Criminal Appeal – Interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appeal against the High Court's decision dismissing the petition to quash FIR and remand order – Appellant, a former Chief Minister, implicated in corruption-related offences – Allegations involve siphoning off government funds – Key issue centers around the applicability and interpretation of Section 17A, introduced by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. [Para 1-3, 8-10]

Section 17A – Applicability and Interpretation – Differing opinions on whether Section 17A applies retrospectively or prospectively – Section 17A prohibits enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into offences alleged against a public servant without prior approval, where offences relate to decisions or recommendations made in official capacity – Majority opinion suggests Section 17A is substantive, applying prospectively to offences defined post-amendment, and not to repealed offences – Dissenting opinion suggests Section 17A as procedural, potentially applicable retroactively. [Para 11-28]

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Validity of Remand Order – Special Court held jurisdiction to pass remand order against the appellant, charged under IPC offences alongside offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act – No jurisdictional error found in the remand order passed by the Special Court. [Para 29]

Conclusion and Referral to Larger Bench – Contradictory opinions on key legal issues lead to referral to a larger bench for resolution – Matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate action. [Order]

Decision – Appeal dismissed due to lack of merit, subject to further adjudication by a larger bench on specific legal questions. [Para 30, Order]

Historical and Cultural Significance of Chittorgarh Fort - Recognized under relevant Acts and as a UNESCO World Heritage Site - Importance of preserving the fort from damages due to urbanization and mining activities. [Paras 1-2]

Conflict between Mineral Exploitation and Monument Preservation - Dilemma over limestone mining near Chittorgarh Fort and its potential harm to the monument's structural integrity. [Paras 3-4, 6]

Litigation History and PILs - Filing of PILs against mining activities near Chittorgarh Fort, leading to restrictions on mining operations within a 10 km radius of the fort. [Paras 5, 8, 9]

Environmental and Structural Impact Studies - Reports by CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, and the Indian Bureau of Mines on the impact of mining activities on Chittorgarh Fort. Findings suggested that vibrations from blasting were within permissible limits but recommended continuous monitoring. [Paras 15-16, 18]

Court's Considerations and Directives - Emphasis on a multidimensional approach to preserve Chittorgarh Fort. Directions for further studies using advanced technology to assess the impact of mining activities, particularly blasting, on the Fort. Implementation of a five-kilometre radius prohibition for mining operations using explosives. [Paras 22-24]

Future Measures and Monitoring - Establishment of a committee for comprehensive study and environmental impact assessment. Directions for the implementation of recommendations and regular reporting to the Court. [Paras 24.1-24.15]

Implementation of MV Act for Compensation in Hit and Run Cases – Examination of Section 161 of the MV Act for compensation to victims of hit and run motor accidents – Central Government to ensure compensation as per the Act and the Scheme made under the Act. [Para 1, 2]

Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 – Replaced the Solatium Scheme, 1989 – Establishment of Standing Committee and District Level Committees for scheme administration – Procedure for applying for compensation under the Scheme detailed. [Para 3]

Concerns in Scheme Implementation – Analysis of annual reports on road accidents – Inadequate number of claims received under the Scheme compared to the high number of hit and run accidents – Need for public awareness and more effective implementation strategies. [Para 4, 5]

Directions for Improved Implementation and Awareness – Suggestions for identifying hit and run accidents and informing victims about the Scheme – Formation of Monitoring Committees at district level – Quarterly reports on functioning to be submitted. [Para 6, 9]

Consideration of Compensation Amount and Extension of Time Limit – Direction to Central Government to consider enhancement of compensation amounts and extension of time limit for claims under the Solatium Scheme. [Para 10, 11]

Compliance and Reporting – Authorities to provide compliance reports to the Amicus Curiae and counsel representing parties – Listing for considering compliance on 22nd April 2024. [Para 12]

Incident and Initial Trial - Incident on 09.01.1999 led to the death of Akbar and injuries to others - Accused Mohd. Yunus (A1), Mohd. Jamil (A2), Ghasita (A3), and Akhtar Hussain (A4) were tried - A1, A2, and A3 initially convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC, A4 acquitted later. [Para 1]

High Court's Judgment - Appeal in High Court - Acquittal of A1 from Section 302 but conviction under Section 323 maintained - A2's conviction under Sections 302 and 323 upheld - A4's acquittal confirmed, A3 deceased during appeal. [Paras 3, 4]

State's Appeal Against Acquittal - State appealed against A1's acquittal under Section 302 - Challenge focused on equal evidence weightage as A2, who was convicted. [Paras 5, 14]

Evidence and Witness Credibility - High Court and Supreme Court found FIR registration timely - However, key witnesses Deenu (PW-7) and Ahmad (PW-8) considered unreliable due to contradictions and improvements in statements - Previous enmity noted, recovery of weapons from A1 and A2 not established. [Paras 16-20]

Supreme Court's Decision - Conviction of A2 under Section 302 set aside, maintaining conviction under Section 323 - A1's acquittal under Section 302 upheld - A2's sentence for offence under Section 323 sufficient as per custody duration. [Paras 20-22]

Execution of Decree and Objection under Section 47 CPC - Trial Court's decree against Samiullah (Defendant No. 2) based on his failure to file a written statement was challenged for lacking inherent jurisdiction and thus inexecutable. The High Court, agreeing with the Executing Court, found the decree void, leading to the current appeal. [Paras 1-7, 12, 32-41, 51]

Adjudication on Jurisdiction and Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC - The Trial Court's failure to adjudicate its own competence to try the suit before decreeing against Samiullah led to a jurisdictional error, rendering the decree void and inexecutable. [Paras 13-22, 40-41]

Requirements for a Judgment and Decree under CPC - The Trial Court's order did not conform to the definition of a judgment as required under Section 2(9) and Rule 4(2) of Order XX CPC, thus invalidating the ensuing decree under Section 2(2) CPC. [Paras 43-50]

Transfer of Property During Pending Litigation - The sale deed in favor of the Purchasers (Respondents 1 to 3), while the suit was pending and in light of an interim injunction, was brought into question but left for determination by a competent forum. [Paras 7-8, 54]

Impact of Decision on Property and Court Receiver - The Court Receiver appointed by the Supreme Court was discharged, and the matter of accounts related to the property was directed to be resolved in accordance with law. [Paras 55-56]

Criminal Law – Sections 302, 304 Part I of IPC – Nature of Offence – Modified Conviction – The appellants were initially convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of the deceased during a quarrel – The Court held that there was no prior intention to murder, as the assault arose out of a spontaneous altercation – The first quarrel between the parties occurred over a trivial issue, and the fatal attack took place after a second confrontation – The facts indicate that the case falls within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, as the intention to cause death was absent at the time of the first quarrel [Paras 6-7].

Section 34 of IPC – Common Intention – Application of Section 34 – Even though the other accused did not actively assault the deceased, they facilitated the act by restraining him, thus attracting Section 34 for the shared intention – However, their involvement was limited to aiding Appellant No.1 in the act of homicide, justifying the modification of the charge to Section 304 Part I rather than Section 302 [Para 6].

Decision - Sentence Modification – Long Period of Incarceration – Mitigating Circumstances – The appellants had been incarcerated for over 8-9 years by the time of the judgment – Given that the incident occurred nearly 20 years ago and considering the appellants' background as illiterate and rustic villagers, the Court deemed it appropriate to modify the sentence to the period already served [Paras 7-8].

Development Plan for Shimla Planning Area – NGT Orders Quashed – The Supreme Court set aside NGT’s orders dated November 16, 2017, July 16, 2018, May 12, 2022, and October 14, 2022. The orders were regarding the draft development plan for Shimla Planning Area and were found to overstep NGT’s jurisdiction and its role in legislative policy-making [Paras 1-128].

Jurisdiction of NGT – Limitation Recognized – NGT transgressed its limits by dictating legislative policy in the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act. The Supreme Court held that NGT cannot impose constraints on the powers of authorities delegated to enact subordinate legislation [Paras 70, 112].

Sustainable Development – Balancing Development and Environment – Emphasized the need for sustainable development, harmonizing economic and social needs with environmental considerations. The Court noted the importance of addressing environmental concerns in urban planning, citing the development plan’s procedural rigor and expert consultations [Paras 113-122].

Intervention in Statutory Functioning Disallowed – NGT’s intervention in directing how the delegatee under the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act should enact delegated legislation was held inappropriate. The role of NGT is to adjudicate specific disputes, not to direct legislative policy [Paras 68-70, 112].

High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction Upheld – Affirmed the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over tribunal decisions, including those of the NGT. The continuation of NGT proceedings during the High Court’s seisin of related matters was deemed contrary to judicial propriety [Paras 103-106, 109-112].

Environmental Impact and Urban Planning – Stressed the need for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in urban development. The Court highlighted the importance of considering environmental impacts in planning decisions and recognized the rights to a clean environment and development under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 118-122].

Compensation for ‘Green Belt’ Area Plot Holders – The issue of compensating plot holders in ‘Green Belt’ areas was deemed beyond the scope of these proceedings. The interveners were directed to seek appropriate legal remedies [Para 125].

Decision: Appeals allowed, NGT orders quashed, and the State of Himachal Pradesh is permitted to proceed with the implementation of the development plan as published on June 20, 2023, subject to observations made [Paras 126-128].

Pollution and Environmental Concerns – Addressing air pollution in Delhi NCR due to heavy traffic at the ICD, Tughlakabad – Initial application by the former Executive Director of Central Warehousing Corporation to the NGT under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Seeking redirection of traffic and adoption of cleaner fuel vehicles. [Paras 1-2]

NGT Orders and Appeal – NGT's interim orders for phased reduction of diesel vehicles at the ICD and shift to cleaner fuel options – Appeal by Container Corporation of India Ltd. against NGT order – Supreme Court's direction to EPCA to report on the issue. [Paras 3-5]

EPCA Report and Recommendations – EPCA's findings on vehicle pollution, utilization of ICDs, and parking congestion – Recommendations for adopting BS-VI vehicles, optimizing use of other ICDs, and improving parking management. [Paras 6-17]

Supreme Court Directions – Acceptance of EPCA recommendations – Phasing out of heavy-duty diesel vehicles, policy formation for BS-VI vehicles by MoRTH, continued exploration of alternative fuels, and optimal utilization of ICDs around Delhi. [Paras 18-22]

Monitoring and Compliance – Supreme Court to monitor implementation of directions – Appeal disposed of with instructions for compliance report by July 31, 2024. [Paras 23-24]

Decision – Supreme Court directs phased reduction of diesel vehicles at ICD, Tughlakabad, adoption of BS-VI vehicles, and exploration of alternative fuels – Orders to optimize utilization of other ICDs and improve parking management – Compliance to be monitored with a report due on July 31, 2024.

Land Allotment Dispute – Appeal by Delhi Development Authority against High Court's judgment affirming land allotment to Hello Home Educational Society for a school in Vasant Kunj – Initial approvals for Jasola area, not Vasant Kunj – Discrepancies in Essentiality Certificate and Sponsorship Letter. [Paras 2-7, 9]

Change in Allotment Policy – High Court's judgment based on the assumption of retrospective application of policy change – Supreme Court clarifies non-retrospective policy application, affecting pending land allotment matters, to be dealt with through auction. [Paras 8, 18.4, 18.9]

Delay in Legal Remedy – Supreme Court notes inordinate delay of 11 years by the Society in approaching the court based on Lieutenant Governor's in-principle approval – Delay undermines the claim. [Paras 18.1, 18.6]

Internal Notings and Rights – Internal office notings and in-principle approvals without formal order and communication do not confer legal rights – Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of formal decision-making and communication process. [Paras 18.7, 18.8]

Negative Parity in Allotments – Argument of similar allotments to other societies rejected – No negative parity in legal entitlements based on alleged irregularities in other cases. [Para 18.10]

Decision: Appeals allowed; the impugned orders of the Division Bench and Single Judge set aside. Writ petition filed by the Society dismissed.

No order as to costs.