Delegatus Non Potest Delegare - Principle of Non-delegation – Legal Position and ExceptionsThe principle of "delegatus non potest delegare" asserts that a delegate cannot further delegate. This case examines exceptions to this principle, particularly differentiating between legislative and non-legislative delegations. It reaffirms that legislative powers cannot be sub-delegated, but non-legislative/administrative tasks may be delegated under specific statutory authorizations. [Paras 1-8]

Delegation of Non-legislative Powers - Validity of Administrative ActionsHeld that non-legislative powers, once delegated, can be further entrusted to subordinates for implementing decisions already taken by the primary delegate. It emphasizes that ministerial or clerical tasks can be performed by authorized officers without constituting illegal sub-delegation. [Paras 9-10, 16]

Authorization of Land Manager to Issue Ejectment NoticesThe delegation of authority by the Board of Kolkata Port Trust to the Chairman, and further authorization to the Land Manager to issue eviction notices, is upheld. The issuance of notices by the Land Manager is deemed a ministerial act implementing the Chairman's decisions, thus not violating the principle of non-delegation. [Paras 14-19]

Role and Powers of Kolkata Port Trust and Its OfficersExplains the statutory provisions under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, particularly Sections 21 and 34, allowing the delegation of powers by the Board to the Chairman and further to officers like the Land Manager. This delegation is essential for efficient administration and handling of leases and terminations. [Paras 11-13]

DecisionThe Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The Court upholds the validity of the eviction notices issued by the Land Manager, finding no legal infirmity in the delegation process. There is no order as to costs. [Paras 19-20]

Education Law – Revision of Fee Structure – Appeal against High Court judgment upholding that DAV Public Schools in Odisha, although private unaided institutions, are subject to the Orissa Education Act, 1969 – The High Court ruled that the schools' fee structures were subject to state policy decisions – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting fee revision in accordance with the recommendations of the Fee Structure Committee, Odisha – Directed that the schools could implement revised fee structures to meet liabilities due to the 6th Central Pay Commission pay scales from 1st June 2012 – Held that the issue of whether such schools are governed by the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is left open for future determination. [Paras 1-13]

Management Committees – Continuation – Supreme Court directed that the existing Managing Committee constituted under CBSE by-laws should continue until further orders – Any changes to the Managing Committee should comply with legal requirements and provide due notice and opportunity for hearing. [Para 12]

Fee Structure – Reasonable Profit – Supreme Court found that the Fee Structure Committee allowed only a reasonable profit to the appellant institutions – The court approved the fee increase as calculated based on financial analysis and actual expenses over per child, adhering to principles from T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka. [Paras 7-11]

Objections by Parents – Addressed – Supreme Court considered objections raised by parents but found them unsubstantial – Emphasized that objections to fee revision should come from parent representatives rather than individual parents to avoid undue delays and impacts on academic standards. [Paras 8-10, 13]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the implementation of the revised fee structure as recommended by the Fee Structure Committee, Odisha – The contempt petitions and other pending petitions were disposed of. [Para 13]

Delhi Rent Control Act – Striking out of defense – Section 15(7) – Discretionary power of Rent Controller – Appeal against order striking out tenant’s defense for non-compliance with deposit orders under Section 15(1) – Held, striking out defense under Section 15(7) is discretionary, not mandatory – Should be exercised only in cases of willful, deliberate, or contumacious default – In this case, tenant's repeated and continued default in paying future rent despite orders – No acceptable justification for delay – Rent paid for several months after due date – Defense rightly struck out by Rent Controller – High Court upheld decision – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 9-19]

Delhi Rent Control Act – Purpose and legislative intent – Protective statute aimed at safeguarding tenants against arbitrary eviction and excessive rent demands – Balanced with measures to curb abuse of process by tenants – Sections 15(1) and 15(7) must be harmoniously interpreted – Non-compliance with Section 15(1) orders must be met with appropriate judicial discretion under Section 15(7) – Not every default mandates striking out of defense – Courts must evaluate each case’s circumstances. [Para 10.1-10.4]

Case Analysis – Appellant's arguments – Claim of delayed rent receipt issuance rejected – Examination of payment dates showed consistent delay – Exercise of discretion by Rent Controller upheld – No misapplication of judicial discretion – High Court's intervention appropriate. [Paras 13-17]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order of Rent Controller striking out tenant's defense for persistent non-compliance with Section 15(1) of the Act upheld by Rent Control Tribunal and High Court – Legislative intent of balancing protection and curbing abuse upheld. [Paras 18-20]

Income Tax – Discretionary Trusts – Civil Appeal against High Court decision regarding classification of trusts – Dispute on whether trusts established by ex-Ruler of Gondal in the UK are discretionary or specific – Held that UK trusts are discretionary – Trustees have the discretion to pay beneficiaries from the income – Income not disbursed but retained by trustees – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Wealth Tax – Valuation of Assets in Discretionary Trusts – Civil Appeals under Wealth Tax Act relating to valuation of assets held in discretionary trusts – High Court held assets of UK trusts not assessable on the estate of deceased Settlor – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 20-21]

Role of Settlor and Trustees – Analysis – Settlor included income from UK trusts in returns during his lifetime – After settlor's death, his son included such income in returns – No appointment of discretion exercisers by settlor or his son – Trustees retained income – Character of trusts remained discretionary – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 13-19]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Supreme Court dismissed all civil appeals concerning substantive assessments under Income Tax and Wealth Tax Acts – Appeals arising from protective assessments also dismissed – No order as to costs. [Paras 21-23]

Service Law - Child Care Leave - Continuous Leave for 730 days – Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 - Rule 43C – Appeal against High Court decision denying uninterrupted 730 days of CCL - High Court ruled CCL can only be granted in three spells per calendar year - Supreme Court sets aside High Court decision - Held that Rule 43C allows for uninterrupted 730 days of CCL if the conditions are met – Tribunal's direction to grant CCL upheld - No exigencies of public service shown to deny continuous CCL to the appellant - Appeal allowed. [Paras 13-18]

Interpretation of Service Rules - Rule 43C - Examination of Rule 43C and relevant guidelines issued by Government of India – Rule allows for up to 730 days of CCL during the entire service period for women government employees having minor children - CCL can be combined with other types of leave if due - High Court's interpretation limiting CCL to three spells per year not supported by the rule or guidelines. [Para 10-13]

Decision - Grant of Continuous CCL for 730 Days - Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment of Calcutta High Court set aside - Tribunal's decision to grant continuous CCL for the appellant affirmed - Respondents directed to comply within three months. [Para 18-19]

Civil Procedure - Execution of Sale - Limitation Period - Appeal against High Court order remitting matter back to the Executing Court for fresh disposal - Executing Court conducted auction and issued Sale Certificate - Judgment-debtor’s application to set aside sale filed beyond prescribed period - No deposit made within 60 days as mandated by Article 127 of the Limitation Act - Held, application to set aside sale must comply with both filing and deposit requirements within 60 days - High Court erred in ignoring the limitation period and statutory requirements - Appeal allowed with costs. [Paras 1-9]

Execution of Decree - Order XXI Rule 89 CPC - Limitation - Court Sale - Application to set aside sale must be filed and deposit made within 60 days from date of sale - Judgment-debtor's failure to comply with mandatory requirements results in automatic rejection of the application - High Court's order remitting case back to Executing Court set aside due to non-compliance with procedural law. [Para 7-9]

Decision - Application to Set Aside Sale - Court quashes High Court's order and reinstates Executing Court's order - Application to set aside sale rejected for non-compliance with Article 127 Limitation Act and Order XXI Rule 89 CPC - Appeal allowed with Rs. 10,000 costs payable by Respondent No. 1 to Appellant. [Para 9]

Pension Law - Eligibility for Past Service Counting - Civil Appeal against High Court decision denying pension benefits - Applicability of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules and Government Resolution - Supreme Court interprets Rule 48(3) allowing condonation of service interruptions - Holds that the appellant's service period from 21.06.1950 to 18.07.1960 should be counted for pension computation - High Court judgment set aside - Directions to count past service and provide pension arrears. [Paras 1-16]

Condonation of Service Interruptions - Rule Interpretation - Held - Interruption between two spells of service to be treated as automatically condoned per Rule 48(3) - Specific service record indication required to deny condonation - Appellant’s resignation treated as a notional break - Past service to be included in pension computation. [Para 13-14]

Decision - Grant of Pension Benefits to Appellant - High Court order refusing pension benefits set aside - Respondents directed to count past service from 21.06.1950 to 18.07.1960 for pension calculation - Consequential benefits including arrears to be paid within three months - Interest at 8% on delay. [Para 15-16]

Criminal Law - Conviction on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against the High Court’s decision affirming death sentence – Involvement of appellant in the murder of a foreign national, based on last seen evidence, confession, and recovery of the victim’s skeleton from appellant’s house – Examination of circumstantial evidence and scientific methods used to establish guilt – Conviction upheld, but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment considering lack of evidence on the manner of crime. [Paras 1-37]

Recovery of Evidence - Admissibility and Chain of Custody – Confession and recovery of victim’s skeleton from appellant’s house – Legal scrutiny of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and its admissibility as evidence – Court finds compliance with legal provisions and confirms recovery was credible. [Para 20]

DNA Evidence - Scientific Reliability – Use of DNA profiling to establish the identity of the recovered skeleton – Discussion on the reliability and admissibility of DNA evidence – DNA test confirmed the identity of the victim as Diana Clare Routley, supporting the prosecution’s case. [Paras 31-34]

Rarest of Rare Doctrine - Sentencing – Consideration of whether the case falls under the rarest of rare category warranting death sentence – Court notes absence of evidence on the barbaric manner of the crime – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment with 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, without remission. [Paras 36-37]

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission, taking into account the absence of evidence on the manner in which the crime was committed.

Administrative Law - Compassionate Allowance - Grant Criteria - The appeal concerns the grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of evaluating whether the delinquency leading to dismissal constitutes moral turpitude, dishonesty, personal gain, or harm to third parties. In the absence of such severe misconduct, compassionate allowance should be considered based on mitigating circumstances. The authorities failed to apply the correct parameters, resulting in the quashing of previous orders and remand for reconsideration. [Paras 12-17]

Employment Law - Unauthorized Absence - Disciplinary Action - The appellant, a police constable, was dismissed for unauthorized absence for 320 days. Despite justifying the dismissal, the Court noted the significance of evaluating mitigating factors for compassionate allowance, including the appellant's unblemished service record and personal hardships. [Paras 1-3, 16]

Decision - Reconsideration of Compassionate Allowance - The Supreme Court set aside the denial of compassionate allowance by administrative authorities and lower courts, directing a fresh consideration based on laid down criteria, focusing on the appellant's circumstances and past service. [Paras 17-18]