Facts:

The State of Haryana issued a notification granting weightage in NEET marks for admission to postgraduate Medical/Dental courses based on identification of remote and/or difficult areas. This notification was challenged in court.

Issues:

The validity of the notification, the criteria used for identifying remote and/or difficult areas, and the legality of conducting counseling sessions contrary to court orders.

Held:

The Court found the notification to be flawed due to hasty issuance, arbitrary criteria, and implementation before publication in the Gazette.

The identification of remote and/or difficult areas was not based on relevant factors and was done solely for the purpose of postgraduate course admission.

The conduct of counseling sessions in violation of court orders was deprecated.

The Court directed the State of Haryana to issue a fresh notification within one week, identifying remote and/or difficult areas based on appropriate considerations.

The last date for admission was extended to facilitate this process.

The appeals were dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant challenged the order of preventive detention issued against her husband under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, based on allegations related to the sale of spurious seeds.

Issues:

Whether the order of preventive detention was warranted under the provisions of the Act, considering the availability of remedies under ordinary laws, and whether the detention was justified in light of the alleged offences.

Held:

The court emphasized that an order of preventive detention, while based on subjective satisfaction, must be within the limitations of the statute and exercised for the purpose conferred by the law. Any misuse or abuse of this power, including reliance on extraneous or irrelevant materials, would render the detention order vitiated as a colorable exercise of power.

The court concluded that classifying the detenu as a "goonda" and invoking preventive detention based on inadequate yield from seeds sold by him constituted a gross abuse of statutory power. The grounds of detention were found to be extraneous to the Act.

Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, holding the order of preventive detention unsustainable and setting it aside. The detenu was ordered to be released unless wanted in any other case, without prejudice to prosecution under ordinary laws.

FACTS:

The appellants and Jit Kakati were charged with various offences including gang rape, murder, and screening of evidence.

The deceased, Rekha Dutta, was last seen in the company of the accused on 27.12.1992 but her whereabouts thereafter were unknown until her body was discovered on a railway track.

Circumstances relied upon by the prosecution included the last seen theory, recovery of a weapon, and bloodstains found in the bathroom of a bungalow.

ISSUES:

Whether the circumstances established by the prosecution are sufficient to convict the accused.

Whether the absence of satisfactory explanation by the accused leads to a presumption of guilt.

HELD:

The High Court convicted the appellants based on the last seen theory and absence of satisfactory explanation, which the Supreme Court overturned. Analyze the importance of last seen theory and the absence of explanation. The Court emphasizes that the circumstance of last seen together, coupled with the absence of a satisfactory explanation, cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Referring to the case of Bharat v. State of M.P.,

The Court clarifies that the failure of the accused to offer an explanation alone is not sufficient to establish guilt. Furthermore, the Court examines the judgment in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, stating that the circumstance of last seen together can be considered relevant only if the prosecution proves that there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased in the intervening period. Given the lack of a complete chain of circumstances leading to the hypothesis of guilt against the accused.

The Court sets aside the judgment of the High Court and acquits the appellants of the charges under Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

REFERRED CASES:

Arjun Marik Vs. State of Bihar, (1994) Sup 2 SCC 372

arat Vs. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 106

Brahm Swaroop Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288

Jaharlal Das Vs. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715

M.G. Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200

Madho Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 4 SCC 116

State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755

Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406

Facts: The appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment for brutally assaulting the deceased, resulting in his death. The assault involved the use of deadly weapons like a hammer, sickle, and iron rod. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimonies, including that of an injured witness, PW-1 Lalbahadur Sastri, who was present during the assault. Motive for the assault was established through prior conflicts between the deceased and the appellants. Postmortem reports confirmed the severity of the injuries sustained by the deceased.

Issues:

The credibility of eyewitness testimonies, the presence of motive, and the severity of the assault. The defense challenged the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

In evaluating the evidence, the court found the eyewitness testimonies to be credible and reliable, particularly emphasizing the reliability of PW-1 Lalbahadur Sastri as an injured witness.

The court dismissed challenges to the credibility of witnesses and confirmed the presence of motive for the assault. Based on the clear ocular evidence presented, the court upheld the convictions of the appellants under Section 302 IPC. There was no need to consider issues of common intention, as the individual actions of each appellant demonstrated an intent to cause death.

Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to surrender and serve out their remaining sentences.

Facts:

The respondent company invited tenders/bids for a project, with eligibility and qualification criteria outlined in the tender documents. The bid of the appellant-Corporation was rejected due to a perceived deficiency in experience, as per the requirements specified in the tender documents.

Issues:

Whether the appellant-Corporation could utilize the experience of its subsidiary companies to meet the eligibility criteria outlined in the tender documents.

Held:

The court interpreted clause 4.1 of Section I of the Instructions to Bidders, which allowed for bids from single entities or combinations of entities in the form of Joint Ventures or Consortia. The interpretation established that a single entity could include government-owned entities along with their wholly owned subsidiaries (Para 34).

The court affirmed that the inclusion of government-owned entities and their wholly owned subsidiaries was imperative for broad-based participation, essential for the quality execution of public projects (Para 35).

Referring to a previous case, Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler SPA, the court reiterated that the appellant-Corporation should be considered a single entity bidder, despite the absence of the term "government-owned entity" in the current clause (Para 37).

The court scrutinized the clarifications provided regarding the experience requirement and concluded that the decision to disqualify the appellant's bid was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable (Para 38).

Rejecting the respondent's apprehension regarding the availability of the appellant's subsidiary companies for project execution, the court affirmed the structural integrity and functional unity of the appellant-Corporation and its subsidiaries (Para 39).

Ultimately, the court held that the disqualification of the appellant-Corporation based on experience deficiency was unsustainable in law and fact, being grossly illegal, arbitrary, and perverse (Para 40).

Decision: The court allowed the appeal, reinstating the eligibility of the appellant-Corporation to participate in the bidding process.

Facts:

Land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, through notifications issued in 1959 and 1965.

Possession of the land was taken in 1975.

Resolutions were passed by the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) regarding the reconveyance of portions of the acquired land to R. Hanumaiah.

Legal proceedings ensued, including petitions filed by R. Hanumaiah seeking reconveyance of the land and appeals by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) challenging such requests.

Despite previous Supreme Court rulings, attempts were made to de-acquire the land, leading to further legal challenges.

Issues:

Whether reconveyance of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act can be exercised after the land has vested with the State Government.

Whether the actions of the State Government and the High Court of Karnataka in issuing notifications for de-acquisition were legal.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the reconveyance of land cannot be exercised after the land has vested with the State Government, as per Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. It deemed the notifications issued for de-acquisition by the State Government as void and illegal.

The High Court's decision to set aside previous rulings and direct the State of Karnataka to reconsider the matter was criticized for not adhering to the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants and penalized the legal representatives of R. Hanumaiah for their continued legal pursuit in defiance of the court's orders.

The judgment also clarified the cessation of the liability of the BDA for interest on compensation after the deposit of compensation in court.

Facts:

The respondent, a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Indian Coast Guard Service, sought promotion to the post of Inspector General.

The challenge was based on the legality and arbitrariness of the DPC recommendations, conducted under a recently framed selection policy (CGO 02109) superseding an earlier policy (CGO 02105). Additionally, issues were raised regarding the endorsement of the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) by the Director-General (DG) without the mandatory 90-day performance observation period.

Issues:

The legality of conducting the DPC based on the selection policy CGO 02109.

The competence of the DG to endorse the ACR without the mandatory 90-day performance observation period.

Held:

The Court emphasized that the rules in existence when the vacancies arose should be considered until specifically decided otherwise.

As there was no delay in calling the DPC and CGO 02109 was in force at the time, the Court ruled it applicable.

The DG's endorsement of the ACR and review before the completion of the mandatory 90-day period were deemed competent.

The High Court's order was set aside, and promotion consideration was directed in accordance with the relevant rules.

Decision: The appeals were found maintainable, with leave to file a fresh Special Leave Petition (SLP) granted in case the review application was dismissed.

Facts:

The Government body (NMRCL) awarded a contract to a company owned by the Government of the People's Republic of China (Respondent No. 2) instead of the appellant company.

The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the winning company was not a 'single entity' and had used the experience of its subsidiaries to qualify.

Issues:

Whether the decision to award the contract to a government-owned entity was valid.

Whether the respondent company's reliance on its subsidiaries' experience was permissible under the bid document's terms.

Held:

The court acknowledges the principle of judicial review concerning governmental contractual powers, which aims to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. It emphasizes that judicial restraint should be exercised, and courts lack the expertise to correct administrative decisions. The decision must be reasonable and free from bias or malafide. ([Para 27], [Para 29])

The court affirms that the respondent No. 2, being a government-owned entity, falls within the bid document's Clause 4.1. It is deemed permissible for a single entity to include its wholly-owned subsidiaries' experience in its bid, provided they form a homogenous pool under the immediate control of the parent entity. The court observes that the respondent has applied commercial wisdom in interpreting the bid document, which has received concurrence from relevant committees and the financing bank. ([Para 32])

The court concludes that the interpretation of 'Government-owned entity' by the respondent, including its subsidiaries, is justified. It emphasizes that the decision, taken in accordance with commercial wisdom and expertise, should not be interfered with in the absence of perversity, bias, or malafide. ([Para 34])

Decision: The court dismisses the appeals and upholds the decision to award the contract to the government-owned entity. It finds no grounds for interference, as the decision was made in public interest and without bias or malafide.

Facts:

The case pertains to the appeal of Kameng Dolo against the High Court's declaration of his election to the State Legislative Assembly as void. The challenge was based on the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issues:

• The compliance with section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, concerning the withdrawal of candidature by the appellant.

Held:

Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, clearly outlines the procedure for withdrawal of candidature. It mandates that a candidate may withdraw their candidature by providing written notice containing prescribed particulars before the specified deadline.

The withdrawal notice must be delivered to the Returning Officer by the candidate personally, their proposer, or their election agent, authorized in writing. The Returning Officer must verify the genuineness of the withdrawal notice and the identity of the person delivering it.

In the present case, it was found that there was total non-compliance with section 37, as the withdrawal of candidature was not made by the candidate, their proposer, or their election agent, and there was no authorization for such withdrawal.

The legislature has provided safeguards in section 37 to ensure the integrity of the withdrawal process. Non-compliance with these safeguards could undermine the democratic process and the sanctity of elections.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and the decision of the High Court to declare the election void is upheld due to the non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding withdrawal of candidature.