Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance – Sand Mining – District Survey Report – Supreme Court reiterated that replenishment studies are mandatory for valid DSRs and therefore essential for granting Environmental Clearance (EC) – Following Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629, and reaffirming Satendra Pandey v. MoEFCC, 2018 SCC OnLine NGT 2388, the Court held that no mining activity can be permitted without prior scientific appraisal – The Court also relied on State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069, to stress strict adherence to environmental safeguards – Appeals filed by UT of J&K, NHAI and Project Proponent dismissed – NGT’s order setting aside the EC upheld – Held: A DSR without replenishment study is untenable in law – All parties directed to bear own costs [Paras 15-16, 29-33, 35-39, 44].

Role of Appraisal Committees – Regulatory Failure – J&K Expert Appraisal Committee and SEIAA erred in proceeding with environmental clearance despite recording absence of replenishment data – Restriction of mining depth to one metre in absence of replenishment study is no substitute for mandatory scientific assessment – Such conditional ECs amount to abdication of statutory responsibility [Paras 35-37].

Breach of EC Conditions – Use of Heavy Machinery – Project Proponent violated Condition 53 of the Environmental Clearance prohibiting JCBs and heavy excavators – Tribunal rightly directed J&K Pollution Control Board to take action – Direction upheld [Paras 41-42].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – NGT order sustained – Mandatory requirement of replenishment study reinforced as integral to lawful grant of environmental clearance – Supreme Court emphasised that effective environmental protection cannot be compromised by administrative convenience [Paras 39, 44].

Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work – Contractual Assistant Professors – Minimum of Pay Scale Directed – Lecturers appointed on contractual basis in Government Engineering/Polytechnic Colleges claimed parity with regularly appointed and ad hoc Assistant Professors – Held: When duties and functions are identical, contractual status cannot justify discriminatory treatment – Respondents entitled to minimum of pay scale of Assistant Professors with arrears from 3 years prior to filing of writ petitions – State’s plea of contractual terms rejected [Paras 7, 17, 19-21, 34].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Single Judge’s Excess Beyond Precedent – Division Bench’s Error – Relief Modified – Earlier Division Bench rulings in Acharya Madhavi and Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai upheld parity only to extent of minimum pay scale – Single Judge erred in granting full parity with regularly appointed faculty – However, Division Bench wrongly dismissed writ petitions outright – Held: Correct course was to dispose of petitions in line with earlier binding decisions – Relief aligned accordingly [Paras 28-30, 34].

Teachers’ Remuneration – Constitutional Values – Court’s Concern – The Court observed that academicians form the intellectual backbone of the nation – Denial of fair emoluments demeans their role and undermines educational quality – Emphasised the need for rationalisation of pay structure by the State – Symbolic invocation of “Gurubrahma Gururvishnu Gurudevo Maheshwarah” must translate into dignified treatment of teachers [Paras 4-5, 18, 33].

Decision – State’s Appeals Dismissed – Teachers’ Appeals Allowed in Part – Supreme Court dismissed State’s appeals against grant of minimum scale, and allowed teachers’ appeals by modifying relief – Contractual Assistant Professors directed to be paid minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors, arrears with 8% interest from 3 years prior to writ petitions – Liberty reserved for further remedies before High Court regarding long service and regularisation – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 23, 34].

Slum Rehabilitation – Preferential Rights of Landowner – Acquisition Quashed – Sections 3B(4)(e), 12(10), 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Slums Act – Judgment affirms the preferential right of a landowner to redevelop land declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision to quash State acquisition of the land owned by Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. (ICM) – Held: SRA and State acted without affording proper opportunity to the landowner – Acquisition was premature, contrary to statutory mandate, and tainted by procedural impropriety and mala fides – Landowner given liberty to submit fresh SR Scheme – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1, 43, 88–109].

Land Acquisition - Slum Rehabilitation – Preferential Right of Landowner – Sections 3B(4)(e), 12(10), and 13 of the Slums Act – Preferential Right Recognized – Chapter I-A of the Slums Act grants a primary right to the landowner to redevelop a notified Slum Rehabilitation Area, which takes precedence over rights of occupants or the SRA – Such right exists until it is extinguished by the landowner’s failure to act within a reasonable time – Held: Landowner’s primacy in redevelopment must be preserved [Paras 45–63].

Notice Requirement – Specific Notice to Landowner – Interpretation of “Reasonable Time” in Section 13 – Mandatory Notice Required – SRA must issue a specific invitation to the landowner to submit an SR Scheme – General publication of Section 3C(1) Declaration is insufficient – Without such invitation, the owner cannot be expected to act or be held to have forfeited rights – Held: Absence of formal notice renders acquisition premature and unlawful [Paras 64–75].

Land Acquisition – Section 14 vis-à-vis Section 13 – Acquisition Subject to Owner’s Preferential Right – State’s power to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D must be exercised only after the landowner’s right to develop stands extinguished – Held: Until landowner has been given opportunity and fails to act, acquisition cannot be justified as necessary under the Act [Paras 76–87].

Application to Facts – ICM’s Willingness to Redevelop – Acquisition Invalid – Evidence showed that Indian Cork Mills repeatedly expressed intent to redevelop the land and sought SRA support – No formal notice or assistance was provided – Held: In absence of cooperation by the SRA and with the landowner’s rights unextinguished, acquisition was premature and invalid [Paras 88–93].

Malafide Conduct – Collusion Between Developer and Slum Society – Procedural Irregularities – Tarabai Society acted at the behest of a private developer and did not engage with the landowner – SRA failed to perform its statutory duties, shifted positions without justification, and ignored landowner’s rights – Held: Entire acquisition process suffered from mala fides and abuse of power, justifying intervention [Paras 94–106].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court Judgment Affirmed – Preferential Right Upheld – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the acquisition – Directed ICM to submit a fresh SR Scheme within 120 days and directed SRA to process it within 60 days – Status quo order vacated and all pending matters disposed of [Paras 107–109].

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Cancellation of Earlier Notification – Fresh Notification Valid – The erstwhile AP-Transco had initiated a recruitment process in 2011-12 which could not be completed due to litigation over weightage marks – Upon bifurcation of the State, TS-Transco issued a fresh notification in 2017 for Sub-Engineer (Electrical) posts and cancelled the earlier one – High Court held such cancellation illegal – Supreme Court held: Decision to cancel earlier selection was valid in view of (i) unresolved litigation, (ii) bifurcation of the State, and (iii) liberty granted by the High Court in 2017 order to take an independent decision – Impugned High Court judgment set aside [Paras 2–3, 12–13, 21–23, 33–34].

Recruitment Zones – Change in Structure and Reservation Policy – No Continuity with Earlier Process – Earlier zones in united Andhra Pradesh were different from the North-South bifurcation in Telangana under new notification – Number of posts and reservation ratios were also revised – Held: Selection in Telangana cannot be treated as continuation of earlier process – No obligation to recruit from old select list [Paras 24–26].

Vested Right – No Right to Appointment from Select List – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Mere selection in a process does not confer a vested right to appointment – TS-Transco considered legitimate expectations by extending age relaxation in new notification – Held: Adequate accommodation provided, no interference warranted – Judicial review cannot dictate extent of policy leniency [Paras 27–29].

Judicial Review – Scope – Policy Decisions Post Bifurcation – Courts Should Not Interfere – Cancellation of recruitment based on administrative and legal necessity cannot be interfered with unless mala fide – TS-Transco acted in accordance with law and considered all stakeholders – Held: High Court’s interference unjustified and contrary to settled principles [Paras 20–23, 30–32].

Distinction with Other Posts – Section 79, AP Reorganisation Act – Protection to Appointees Only – Appointments made to other posts (Junior Assistant, Junior Lineman) were upheld because appointments were already made – Section 79 protects vested rights, not expectations – Writ petitioners in present case were not appointed – Held: Section 79 does not apply to mere selectees [Paras 31–32].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Validity of Notification dated 28.12.2017 upheld – Fresh selection by TS-Transco to proceed – Appeal by unqualified candidates (SLP(C) No.12599/2020) dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 33–36].

Acquisition of Church Trust - Slum Rehabilitation – Preferential Right of Landowner – Acquisition Proceedings Vitiated – Supreme Court affirmed that private landowners retain a preferential right to redevelop slum rehabilitation areas – SRA must issue a specific notice-cum-invitation under Section 13 before initiating acquisition – In present case, no such notice was issued to Church Trust – Acquisition of Subject Land held illegal – High Court judgment quashing acquisition upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 16, 22-24, 26-32, 36].

Impact of 2018 Amendment – No Dilution of Owner’s Rights – Court clarified that insertion of “owners” in Section 3B(5) and Section 13 entrenched, rather than diluted, landowners’ rights – Stipulated 120-day limit for submission of redevelopment scheme begins only after specific notice is served – Section 3C declaration cannot substitute notice under Section 13 – Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Society v. State of Maharashtra (2025) followed – Preferential rights remain intact post-amendment [Paras 20-25].

Conduct of Developer and SRA – Mala Fide Attempt to Usurp Land – Evidence showed Saldanha attempted to purchase Subject Land and, upon failure, orchestrated acquisition through Kadeshwari Society and SRA – SRA displayed bias and processed developer’s scheme while rejecting Church Trust’s proposal on technical grounds – Court held process tainted by collusion, colourable exercise of power and mala fides – Acquisition amounted to “land grab” [Paras 37-50].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Intervention at Preliminary Stage Justified – Even procedural steps like acquisition notice/order under Section 14 can be reviewed to prevent arbitrary action – Absence of third-party rights no bar to maintainability – High Court rightly quashed acquisition before completion to prevent abuse of process [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Church Trust granted liberty to file redevelopment scheme within 120 days; SRA directed to assist and process scheme within 60 days – Preferential right of owner reaffirmed; acquisition proceedings quashed as illegal [Paras 53-55].

Suo Moto - Stray Dog Menace – Suo Moto Action by Supreme Court – Direction to Relocate and Shelter Dogs – Reconsidered – Taking suo moto cognizance of media reports on fatal dog attacks in Delhi-NCR, the Court initially directed municipal authorities to capture and permanently shelter all stray dogs without release – Subsequently, upon challenge by animal welfare organizations citing Rule 11(19) of ABC Rules, the Court partially modified the earlier order, holding that sterilised and immunised dogs (except those with rabies or aggressive behavior) must be released back to their original localities – Direction to prohibit their release was kept in abeyance [Paras 1-33].

Balancing Fundamental Rights – Article 21 vs. Article 19 – Public Safety Prevails – The Court held that interim restrictions on stray dogs' release and regulation of public feeding did not infringe Article 19 rights of animal lovers – Emphasised that protecting the Right to Life under Article 21 of citizens, particularly children and elderly, must be paramount – Directed strict compliance with modified orders and warned of legal action against obstruction by individuals or NGOs [Paras 13, 17, 33(f)].

Animal Birth Control Rules – Rule 11(19) Clarified – Immunised Dogs to be Released Unless Rabid – The Court upheld the essence of Rule 11(19) providing for release of treated dogs to original areas – But carved out exception that dogs displaying rabid symptoms or aggression should be isolated in separate pounds post-treatment – Rejected blanket ban on street return for all dogs [Paras 24-28, 33(b)].

Feeding Stray Dogs – Designated Zones Introduced – Street Feeding Banned – Directed creation of official dog feeding zones in every municipal ward with proper signage – Banned feeding in open streets to prevent public nuisance and danger – Violators to be prosecuted under relevant laws – Dedicated helpline numbers to report violations to be created by all municipal bodies [Paras 33(d)-(e)].

Nationwide Implementation – Scope Expanded Beyond NCR – Recognizing the pan-India nature of stray dog issues, all States and UTs were impleaded through Animal Husbandry and local body Secretaries – Directed Registrar Generals of High Courts to inform about similar pending cases to consider their transfer for uniform handling by Supreme Court [Paras 34-36].

Final Directions – Previous Ban Modified – Partial Lifting of Shelter-only Condition – Aggressive dogs not to be released – Municipal authorities directed to submit compliance reports including availability of personnel, infrastructure, vehicles, and medical professionals – Monetary cost imposed on NGOs and individuals seeking intervention to ensure accountability [Paras 33(g)-(i), 37].

Forest Service Law – Promotion to IFoS – Interpretation of Rule 2(g), IFS Recruitment Rules, 1966 – FROs as State Forest Service – The appellant, a Forest Range Officer (later promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests), claimed that FRO service constituted part of “State Forest Service” and thus entitled to consideration for promotion to IFoS – Held: Approval under Rule 2(g) relates to the service as a whole and not individual posts – Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Class A, including FROs and ACFs, being a gazetted cadre connected with forestry, qualifies as “State Forest Service” subject to approval – Members eligible for consideration if substantive and with 8 years’ service [Paras 6-13].

Delay and Laches – Relief Denied for Past Exercises – The appellant completed 8 years of service in 2014 but made representation only in 2021 – Held: Though legal position clarified in his favour, he cannot claim retrospective consideration for earlier recruitment years – Relief confined to future selection exercises – Reliance placed on P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152 [Paras 18-20].

Promotion – Zone of Consideration – Seniority to be Respected – Though declaration obtained, appellant not entitled to bypass senior officers in zone of consideration – Claim restricted to participation in future selection processes as per rules [Paras 16-20].

Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Tribunal’s View Restored in Principle – Appeal allowed partly – Held: Andhra Pradesh Forest Service (Class A, including FROs) constitutes “State Forest Service” – FROs eligible for promotion to IFoS if otherwise qualified – However, appellant’s claim for earlier years rejected – Authorities directed to treat FROs as State Forest Service in future IFoS selection exercises [Paras 21-23].

Civil Law -  – Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC – Mandatory Pleading Requirement – High Court’s Error – High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decree for specific performance by accepting additional evidence submitted by the defendant – However, the Supreme Court held that before allowing additional evidence, the Appellate Court must examine whether such evidence is supported by pleadings in the written statement – Held: Failure to undertake this threshold scrutiny invalidates the appellate judgment – High Court erred in admitting evidence not grounded in defendant’s pleadings [Paras 5.5, 6, 8, 9].

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Pleading and Proof of Readiness and Willingness – Trial Court rightly decreed specific performance based on plaintiffs’ evidence and performance under the contract – The High Court wrongly reversed this without properly assessing the defendant’s pleadings and the legality of admitting new evidence – Held: Matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 2.5, 2.6, 5.3, 10].

Evidence – Signature Dispute – Section 73, Indian Evidence Act – Improper Use by High Court – The High Court erred in comparing signatures under Section 73 without proper foundation and contrary to the Trial Court's factual findings – Held: Comparison of signatures was not permissible in the manner adopted – Judgment vitiated [Para 4].

Decision – Judgment Set Aside – Matter Remanded – Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 30.12.2008 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration – Clarified that it had expressed no opinion on merits – Requested High Court to decide the matter expeditiously considering the long pendency since 1997 [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Conviction Upheld – The appellant, a Central Excise Inspector, was convicted for demanding ₹300/- from a factory supervisor for issuing an excise registration certificate – The trial court and High Court concurrently held that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proved through testimony of PW-2 (complainant), PW-3 (complainant’s brother), and supporting documentary and phenolphthalein test evidence – Supreme Court upheld the conviction and found no merit in challenge to findings of guilt [Paras 2-3.2].

Mitigating Circumstances – Sentence Reduction – Reformative Approach Adopted – Appellant confined challenge to sentence only – Court noted appellant was a 75-year-old widow from a scheduled caste background, had undergone 31 days of imprisonment, and the offence occurred 22 years ago – Relying on precedents including M.W. Mohiuddin (1995), Bechaarbhai Prajapati (2008), Gulmahmad Dall (2015), B.G. Goswami (1974), and others – Held: Sufficient mental and emotional suffering caused by protracted litigation warranted reduction in sentence – Reformative jurisprudence considered more progressive and suitable in such cases [Paras 4-10].

Sentence Modified – Fine Enhanced – Period of imprisonment already undergone treated as adequate – Fine enhanced to ₹25,000/- in lieu of remaining sentence – Non-payment to result in revival of original sentence and requirement to surrender [Para 10.1].