criminal law cannot be set in motion to harass professionals without prima facie material [Para 7].

Inherent Powers / Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference at Threshold – Where uncontroverted allegations do not disclose commission of offence, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law – Appellate interference justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings set aside – FIR No. 389/2022 and consequential proceedings quashed qua the appellant alone – Proceedings to continue against other accused before jurisdictional trial court [Para 8].

Labour Law - Factories Act, 1948 – Overtime Wages – Interpretation of “Ordinary Rate of Wages” – Inclusion of Allowances – Appeals by Union of India challenging judgment of Madras High Court setting aside CAT order – Core issue whether compensatory allowances like HRA, TA, CWA and SFA form part of “ordinary rate of wages” under Section 59(2) – Held: Section 59(2) expressly includes basic wages plus such allowances as worker is entitled to, excluding only bonus and overtime wages – Executive instructions cannot introduce exclusions not contemplated by Parliament – High Court’s interpretation upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 2, 8, 15–17].

Statutory Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Literal Rule – Factories Act is a welfare legislation aimed at protecting workers from exploitation – Legislature consciously excluded only bonus and overtime wages – Principle that Legislature does not waste words applied – Any restrictive interpretation curtailing workers’ benefits must be avoided – Liberal construction in favour of employees reaffirmed [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Executive Instructions – Lack of Statutory Authority – Invalidity – Various Office Memorandums issued by Ministries of Defence, Labour and Finance excluding compensatory allowances from overtime calculation – Held: No power vested in Central Government or Ministries to issue clarifications altering Section 59(2) – Rule-making power lies exclusively with State Governments – Executive instructions without statutory backing cannot override the Act [Paras 9–11, 12.1].

Federal Scheme – Factories Act – Powers of State Government – Sections 64, 65, 112 and 113 examined – State Governments alone empowered to frame rules and issue exemptions under Chapter VI – Central Government limited to issuing directions to States for implementation – Ministries cannot assign divergent meanings to Parliamentary enactments [Paras 9–10].

Parity and Uniform Application of Law – Same statutory provision cannot be interpreted differently by different Ministries – Railway Ministry including HRA and TA for overtime calculation highlighted – Discriminatory interpretation by Defence Ministry rejected – Law must operate uniformly across establishments [Paras 14–14.1].

Precedents – Distinguishing Earlier Decisions – Bridge and Roofs Co. Ltd. case relating to production bonus under EPF Act held inapplicable – Govind Bapu Salvi and Suresh C. Baskey cases distinguished as relating to non-payment or notional inclusion of HRA where quarters allotted – None supported exclusion of allowances actually paid while computing overtime [Paras 11–11.2].

Overruling – Kerala High Court Judgment – Decision in V.E. Jossie & Ors. v. Flag Officers Commanding-in-Chief taking contrary view expressly held not to lay down correct law – Supreme Court affirms inclusion of compensatory allowances for overtime wages [Para 16].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Madras High Court affirmed – Compensatory allowances includible in “ordinary rate of wages” for overtime computation – No order as to costs [Paras 17–18].

Anticipatory Bail – Summoning under Section 319 CrPC – Effect of Closure Report Accepted by Court – Protection from Arrest by Supreme Court – Petitioner was named in FIR but Investigating Agency filed a Closure Report qua him – Closure Report accepted after notice to defacto-complainant and order attained finality – Petitioner was not sent for trial and charge-sheet filed only against co-accused – During trial, victim reiterated FIR allegations in her deposition and sought summoning of petitioner under Section 319 CrPC – Trial Court allowed application and summoned petitioner – Petitioner challenged summoning order before High Court and sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest – High Court declined anticipatory bail – Held: In peculiar facts where closure report had attained finality and summoning order is already under challenge before High Court, refusal of protection from arrest was unwarranted – Supreme Court directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail on conditions to be imposed by Investigating Officer [Paras 1–15].

Section 319 CrPC – Exercise of Power – Consequential Arrest – Judicial Discretion – Power under Section 319 invoked solely on basis of oral testimony of victim after acceptance of closure report – Summoning order under challenge and High Court is in-seisin of the matter – Supreme Court refrained from expressing any opinion on merits of summoning order – Interim protection granted to balance liberty of accused and interests of prosecution [Paras 8–14].

SC/ST Act – Anticipatory Bail – Supreme Court’s Power under Article 136 – Though offences under SC/ST Act involved and anticipatory bail declined by High Court – Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction to grant protective bail considering long pendency since 2018, earlier exoneration during investigation, and pendency of challenge to summoning order – Special Leave Petition disposed of with protective directions [Paras 10–16].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – In the event of arrest, petitioner to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by Investigating Officer – Petitioner to appear before Trial Court and furnish fresh bail – Continuance of trial against petitioner to abide by final outcome of proceedings pending before High Court – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Direct Recruitment – Professor in Government Engineering Colleges – Applicability of AICTE Regulations – Advertisement dated 23.09.2015 issued by Gujarat Public Service Commission for direct recruitment under State Recruitment Rules – Candidate participated in interview-based selection and failed to secure minimum qualifying marks – Challenge raised post-selection invoking AICTE Career Advancement Scheme Regulations, 2012 – Held: AICTE Regulations are not recruitment rules but are confined to promotion and career advancement of incumbent or newly appointed faculty – They do not govern open competitive recruitment conducted by the State Commission – Division Bench erred in applying AICTE Regulations to initial appointment process [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – AICTE Act, 1987 – Scope and Object – Sections 10 and 23 – Power of AICTE to lay down norms and standards for technical education and career progression – Regulations framed to advance academic career and not to initiate entry into service – State Recruitment Rules and AICTE CAS Regulations operate in distinct and separate fields – No question of repugnancy or overriding arises in matters of initial recruitment [Paras 11–17].

Selection Process – Interview as Mode of Assessment – Validity – Advertisement and general guidelines expressly prescribed interview with minimum qualifying marks – Assessment carried out by expert committee – Candidate secured only 28 marks against prescribed 45 marks – No arbitrariness or illegality shown – Courts should not interfere with expert evaluation in recruitment matters [Paras 4, 6, 18].

Estoppel – Participation in Selection without Protest – Challenge after Failure – Settled principle reiterated that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of criteria cannot challenge the same after being declared unsuccessful – Invocation of a different regulatory framework post-failure impermissible – Reliance placed on Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Para 18].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Matters – Limited Scope – Courts do not make appointments – Recruitment concluded in 2015 cannot be reopened in 2025 on basis of inapplicable regulations – Academic merit and research credentials cannot override binding recruitment rules [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 20.08.2025 set aside – Recruitment process pursuant to advertisement dated 23.09.2015 upheld – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Jurisdiction to Investigate – Central Government Employee – State Anti-Corruption Bureau – Question whether State ACB has authority to register FIR, investigate and file charge-sheet under the PC Act against a Central Government employee within the territorial jurisdiction of the State – Held: State ACB has jurisdiction to investigate offences under the PC Act even against Central Government employees – Jurisdiction not exclusive to CBI [Paras 2–5, 8].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 4 and 156 – General Power of Investigation – CrPC is the parent statute governing investigation and trial of offences – Unless special law expressly or impliedly excludes CrPC, provisions of CrPC continue to apply – PC Act does not exclude application of Section 156 CrPC – Any police officer in charge of a police station may investigate cognizable offences subject to statutory limitations [Paras 6–7].

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 17 – Persons Authorised to Investigate – Section 17 prescribes rank of police officer competent to investigate PC Act offences – No provision barring State Police or State Anti-Corruption Bureau from investigating offences against Central Government employees – Only requirement is compliance with rank and authorization prescribed under Section 17 [Paras 7–8].

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Scope and Effect – DSPE Act is enabling and permissive in nature – It empowers CBI to investigate specified offences but does not divest State Police of jurisdiction to investigate offences under other competent laws – Constitution of CBI does not create exclusive investigative domain [Paras 4–5, 9].

Anti-Corruption Bureau – State Police – Jurisdiction – VACB/ACB is a wing of State Police – PC Act offences are cognizable – State Police or ACB may investigate such offences provided officer is of requisite rank – Coordination between CBI and State agencies is administrative and not jurisdictional [Paras 8–9].

Precedent – Investigation by State Agency Against Central Government Employees – Reliance placed on A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration – Investigation by State agency upheld – DSPE Act does not exclude jurisdiction of regular police – High Court decisions of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh approving State police investigation against Central Government employees affirmed [Paras 9–10].

Special Leave Petition – Scope – No error of law found in judgment of High Court – View taken by High Court consistent with statutory scheme and binding precedents – Held: No ground made out for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Judgment of Rajasthan High Court upheld – State Anti-Corruption Bureau has jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Central Government employees without prior consent of CBI – Pending applications disposed of.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Jurisdiction of State ACB Over Central Government Employees – Sections 17 and 22 of PC Act read with Section 156 of Cr.P.C. – SLP Dismissed – Whether State ACB is authorised to register and investigate PC Act offences against Central Government employees and whether a chargesheet filed without CBI's consent is valid – High Court held "it is incorrect to say that it is only the CBI who could have instituted the prosecution" – Held: "We find no error, not to speak of any error of law, in the impugned judgment" – SLP dismissed [Paras 2–12].

DSPE Act – Permissive in Nature – Does Not Oust State Police Jurisdiction – The DSPE Act "does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the regular police authorities of their jurisdiction" – Held: The Act is "only permissive or empowering" enabling the DSPE to investigate without impairing any other law empowering police to investigate offences – Section 17 of PC Act does not "exclude or prevent the State Police or a Special Agency of the State from registering a crime" against Central Government employees [Paras 8–10].

Cr.P.C. – General Law of Investigation – Cannot Be Displaced Without Express Exclusion – "The Criminal Procedure Code is the parent statute and unless there is specific provision in another statute to indicate a different procedure, the provisions of Cr.P.C. cannot be displaced" – The PC Act being silent on a separate investigation procedure, Section 156 of Cr.P.C. prevails – Offences under the PC Act being cognizable, the State Police or VACB can investigate subject only to the rank restriction under Section 17 [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court's finding affirming State ACB jurisdiction to investigate PC Act offences against Central Government employees confirmed – Pending applications disposed of.