Administrative Law – Power of Chief Justice – High Court Additional Sitting – Section 51(3) of States Reorganisation Act – Validity of Notification – Notification appointing Kolhapur as an additional place of sitting of the Bombay High Court challenged under Article 32 – Petitioner contended that such appointment amounts to establishing a permanent bench, requiring Presidential order under Section 51(2) – Held: Section 51(3) is an independent and continuing source of power – No requirement of central government approval – Power lies with Chief Justice with Governor’s approval – Establishment of additional place of sitting does not result in territorial bifurcation or require permanence – No colourable exercise of power – Reaffirmed precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik – [Paras 19–30, 55]

Judicial Administration – Role of Chief Justice – Consultation – Full Court not mandatory – Chief Justice is master of roster and head of administration – Statute does not require consultation with Full Court under Section 51(3) – While internal deliberation is desirable, absence thereof does not vitiate exercise of power – [Paras 31–37]

Judicial Review – Administrative Decisions – Scope – Courts will not interfere unless mala fides, extraneous considerations, or manifest illegality shown – No fundamental right of the petitioner violated – Objections pertain to policy disagreement, not legal infirmity – [Paras 18, 42–44, 54]

Equality before Law – Article 14 – Rational Basis – Selection of Kolhapur not arbitrary – Geographic proximity, volume of litigation, and logistical feasibility justify the decision – Simultaneous consideration of all regional demands not constitutionally required – Article 14 not violated – [Paras 45–48]

Access to Justice – Article 21 – Establishment of High Court sittings at convenient locations enhances access – Resource allocation is a policy matter – Decision furthers constitutional mandate – [Paras 49–52]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Notification dated 01.08.2025 upheld – Held to be within statutory power under Section 51(3) – No costs. [Paras 53–57]

Arbitration – Patent Illegality – Jurisdiction of Appellate Court under Section 37 – Arbitral award in favour of contractor upheld by Commercial Court – High Court reversed award citing patent illegality – Supreme Court held: Interference under Section 37 must be within the limited scope of Section 34 – Re-appreciation of facts or alternative interpretation of evidence not permissible – High Court acted beyond jurisdiction by substituting its view for that of Arbitrator [Paras 27–30, 38–39, 42]

Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction – Quantum Meruit – Section 70, Contract Act – Extra work done by contractor without agreed price but at request of employer – Arbitrator awarded compensation applying quantum meruit – Held: No rewriting of contract – Price left open as per communication – Award based on evidence and reasonable estimation – Not patently illegal [Paras 36–41]

Evidence – No Evidence vs. Weak Evidence – Arbitrator awarded damages based on oral and documentary evidence including tabular calculations – Supreme Court held: Use of rough estimations and honest guesswork permissible where some evidence exists – Arbitrator’s findings not based on "no evidence" – Award valid [Paras 35, 39, 42]

Judicial Restraint – Interpretation of Contract – Arbitrator is master of facts and contract construction – Even erroneous interpretation not ground for interference unless findings shock judicial conscience or are perverse – High Court erred in reassessing evidence and substituting view [Paras 29, 31–34, 41]

Award Components – Upholding of claims for extra work, idle machinery, and transportation costs – Arbitrator applied reasonable methodology based on materials on record – Supreme Court restored full award including interest [Paras 3.2–3.4, 39–40]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 03.05.2023 set aside – Arbitral award dated 15.07.2012 affirmed by Commercial Court restored – No costs. [Paras 43–44]

Forest Law – Reserve Forest – Jurisdiction of Forest Settlement Officer – Scope of Section 10 Telangana Forest Act – FSO Cannot Decide Title – Forest Settlement Officer accepted respondents’ claim to exclude 102 acres from Gurramguda Forest Block by recognizing it as private Arazi-Makta of Salar Jung III – Supreme Court held FSO’s powers under Section 10 are limited to summary inquiries and cannot adjudicate title – Held: FSO exceeded jurisdiction and encroached on powers of civil courts – Summary proceedings cannot displace vesting under Jagir Abolition law or resolve complex title disputes [Paras 25, 31-33].

Government Land – Misdescription of Parties – Forest Department Not Competent to Represent Full Interests of State – Suit Against Officer Not Maintainable – Claim petition was filed only against Forest Department represented by FSO – Held: State should be represented by Secretary or Collector under CPC – Non-impleadment of proper authority vitiated proceedings – Forest Department alone not competent to represent Government's interest in vested land [Paras 23-24].

Adverse Possession – Continuous Possession Since 1953 – Limitation Not Condonable for Title Claims – Forest Department held uninterrupted possession since 1953 – Claim filed in 2005 after 53 years – Held: Even if delay could be condoned for objection under Forest Act, adverse possession had matured Government’s title – FSO, District Judge and High Court erred in ignoring limitation and effect of adverse possession [Paras 13, 27, 32].

Land Records – Arazi-Makta – Not Conclusive of Title – Revenue Records Tampered – Respondents relied on 1833 sale deed and 1954 Jagir Administrator letter – Held: Records did not conclusively link sale deed to Survey No. 201/1 – Gazette and revenue entries lacked corroboration and were tampered post-1980s – No reliable title traceable to claimants – Possession and prior judgments favored State [Paras 26, 28-30].

Earlier Judgments – Binding Effect – High Court (CCCA No. 84/1982) and Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 3354/1988) Had Already Adjudicated Title in State's Favor – Supreme Court criticized High Court’s failure to consider binding findings in earlier cases declaring land to be Government property and that Salar Jung III had only life interest – Held: FSO and lower courts wrongly held those judgments as non-binding due to party technicalities – Law and findings therein apply squarely to present dispute [Paras 19.1 – 19.4, 26.2].

High Court Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Concurrent Findings Not Immune if Perverse or Jurisdictionally Flawed – High Court erred in treating concurrent findings of FSO and District Judge as immune under supervisory jurisdiction – Supreme Court reiterated that High Court must intervene where subordinate authorities exceed jurisdiction or commit patent errors of law [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of FSO dated 15.10.2014 and judgments of District Court and High Court set aside – Claim Petition No. 1 of 2005 dismissed – Subject land declared Government property – State directed to complete final notification under Section 15 within 8 weeks [Paras 33-35].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown – Article 142 Invoked – Trial Court and High Court rejected husband’s petition under Section 13 on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Parties living separately for nearly two decades – Despite opportunity, mediation failed – Supreme Court held: Marital relationship broken beyond repair – Continued cohabitation futile – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 – [Paras 4–8, 10].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Dissolution Despite Denial by One Party – Respondent-wife opposed divorce and denied cruelty – But long separation and lack of reconciliation attempts justified exceptional exercise of power under Article 142 – Held: Ends of justice warrant granting divorce to avoid further hardship – [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – Lump Sum Settlement – Parties are government teachers – Appellant offered ₹15 lakhs; Court enhanced to ₹20 lakhs – Held: Fair and reasonable amount considering long separation and financial parity – Amount to be paid within two months – [Paras 9–11].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Closure on Divorce – Upon proof of payment of alimony, all pending proceedings between parties arising out of matrimonial dispute shall stand closed – [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court (14.08.2012) and High Court (28.02.2014) set aside – Decree of divorce granted under Article 142 – ₹20 lakhs directed as full and final alimony – All pending proceedings to stand closed on compliance – [Paras 13–14].

Tender Law – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Venture Experience – Proportionate Experience – Arbitrary Rejection of Bid – Appellant disqualified at technical evaluation stage on ground that experience certificate pertained to joint venture and not in individual name – Tender condition required “each prime contractor in the same name and style” to have completed similar work – No clause in NIT expressly excluding experience gained as member of joint venture – Held: In absence of explicit exclusion, proportionate experience of joint venture partner must be considered – Rejection held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 17–19, 23–24, 28–29].

Joint Venture – Concept and Legal Position – Experience of Constituents – Application of New Horizons Principle – Joint venture experience is experience of its constituents – Commercial prudence test requires examining capacity and credentials of persons behind the bidder – Failure to consider constituent experience renders decision irrational – Reliance placed on New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India and Ganpati PV–Talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. [Paras 21–22, 26–27].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Legal Certainty – Ambiguity in Eligibility Clauses – Tender conditions must be clear, unambiguous and explicit – State cannot reject bid based on unstated or implied disqualifications – Vagueness leads to arbitrary exclusion and unequal treatment – Doctrine of level playing field reaffirmed [Paras 24–26].

Judicial Review – Deference to Tendering Authority – Limits – Courts ordinarily defer to interpretation of tendering authority – However, where interpretation is irrational, arbitrary or produces absurd results, constitutional courts must intervene – Deference doctrine not absolute [Para 27].

Prime Contractor – Meaning – Common Parlance Test – Prime contractor refers to tenderer responsible for execution – Where bidder demonstrates execution capacity through proportionate joint venture experience, exclusion without express prohibition unjustified [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 04/04/2025 set aside – Disqualification order dated 19/03/2025 quashed – Respondents directed to reconsider appellant’s bid by accepting proportionate experience as joint venture partner – No order as to costs [Paras 29–31].

Service Law – Appointment from Rank List – Validity of Rank List vs. Communal Rotation – Vacancy Arising Due to Resignation – Appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was second in rank list for Associate Professor post reserved for SC – First-ranked candidate (Dr. Anitha) resigned after serving over a year – Appellant claimed right of appointment during currency of two-year rank list under Section 31(10) – University rejected on ground of communal rotation under Section 31(11) – Held: Section 31(10) and Section 31(11) must operate harmoniously – Rank list provides validity period, but appointment must adhere to rotation rules during that time – Post reserved for SC deemed satisfied in form and substance by Dr. Anitha’s appointment – Fresh vacancy on resignation rightly assigned to Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian turn under roster [Paras 5.4–5.5.4, 6.4, 9–10].

Wait List – No Indefeasible Right – Appellant has no vested right to appointment from wait list unless vacancy corresponds with her category under roster – Vacancy post-resignation not earmarked for SC in roster cycle – Rejection justified [Paras 4.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 7.4, 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction – Sections 31(10) and 31(11) must be construed to avoid rendering either provision redundant – Communal rotation applies even during rank list’s validity – Wait list cannot override statutory reservation rotation [Paras 5.4.5–5.5.4].

Reservation – Fulfilment of Reserved Post – SC reservation deemed fulfilled upon appointment and probation of Dr. Anitha – Vacancy arising from resignation does not entitle same category appointment again if roster indicates otherwise – Held: Reservation not just in form, but must be in substance – Post cannot be recycled for same category [Paras 6.3–6.4].

Lien – Resignation Terminates Lien – Initial rejection of appellant’s claim based on lien of earlier appointee (Dr. Anitha) found untenable – Lien ends on resignation and substantive appointment elsewhere – Cannot be ground to deny appointment [Paras 5.1–5.1.2].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment and order affirmed – No costs.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Bail – Suspension of Sentence – High Court granted bail to co-accused (father and son) convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC citing delay in FIR submission and absence of original inquest report – Supreme Court held such grounds irrelevant and unsustainable – Convicts were armed and actively participated in a premeditated group assault – Held: Suspension of sentence in such grave offences requires exceptional circumstances, which were absent – High Court erred in applying lenient standards [Paras 5.3–6.5, 7–9 of both appeals]

Criminal Procedure – Section 389 CrPC – Scope – Convicts sentenced to life imprisonment not entitled to bail as a matter of course – Judicial precedents mandate restraint – Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence ceases post-conviction – Reiterated principles in Hasmat, Shakuntala Shukla, Omprakash Sahni, Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai – [Paras 6.1–6.5]

Joint Liability – Role of Instigation – Presence with Firearms – Both accused (Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto) instigated killing and were armed – Witness testimonies and medical evidence corroborated coordinated assault leading to death – Instigation and armed presence established common object of unlawful assembly – Active role ruled out leniency [Paras 5.5–5.6, 7–9]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference with Bail – Held: High Court misapplied law by equating “instigation” with lesser culpability – Ignored gravity of offence and evidence on record – Bail order set aside – Convicts directed to surrender within 10 days [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders dated 28.08.2024 and 16.01.2025 suspending sentence and granting bail to Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto set aside – Both respondents directed to surrender – Police to ensure compliance within time permitted [Paras 10–11 of both judgments]

Forest Conservation – Lease of Forest Land for Agriculture – Illegality – State granted lease of 134 acres 6 guntas of forest land to cooperative society for agricultural purpose – Cultivation involved clearing trees and deforestation – Lease not liable to be extended and could not be continued through representation mechanism – High Court erred in granting liberty to seek continuation/extension through Central Government consideration – Held: permission for non-forest use (agriculture) is barred under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 without prior Central approval and continuation would perpetuate illegality [Paras 4, 5, 13-16].

Forest Land – Eviction Proceedings – Possession Taken – After lease termination and dismissal of earlier writ petitions/suits/appeals, Forest Department initiated eviction under Karnataka Forest Act/Manual – Eviction order passed – Department took possession on 23/01/2007 and placed caution boards – Held: once possession reverted to Forest Department, direction allowing respondent to seek continuation of lease is unsustainable [Paras 8-10, 16].

Environment & Forests – Non-dereservation Directions – Binding effect – Reliance on Supreme Court’s continuing mandamus/orders restraining de-reservation and requiring cessation of non-forest activities without Central approval – Held: cultivation on forest land is a non-forest purpose; no permission could be granted to allow such use contrary to Section 2 FCA and Court directions [Paras 11-14].

Relief – Restoration/Reafforestation – Mandatory direction – Appeal allowed – High Court orders set aside insofar as they enabled representation for continuation of lease – Forest Department directed to restore forest on 134 acres by planting indigenous species in consultation with experts – Compliance within 12 months – Matter listed for compliance report on 17/12/2026 [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court directions permitting representation for continuation of lease set aside – Forest Department directed to restore forest land by plantation of indigenous trees – Compliance within 12 months – Listed on 17/12/2026 for compliance report.

Criminal Law – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Acquittal – Conviction based solely on “last seen together” without corroborative evidence is unsustainable – Appellant alleged to have taken deceased on motorcycle and later found to be dead – Trial Court and High Court convicted based on testimonies of PW-18 and PW-20 – Supreme Court held: Mere fact of last seen together, in absence of complete chain of evidence or motive, insufficient for conviction – Benefit of doubt must be extended – [Paras 1–6, 15–24, 34].

Evidence Law – Section 106 Evidence Act – Failure to explain last seen not conclusive – Court reiterated that Section 106 does not shift burden of proof from prosecution – Adverse inference under Section 106 applicable only when prosecution has established complete chain of incriminating facts – [Paras 29–33].

Motive – Lack of Proof – Prosecution claimed motive of looting a tractor to raise money to retrieve jeep – No evidence proving theft or sale of tractor by appellant – Recovery of tractor one month later from another location – Held: Motive not established – [Paras 15(i)].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – Appellant convicted while co-accused acquitted on same evidence – Discrimination and incomplete chain of circumstances – Held: Possibility of appellant’s guilt insufficient; chain of evidence not complete – Acquittal directed – [Paras 7, 34].

Precedents – Application of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles – Supreme Court reaffirmed five golden rules for conviction on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution failed to meet cumulative threshold – [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Appeal allowed – [Paras 34–36].