Civil Law - Medical Negligence - Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur - Appeal against High Court decision enhancing damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in hospital premises - Plaintiff, an indoor patient with high fever, found injured due to alleged negligence by hospital authorities - High Court applied res ipsa loquitur, holding hospital liable in absence of due care - Supreme Court upheld findings of negligence and dismissed appeals, affirming enhanced damages. [Paras 1-12]

Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur - Analysis - Held - Court applied the principle that the occurrence of the incident itself indicates negligence by hospital, placing the burden of proof on hospital to show absence of negligence - Hospital failed to prove non-negligence, leading to liability for injuries sustained by plaintiff. [Paras 8-10]

Quantum of Damages - Assessment - Held - Damages assessed under three broad heads: loss of future prospects in employment, cost of attendant, and non-pecuniary loss including pain and suffering - High Court enhanced damages to Rs. 11 lakhs with interest - Supreme Court found assessment reasonable and affirmed quantum of damages awarded. [Paras 7, 11]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - Both the plaintiff's appeal seeking further enhancement and the defendant hospital's appeal against findings of negligence and quantum of damages were dismissed - Supreme Court upheld High Court's judgment in entirety. [Paras 10-12]

Civil Procedure - High Court's Obligation to Frame Substantial Questions of Law - High Court allowed the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law as required by Section 100 CPC - Held that such failure is a grave procedural error - Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside - First appellate court’s findings reinstated as it properly evaluated evidence and upheld appellant's rights. [Paras 1-9]

Jurisdiction - Bar under Consolidation and Land Reforms Acts - Question of civil court’s jurisdiction under Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Land Holdings Act and Section 331 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Held that civil court’s jurisdiction not barred as the case involves title and sonship, not mere consolidation issues - Suit not barred under the aforementioned sections. [Para 10]

Fraud and Legality of Consolidation Officer's Order - Order of Consolidation Officer found to be obtained by fraud - Consolidation Officer failed to examine rightful ownership and allowed withdrawal of appellant’s objection without proper verification - Held that order is null and void due to legal malice - Appellant entitled to be recorded as half-share owner in the revenue records. [Paras 11-12]

Decision - Restoring First Appellate Court’s Judgment - High Court’s judgment set aside - First appellate court's judgment restored - Competent authority directed to record appellant's name in revenue records as half-share owner - Appeal allowed. [Paras 13]

Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Directions – Contempt Petition against State Government –Supreme Court held that the State Government is in contempt of the Court’s order dated 14.03.2012, which directed the State to recommend the grant of iron ore mines to BPSL as per the MOU. The State Government’s plea of subsequent legal and statutory complications was rejected. The State was given one month to comply with the Court's order by making the requisite recommendation to the Central Government, failing which further contempt proceedings would ensue. [Paras 14-27]

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Enforcement of MOUs –Supreme Court affirmed that BPSL’s legitimate expectations arising from the MOU dated 15.05.2002 must be honored by the State Government. The State's subsequent actions and disputes, including overlapping applications and statutory notifications, do not negate the obligations established by the MOU and affirmed by the Supreme Court. [Paras 16, 24-25]

Mineral Rights – Overlapping Claims and Simultaneous Consideration –The Court dismissed the State’s argument regarding the complexity of overlapping mining lease applications, emphasizing that the specific direction to recommend BPSL’s application must be honored. Other pending applications must be considered independently, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions and relevant legal principles. [Para 24]

Decision – Contempt Petition Allowed – State Government Directed to Comply –The Supreme Court allowed the contempt petition, mandating the State Government to make the necessary recommendations for mining leases to the Central Government within one month. The State’s failure to comply would result in further contempt proceedings. [Para 27]

Writ Petitions – Maintainability under Article 32 – Liberty to Approach Appropriate Forum –Three writ petitions filed under Article 32 were dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. The Court held that the petitioners must first approach the High Court or other appropriate forums for relief. The Court did not address the merits of the cases, leaving those issues open for adjudication by the appropriate forum. [Paras 29-30]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 – Determination of Compensation – Civil Appeal against High Court's reduction of compensation awarded by Tribunal – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20,90,000 based on a monthly income of Rs. 15,000 – High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 5,76,000 based on the net income from the income tax return and reduced the multiplier and other heads of compensation – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in deductions and inappropriately reduced the compensation – Compensation re-assessed based on gross income, appropriate deductions, and heads of compensation – Compensation of Rs. 14,51,000 awarded with 9% interest per annum. [Paras 1-16]

Determination of Income – Analysis – Held – The income should be calculated based on the gross income from the income tax return – Future prospects to be considered – Deductions for personal expenses to be 1/3rd of total income – Proper heads of compensation should include loss of consortium, love and affection, loss of estate, and expectation of life. [Paras 7-15]

Decision – Modification of High Court Judgment – Compensation increased to Rs. 14,51,000 with 9% interest per annum – Distribution and deposit instructions provided – Tribunal to consider release of deposited amount upon application by appellants. [Paras 16]

Constitutional Law - Article 14 Violation - Town Planning Scheme - Validity:

Article 14 of the Constitution of India was violated by Section 192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, which allowed land to be taken for town planning schemes without compensation, leading to the provision being declared void prospectively from 15.07.1994. This did not affect schemes already implemented and completed before this date. [Paras 1-17]

Municipal Law - Finalization and Implementation of Town Planning Scheme - Civil Appeal:

The Municipal Committee issued notices under a Town Planning Scheme, which was challenged by the appellant on grounds of non-finalization and incorrect demarcation. The appellant argued that the Scheme had not become final as objections remained unresolved. The Supreme Court held that the objections had been duly considered and rejected by the Municipal Committee in 1980, thus finalizing the Scheme. The need for fresh demarcation was recognized due to errors in the initial demarcation report. [Paras 18-35]

emarcation and Implementation - Procedural Directives-Supreme Court directed a fresh demarcation to be conducted by the Patwari within two months to determine the existence of a 30-feet road as per the revenue records. The Scheme's implementation would depend on the results of this demarcation, with both parties required to adhere to the outcome. [Para 35]

Decision - Fresh Demarcation Ordered:

Appeal disposed of with an order for a fresh demarcation to verify the existence of the road per the revenue record, ensuring proper implementation of the Town Planning Scheme based on accurate demarcation results. [Paras 34-36]

Road Safety - Implementation and Enforcement of Existing Laws - Supreme Court's direction to the Central and State Governments to strictly enforce existing road safety laws under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Emphasis on licensing, certification of fitness of vehicles, adherence to vehicle capacity limits, and use of road safety devices. The necessity for robust enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with road safety norms. [Paras 24-28]

Infrastructure and Maintenance - Road Engineering - Central and State Governments directed to integrate road safety in road design and conduct regular road safety audits. Identification and rectification of 'black spots' on highways and roads where frequent accidents occur. Mandate for regular maintenance to ensure roads are traffic-worthy, considering available resources. [Paras 29]

Public Awareness and Education - Road Safety Education - Directions to the Central and State Governments to continue and enhance efforts in educating citizens on road safety, starting from a young age. Implementation of road safety education in school curricula and public awareness campaigns. [Paras 30]

Emergency Response and Post-Accident Care - Directions to improve post-accident medical response. Central and State Governments to ensure availability of ambulances, trauma centers, and medical facilities. Adoption of best practices for quick removal of accident victims to medical facilities. Addressing jurisdictional disputes and financial barriers that delay medical attention to victims. [Paras 31]

Constitution of Monitoring Committee - Establishment of a Committee by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to monitor the implementation of Supreme Court directives on road safety. The Committee to submit periodic reports to the Court on the state of enforcement, suggestions for legislative changes, and deficiencies in implementation. [Paras 33-35]

Decision - Directions Issued Under Article 142 - Supreme Court issued directions under Article 142 for strict enforcement of existing road safety laws, enhancement of road safety infrastructure, public education on road safety, and improvement of emergency response systems. States impleaded as respondents to ensure accountability and implementation of directives. [Paras 32-35]

Environmental Law - Illegality of Mining Operations - Suspension of Environmental Clearances - Supreme Court holds that the deemed mining leases in Goa expired on 22.11.1987 and the renewal period expired on 22.11.2007 - Mining operations post-22.11.2007 declared illegal - Order of Government of Goa dated 10.09.2012 and MoEF order dated 14.09.2012 suspending mining operations and environmental clearances upheld - Directions issued for strict regulation of mining activities. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Environmental Impact - Protection of Ecosystems - Mining Dumps - Supreme Court finds that dumping of minerals outside the leased area is not permissible under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder - Directions issued for creation of a permanent fund for sustainable development and inter-generational equity. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Interim Measures - Cap on Mining - Expert Committee Recommendations - Until final report, a maximum annual excavation of 20 million MT allowed - Strict monitoring and regulation by Department of Mines and Geology, Goa State Pollution Control Board, and other statutory bodies. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Decision - Supreme Court upholds the suspension of mining operations and environmental clearances - Declares mining post-22.11.2007 illegal - Orders creation of a permanent fund for sustainable development and caps annual excavation at 20 million MT pending final report. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Limitation Act, 1963 - Calculation of Limitation Period – Civil Appeal against High Court order affirming lower courts' judgments on limitation period for filing suit – Respondent filed suit seeking seniority and continuity of service from 1964 despite fresh appointment in 1967 after termination – Representation-based delay in filing suit – Held that mere making of representations does not extend limitation period absent statutory provision – Suit filed 13 years post-cause of action deemed barred by limitation. [Paras 1-15] Employment Law - Fresh Appointment and Seniority Claims – Analysis – Held – Respondent's service termination due to unauthorized absence – Fresh appointment in 1967 considered new employment – Claim for continuity of service from original appointment date rejected – Limitation period starts from the date of fresh appointment or final seniority list publication, not from rejection of representations. [Para 12-14] Decision – Dismissal of Suit for Limitation Bar – Court sets aside High Court and lower courts' decisions – Suit dismissed as barred by limitation – Appeal allowed, no order as to costs. [Para 15]

\

Administrative Law - Cancellation of Tender Process - Validity and Arbitrariness - Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Kandla Port Trust to cancel the tender process initiated in 2005 due to a significant delay in obtaining Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) clearance. The decision to cancel was found to be in larger public interest as the market rates had escalated significantly, and re-tendering would fetch a higher premium. The court finds the action neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The Port Trust acted within its administrative powers, prioritizing public interest over private interests. [Paras 16-23]

Promissory Estoppel - Applicability in Administrative Actions - The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply in the present case. The letter of intent (LOI) issued to the appellant did not amount to a concluded contract, and the appellant did not alter its position to its detriment based on the LOI. The cancellation of the tender process due to supervening public interest overrides any individual equity claimed by the appellant. [Paras 24-26]

Contract Law - Concluded Contract - Judicial Review under Article 226 - Supreme Court holds that the LOI did not constitute a concluded contract. The terms of the tender process reserved the right of the Port Trust to cancel the tender, and the formal allotment was contingent upon obtaining CRZ clearance, which was delayed by over five years. The court emphasizes that disputes purely in the realm of contract law should be pursued in civil courts, and the writ jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the administrative action. [Paras 27-34]

Decision: The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision and upholding the cancellation of the tender process by the Kandla Port Trust. The court awards costs against the appellant. [Para 37]