Electricity Tariff Dispute – Redetermination of Tariff – Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, M/s. KKK Hydro Power Ltd., sought enhanced tariff for its entire 4.90 MW hydel power project based on a supplementary Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 10.09.2010, executed without prior approval of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission – The Supreme Court held that tariff fixation under the Electricity Act requires approval by the State Commission and parties cannot unilaterally or mutually agree to revised tariffs – The Court found that the Appellate Tribunal (APTEL) erred in granting relief to the appellant but refrained from interfering as the respondent Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB) had accepted the order and acted upon the revised tariff of ₹2.60/kWh – Held: Appeal dismissed; legal position clarified that tariff agreements without Commission’s approval are invalid and unenforceable [Paras 1, 21-22, 27-28, 31, 33].

Power Purchase Agreement – Requirement of Regulatory Approval – Supplementary PPA held invalid – The parties executed a supplementary PPA enhancing tariff from ₹2.50 to ₹2.95 per kWh, but failed to submit it to the Commission for approval – Held: In absence of Commission’s approval under Section 86(1)(b), such a PPA is unenforceable in law and tariff changes therein are non-binding [Paras 24-27, 31].

Tariff for Capacity Enhancement – Regulations of 2007 – Only Additional Capacity Covered – The 3 MW portion of the project was governed by the original PPA of 2000 prior to the Commission’s existence – The 1.90 MW augmented portion, commissioned post-2007 Regulations, was rightly subjected to redetermined tariff – Held: The enhanced tariff applied only to the 1.90 MW capacity, not to the original 3 MW plant – Weighted average tariff of ₹2.60 per kWh rightly computed for entire project as practical solution [Paras 18-22, 28].

Section 86(1)(b) of Electricity Act – Approval by Commission Mandatory – Fixing tariff or modifying PPA cannot be done privately – Held: Only the Commission is authorized to approve PPAs and tariff terms; failure to seek approval renders agreements non-binding – Private agreements between generator and licensee for tariff are ultra vires without regulatory consent [Paras 25-27, 31].

Finality of APTEL Order – No Interference Due to Acquiescence – Though APTEL erred in permitting enforcement of unapproved supplementary PPA, the HPSEB did not challenge the decision and implemented the revised tariff – Held: Supreme Court declines to disturb existing arrangement to avoid unsettling ongoing tariff mechanism, but clarifies legal position for future compliance [Paras 28, 31, 33].

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Interference with Findings – Article 136 of Constitution – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, a CISF constable, was charged with misconduct for being found in a civilian residential area without justification, resulting in public uproar – Though charge of leaving camp without permission was not sustained, the Supreme Court upheld findings of unwarranted conduct affecting the Force's reputation – Held: No breach of natural justice shown and the High Court's decision does not warrant interference under Article 136 [Paras 1-5].

Misconduct – Proportionality of Penalty – Reduction of Pay – Modified Penalty Justified – The Appellate Authority reduced the original penalty of three years' pay reduction to a one-stage reduction for two years with loss of increments – Held: The modified penalty was proportionate to the appellant's proven misconduct and did not call for further judicial review [Paras 2-5].

Conduct of Armed Forces Personnel – Off-Duty Misbehaviour – Found Proven – The appellant was detained by civilians until superiors arrived due to his conduct in a family residential colony – Held: Such behaviour by a member of a disciplined force justifies disciplinary action even if it occurred outside duty premises – High Court rightly upheld the findings of misconduct based on material evidence [Paras 3-5].

Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters – Scope – Principles of Natural Justice Not Violated – The Supreme Court observed that there was no claim of procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice in the inquiry process – Held: No case made out for interference under Article 136 when findings are based on evidence and procedure followed was fair [Paras 4-5].

Criminal Law - Dowry Harassment – Appeal Against Conviction under Section 498-A IPC – Reversed – The appellant, mother-in-law of the deceased, was convicted under Section 498-A IPC while co-accused (father-in-law and brother-in-law) were acquitted – Held: Conviction based solely on vague and uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses (mother and brother of deceased) without any consistent or credible proof of cruelty or specific dowry demand – No evidence of persistent cruelty or harassment – Conviction unsustainable – Acquittal. [Paras 2, 7-11].

Interpretation of Section 498-A – Requirement of Continuous or Proximate Cruelty – Demand Must Be Specific – The Court reiterated that “cruelty” under Section 498-A must be persistent or in close proximity to the incident, and not based on petty quarrels or generalised allegations – Mere statements of dowry dissatisfaction unsupported by evidence cannot justify conviction – Held: Prosecution failed to meet the threshold laid down in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330 [Paras 8-9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of Defence Witness – Independent Witness Overlooked – The defence examined a neutral neighbour (DW-1), who testified there was no dowry demand and the deceased was unwell – Courts below wrongly disregarded this testimony without valid basis – Held: Disregarding neutral evidence while relying only on partisan witnesses was erroneous and led to miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-11].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Section 498-A IPC Not Attracted – The Supreme Court found that the charge under Section 498-A was not supported by cogent evidence – Conviction of appellant set aside and she was acquitted – Held: Acquittal justified as prosecution failed to prove cruelty or dowry harassment beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11-12].

Motor Vehicles – Motor Vehicle Tax – Scope of ‘Public Place’ – Section 3 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 – Rule 12A of A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963 – Interpretation – Liability to pay tax arises only when motor vehicle is used or kept for use in a public place – Appellant’s vehicles used exclusively within the restricted premises of RINL – Area not accessible to public – Held: Not a ‘public place’ – No tax liability incurred – Appeal allowed.

Motor Vehicle Tax – Use in Restricted Industrial Premises – Section 3 of A.P. Act, 1963 – Exemption Allowed – The appellant operated heavy vehicles solely within the enclosed and access-controlled premises of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL), which is not a public place under the Motor Vehicles Act – Held: Section 3 imposes tax only on vehicles used or kept for use in a public place – Since the site was not accessible to the general public, tax under the Act was not leviable [Paras 8–10, 28, 45–46, 50].

Interpretation of Rule 12A – Presumption of Use Must Align with Section 3 – No Automatic Liability – Rule 12A creates a deeming fiction of vehicle use unless prior intimation is given – Held: As subordinate legislation, Rule 12A cannot override Section 3 – Where actual use was exclusively in a non-public place, absence of intimation under Rule 12A is irrelevant – The vehicles were not ‘kept for use in a public place’, hence no tax liability arose [Paras 29, 43, 47–48, 50].

Public Place – Meaning under Section 2(34) of Motor Vehicles Act – Premises of RINL Not a Public Place – Appellant’s vehicles operated within a compound guarded by CISF with no public access – Held: ‘Public place’ requires a right of public access – Presence of a government company does not convert private industrial premises into a public place – Reliance on Bolani Ores Ltd. upheld – Decision in Akhil Gujarat Pravasi distinguished as not dealing with ‘public place’ requirement [Paras 28, 31–34, 44–46].

Constitutional Principle – Article 265 – Tax Only by Authority of Law – Literal Interpretation – Held: Taxing statutes must be strictly construed – There can be no presumption or inference of tax liability – Since Section 3 clearly restricts tax to vehicles used or kept for use in a public place, the levy in this case was without authority of law [Paras 36–38, 50].

Decision – Civil Appeal Allowed – Division Bench Set Aside – Judgment of learned Single Judge restored – Appellant not liable to pay motor vehicle tax for the period when its vehicles were confined to non-public premises – Refund of Rs. 22,71,700 ordered – No order as to costs [Para 51].

Service Law – Recruitment Cancellation – Statutory Rules vs. Executive Instructions – Executive instructions cannot override statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 – NRP 2018 being an executive policy lacked statutory force – Recruitment process under Tripura State Rifles Act/Rules, TCS/TPS Rules, and Boilers Act governed by statutory framework – Held: Executive orders like Abeyance Memorandum and Cancellation Memorandum are subordinate and cannot supplant statutory rules – Cancellation of ongoing recruitment on basis of NRP invalid [Paras 31-40, 42].

Recruitment Process – New Recruitment Policy, 2018 – Prospective Application – Clause (2) of NRP explicitly provides prospective effect – Recruitment processes already commenced (TSR rallies completed, TCS/TPS prelims & mains conducted, Boilers Inspector interview held) could not be retrospectively cancelled – Held: Applying NRP to ongoing recruitments amounts to changing rules of the game after the game has begun – Impermissible [Paras 41-49].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Candidates who cleared preliminary and main examinations had legitimate expectation that recruitment would be completed fairly under existing rules – Though no indefeasible right to appointment exists (Shankarsan Dash principle), legitimate expectation requires State to justify cancellation with overriding public interest – State failed to demonstrate objective public interest – Cancellation arbitrary and unjust [Paras 50-57].

Public Interest – Justification for Cancellation – State claimed NRP ensured fairness and transparency – Court held: No evidence that existing statutory recruitment processes were unfair or opaque – Plea of larger public interest rejected as unfounded and antithetical to rule of law [Paras 42-46].

Change of Rules Midway – Application of NRP to ongoing recruitments rewrote statutory Regulations prescribing marking scheme (800 marks main exam, 100 marks interview) – Executive instructions cannot alter statutory framework – Cancellation of processes at advanced stage (after prelims/mains/interview) arbitrary – Held: Rules of the game cannot be changed once recruitment has commenced [Paras 45-49].

Decision – Civil Appeal Nos. 4426–4466/2023 (Partha Das batch, TSR Followers): Allowed – Cancellation quashed – Recruitment to be finalized within 2 months – Civil Appeal Nos. 4467–4469 & 4471/2023 (Samudra Debbarma batch, TCS/TPS): Dismissed – High Court orders upheld – Recruitment to be finalized within 4 months – Civil Appeal No. 4470/2023 (Arunabha Saha, Boilers Inspector): Dismissed – Recruitment to be completed within 2 months [Paras 58-61].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Income Tax – Section 276C(1) of the IT Act – Complaint quashed – Settlement Commission granted immunity from penalty but not prosecution due to pendency of criminal proceedings – Held: In absence of wilful concealment and considering that the Settlement Commission accepted disclosure without suppression, prosecution cannot be sustained – High Court erred in refusing to quash complaint – Prosecution continued in violation of binding departmental circulars requiring ITAT-confirmed penalty and sanction by collegium for tax liability under Rs. 25 lakhs – Quashing of complaint justified [Paras 18, 33-38].

Binding Nature of Circulars – CBDT Circulars and Prosecution Manual – Department bound – Revenue bound by its own circulars governing initiation of prosecution – Lodging complaint without following guidelines amounts to abuse of process – Circulars held binding on authorities under the Act [Paras 20-31].

Settlement Commission – Section 245D and 245H – Immunity from penalty granted – No finding of suppression – Findings of Settlement Commission under Section 245-I held conclusive – Complaint continued despite no wilful attempt to evade tax – Violation of principle of fairness – Order of Settlement Commission takes precedence over procedural technicality of timing of complaint [Paras 34-37].

Criminal Law – Mens rea – Requirement of wilful attempt – Mere possession of unaccounted cash not sufficient – Burden lies on prosecution to prove wilful evasion – No such evidence shown – Continuation of complaint without mens rea unjustified [Paras 12, 18, 36].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Order of High Court set aside – Complaint and criminal proceedings quashed – Costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed on Revenue for unjustified prosecution [Para 38].

Constitutional Law - Presidential Reference under Article 317(1) - Public Service Commission – Meaning of Misbehaviour – Article 317 of the Constitution – Wider Interpretation Affirmed – The Court reiterated that ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317 must be interpreted widely in the context of the constitutional position held by members of Public Service Commissions – It encompasses any act or omission that erodes public confidence or diminishes institutional credibility – However, misbehaviour must be proved in respect of the individual and not presumed on a collective basis – Held: The expression is of wide connotation and cannot be narrowly construed [Paras 19, 34, 37, 41, 63].

Misbehaviour – Paper Leak in APPSC Examination – No Individual Indictment – Removal Denied – Allegation against the Respondent was failure to prevent the 2022 AE (Civil) Mains Exam paper leak – The Court held that the Respondent was neither involved in setting or printing of papers, nor was there any evidence to show her connivance or negligence – Charge found unsubstantiated – Held: Allegation of misbehaviour not proved [Paras 52–58].

Misbehaviour – Responsibility for Past Irregularities – Appointment Post-dated Events – No Attribution – The Court held that the Respondent, appointed in August 2021, could not be held responsible for alleged irregularities or paper leakages occurring since 2017 – No evidence established her individual duty or failure in this regard – Held: Charges vague and unsubstantiated [Para 59].

Misbehaviour – Delay in Implementing New Guidelines – No Sole Responsibility – Charges Not Proved – Respondent was accused of failing to implement updated examination guidelines in 2022 – Court held that there was no exclusive duty assigned to her and changes were deferred by collective decision of the Commission – Held: In absence of specific role or act, no misbehaviour is proved [Paras 60–61].

Misbehaviour – Collective Responsibility – Not Attributable Under Article 317 – Individual Inquiry Mandatory – The Court clarified that Article 317 does not recognize the doctrine of collective responsibility for removal of PSC members – Reference must be based on individual acts of misbehaviour – Held: Allegations based on collective failures unsustainable in law [Paras 64–70].

Misbehaviour – Quasi-judicial Decisions – No Misbehaviour for Bona Fide Decisions – Respondent accused of not opposing decision to keep punishment orders against candidates in abeyance – Court held that such quasi-judicial functions cannot be termed misbehaviour if taken in good faith – Held: No misconduct in not opposing such collective decisions [Paras 72–73].

Misbehaviour – Presumption Without Evidence – Reference Based on Prejudice – Not Sustainable – The Court noted that the recommendation for Respondent’s removal was based on prejudice and unsupported assumptions by State authorities – Other members resigned and were later appointed to constitutional posts – Held: Reference was arbitrary and discriminatory [Paras 74–75].

Decision – Reference Dismissed – Charges Not Proved – The Court held that none of the six charges of misbehaviour were individually attributable to the Respondent or proved through cogent evidence – Held: Allegations not substantiated; reference answered in negative – Recommendation sent to the Hon’ble President that Respondent is not guilty of misbehaviour – Suspension to be revoked and all consequential benefits restored [Paras 78–80].

Civil Law - Suit Against Proprietary Concern – Substitution of Proprietor – Maintainability of Suit – Appeal Allowed - Appellants, landlords, had leased premises to “Aditya Motors”, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad – Upon expiry of lease, eviction suit was filed, initially against Aditya Motors and others – Later, through amendment, Aditya Motors was substituted with Pilla Durga Prasad as its proprietor – High Court allowed respondent’s revision under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that plaint disclosed no cause of action against the substituted party – Held: Proprietary concern not being a juristic person, substitution of proprietor was proper – Cause of action remains against proprietor who had signed lease – Order 30 Rule 10 is enabling and does not restrict such substitution – Trial Court rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 – High Court erred in adopting hyper-technical approach [Paras 3–5].

Civil Law - Priority of Provident Fund Dues – Conflict between EPFO and Secured Creditors – Section 11(2) of PF Act vs. Section 35 of SARFAESI – Writ Petition Restored - EPFO sought recovery of statutory dues from auction proceeds of borrower’s properties sold by appellant (EARC) and Axis Bank – Appellant argued it already deposited ₹75 lakhs in proportion to sale value and balance recovery should be directed from Axis Bank which sold property for higher value – Held: Priority of charge under Section 11(2) of PF Act vis-à-vis Section 35 of SARFAESI requires determination – Writ petition restored to High Court for fresh adjudication after impleading Axis Bank – All parties free to raise contentions before High Court [Paras 2–13].