Electricity Dues – Liability of Auction Purchaser – Liability for outstanding electricity dues – Auction-purchaser of property not liable for arrears of electricity dues owed by previous owner – Electricity supply applied for as a fresh connection, not a transfer of existing connection – Appellant cannot demand payment of previous arrears as a condition for new electricity supply [Paras 5-21].

Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution Code – Interpretation – Regulation 13(10)(b) does not apply to fresh connections – Requirement for clearing arrears applicable only to transfer of service connections – Respondent entitled to fresh electricity connection without clearing previous owner's dues [Paras 10-12].

Statutory Duty – Section 43 of Electricity Act 2003 – Duty to supply electricity upon request – Distributing licensee must provide electricity within one month of application if conditions are fulfilled – Previous dues do not constitute a charge on property, and new owners are not liable for such dues absent statutory provision [Paras 13, 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's order affirmed – Appellant directed to provide fresh electricity connection to the respondent without demanding arrears from the previous owner [Paras 21].

Land Acquisition – Forfeiture of Land – Demand for Unearned Income – Breach of Terms – Orders of forfeiture and demand of unearned income challenged – No specific breach of terms and conditions of allotment shown – State Government allowed change of land use and development under Urban Land Ceiling Act – Impugned orders passed without notice and hearing – Violation of natural justice – Orders set aside – Matter remitted for fresh determination of liability [Paras 1-34].

Urban Land Ceiling – Exemption Orders – Housing Scheme – Conditions under Section 21 Urban Land Ceiling Act – Scheme approved allowing land use change – Conditions inconsistent with allotment order overridden by Section 42 Urban Land Ceiling Act – Permission granted for development through developer – State Government extended project completion time [Paras 20-30].

Natural Justice – Notice and Hearing – No penal order without notice and hearing – Impugned orders passed without giving notice to appellant – Violation of principles of natural justice – Orders set aside – Fresh show cause notice to be issued by Competent Authority [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and Collector orders set aside – Matter remitted to Competent Authority for fresh determination – Competent Authority to issue show cause notice specifying rule/order/guideline for unearned income liability – Appellant to be heard before final order – No order as to costs [Paras 35].

Legal Standing – Locus Standi – Only an aggrieved person can challenge actions in court – Respondent No. 5, not belonging to a reserved category, lacks standing to challenge appellant's caste certificate – High Court erred in allowing the complaint [Paras 7-22].

Natural Justice – Cross-Examination – Right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to natural justice – Scrutiny Committee failed to provide the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses – Proceedings vitiated due to non-compliance with natural justice principles [Paras 23-30].

Evidence – Affidavits – Affidavits not considered evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless deponent available for cross-examination – Reliance on untested affidavits without cross-examination inadequate for judicial conclusions [Paras 31-36].

Procedural Compliance – Maharashtra Caste Certificate Rules – Scrutiny Committee's proceedings violated statutory rules – Proper enquiry and adherence to rules mandated for legitimacy of caste verification [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Scrutiny Committee orders set aside – Matter remitted to Scrutiny Committee for re-examination with opportunity for cross-examination – Respondent No. 5 restrained from further intervention – Costs imposed on Respondent No. 5 for harassment and abuse of process [Paras 46-47].

Criminal Procedure – Default Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Mere undertaking of further investigation does not mean that an already filed charge-sheet gets abandoned – Fact that CBI recorded a fresh FIR does not make investigation by CBI any less of a fresh investigation – Claim for default bail not tenable when initial charge-sheet filed within stipulated period [Paras 18, 25, 26].

Investigation and Charge-Sheet – Role of CBI – CBI's fresh FIR and investigation were pursuant to the Supreme Court's direction for a thorough investigation – Charge-sheet filed by Gujarat Police remains valid until supplemented by CBI's findings – Further investigation permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC does not negate initial charge-sheet [Paras 6-8, 23-26].

Delay in Trial – Responsibility – Delay not attributed to prosecuting authorities but to actions by co-accused – Appellant cannot claim benefit of delay when not caused by prosecution – No entitlement to bail on grounds of delayed trial caused by co-accused [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC – Investigation and charge-sheet by Gujarat Police valid pending further CBI investigation – No interference warranted by Supreme Court [Paras 18, 20].

Statutory Interpretation – Proviso – Proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner that nullifies the main provision – Proviso is an exception to the main provision – Statute must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense [Paras 15-21].

Seniority – Officers Training in Different Batches – Appellants and respondent officers selected through the same process but trained in different batches due to administrative reasons – High Court's interpretation of Rule 3 proviso in favor of respondent who trained earlier, thus ranked higher – Proviso meant to cover direct entrants with training commencing on different dates, not to disturb overall seniority determined by selection process [Paras 26-27].

Judicial Review – ContemporaneaExpositio – Long-standing administrative interpretation should be upheld unless clearly erroneous – High Court erred in disturbing established practice [Paras 7-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's order upheld – Proviso to Rule 3 applied correctly – Seniority determined by training commencement date as per BSF Rules 1978 [Paras 30].

Tenancy Law – Occupancy Rights – Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 – Sections 5, 8, and 10 – Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 – Section 2(f) – Occupancy rights claim rejected – Appellants and their ancestors were joint owners/co-sharers in shamilat deh since before 1935-36 – Section 10 of the Tenancy Act prohibits joint-owners from claiming occupancy rights – No tenancy agreement existed between appellants and Gram Panchayat – Granting relief would ignore Section 10 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Interpretation of Statutes – Proviso – Proviso cannot nullify the main provision – Must be interpreted within the statute's context – Expression 'any person' in Section 8 of the Tenancy Act refers only to tenants – Courts should not give wider meaning contrary to legislative intent [Paras 6-12].

Customs and Income Tax – Statutory provisions examined in light of settled legal principles – 'Any person' interpreted contextually to align with legislative purpose – Precedent cases reaffirmed the principle that words in statutes carry specific meanings consistent with legislative intent [Paras 6-15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment and order affirmed – Appellants, as joint-owners, cannot claim occupancy rights under the Tenancy Act – Section 10 upheld – No interference warranted [Para 19].

Prisoners Act 1900 – Section 29 – Transfer of prisoners – Inspector General of Prisons cannot direct the removal of undertrial prisoners from one prison to another – Section 26 of the Prison Act, 1894 obliges prison authorities to have prisoners medically examined before transfer – No specific power vested in any authority to order removal, including the Inspector General of Prisons – Transfer can only be ordered with the court's permission under whose orders the prisoners are remanded [Paras 19-23].

Judicial vs. Ministerial Function – Transfer of undertrials involves judicial discretion – Court must consider circumstances and objections of prisoners – High Court correctly identified the transfer as void due to lack of a proper judicial order – The process of transferring prisoners must involve a judicial, not administrative, determination [Paras 27-39].

Use of Force – The High Court directed an inquiry into the use of excessive force – The preliminary report by the Sessions Judge revealed use of excessive force and dereliction of duty by jail authorities – High Court’s directive for disciplinary action based on this report was premature – The preliminary report should be treated as a basis for deciding on further inquiry or investigation [Paras 40-43].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court’s directive to hold an inquiry against officials for using excessive force is set aside – The preliminary report to be used as a basis for the government to decide on further inquiry or investigation – Observations by the High Court regarding the use of force should not prejudice any subsequent proceedings [Para 43].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A of the Constitution – Right to property considered a constitutional, statutory, and human right – Deprivation of property must occur only in accordance with the law – The state cannot take possession of land without following legal procedures – High Court erred in dismissing the appellants' claim on the grounds of delay and non-availability of records [Paras 6-18].

Human Rights – Right to Property – The right to property is not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right – The state's actions in depriving the appellants of their land without compensation violate their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution – The welfare state must ensure rehabilitation and compensation for those whose land is taken for public purposes [Paras 7, 15].

Judicial Discretion – Delay and Laches – Delay and laches are not absolute impediments to seeking judicial relief – Courts must exercise discretion judiciously and reasonably – Substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations – The appellants pursued their claims persistently, and the state's delay should not bar their right to compensation [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with directions – The state authorities are to notify the land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act within four weeks – Section 6 declaration to follow within one week – Notice under Section 9 within four weeks after Section 6 declaration – Award to be made within three months – Compensation to be assessed based on the market value at the date of Section 4 notification – Appellants entitled to all statutory benefits and may pursue further enhancement of compensation through statutory remedies [Paras 20-22].

Land Tenure – Transfer of Land – Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 2003, and Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 2007 – Section 39 and Section 101 – Status of appellant company as a Bhumiswami recorded in revenue records implies grant of fresh lease under these Acts – Conditions in original Patta cannot restrict statutory right of transfer conferred on Bhumiswami – Appeal allowed [Paras 12-13].

Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 – Repeal – The Urban Land Ceiling Act repealed as of 22.3.1999 – High Court erred in applying the repealed Act to the appellant's case [Para 9].

Statutory Rights – Right of a Bhumiswami to transfer land under Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, Section 165 – The right to transfer is a statutory right and cannot be curtailed by conditions in the original Patta [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and directions set aside – The appellant's right to transfer land upheld as a statutory right not restricted by the original Patta conditions [Para 15].