Electricity Law - Distribution Licenses - Jurisdiction of Regulatory Commission - Civil Appeal against Appellate Tribunal's decision upholding MERC's order directing TPC to supply electricity to consumers in South Mumbai either through BEST's network or by extending its own network - Section 42(3) of Electricity Act exempts local authorities from open access obligations - However, this does not negate TPC’s status as a deemed licensee or its obligation under Section 43 to supply electricity using its own network - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-29]

Distribution Licensees - Deemed Licensee Status - Tata Power Company Limited (TPC) deemed a distribution licensee for South Mumbai under Section 14 first proviso - Specific License Conditions formulated by MERC u/s 16 set term until 15.8.2014 - BEST's claim that TPC's license is only valid for one year under first proviso to Section 14 rejected - Regulatory Commission's authority to issue specific conditions upheld. [Paras 9-17]

Local Authority Exemption - Open Access vs. Universal Service Obligation - Section 42(3) exempts local authorities from providing open access - Does not exempt from Section 43 obligation to supply electricity to any applicant - TPC can supply electricity in BEST's area using its own network - No statutory requirement for TPC to seek BEST’s consent to extend its network. [Paras 18-27]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Appeal by BEST against the Appellate Tribunal's order dismissed - MERC's direction to TPC to supply electricity affirmed - TPC recognized as deemed licensee and obliged to supply electricity in South Mumbai either through its network or by extending it. [Paras 28-29]

Referred Cases:

Sri Chandu Khamaru Vs. Smt. Nayan Malik and Others, AIR 2011 SC 2897

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 976

MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan and Another, (2013) 1 SCC 177

Tata Power Company Limited Vs. Reliance Energy Limited and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 321

Preventive Detention - Legality of Continuous Detention - Criminal Appeal - Detention Period Beyond Three Months:The appellant challenged the preventive detention of her husband under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The initial detention order for three months was extended to a continuous twelve-month period without periodic review, contrary to the Act and Article 22 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that such an extension violates legal provisions and the constitutional mandate for periodic review. The detention order was quashed, and the appellant's husband was ordered to be released. [Paras 1-18]

Preventive Detention - Procedural Requirements - Mandatory Periodic Review:Held, that preventive detention orders must comply with the procedural requirements of periodic review as per Section 3 of the Act and Article 22 of the Constitution. The Act mandates an initial detention period not exceeding three months, extendable only through periodic reviews, each not exceeding three months. The government’s failure to conduct periodic reviews before extending the detention for twelve months straight was deemed illegal. [Paras 11-16]

Decision - Quashing of Detention Order - Liberty of the Individual:The Supreme Court quashed the detention order, ruling that the continuous twelve-month detention without the mandated periodic review constituted a violation of the appellant's husband’s constitutional rights. The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural safeguards in preventive detention to protect individual liberty. [Paras 17-18]

Referred Cases:

Munagala Yadamma v. State of A.P. and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 386

Rekha v. State of T. Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8 - Company Law Board Proceedings – Criminal and Civil Contempt Petitions – Alleged Forgery of Documents – Dispute Resolution via Mediation – Supreme Court emphasizes mediation as an effective tool for dispute resolution, highlighting its potential to save time, cost, and relationships, ultimately contributing to social peace. [Paras 1-25]

Corporate Law - Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397, 398 - Shareholding and Directorship Disputes - Interim Orders – Company Law Board directed to expedite the adjudication of the main company petition within six months. Status quo to be maintained with respect to shareholding and directorship during pendency. [Para 21-23]

Criminal Law - CrPC Sections 195, 340 - Maintainability of Application under Section 340 CrPC – Allegations of forgery in company records – Application under Section 340 CrPC filed before CLB and High Court – Supreme Court directs that CLB will decide the application, rendering High Court proceedings otiose. [Para 11]

Constitutional Law - Article 142 - Invoking Extraordinary Powers - Equitable Resolution of Dispute - Court refrains from invoking Article 142 to comprehensively resolve all disputes due to the complex nature and multitude of proceedings, urging parties to resort to mediation. [Para 20]

Decision – Direction to Company Law Board for Expeditious Resolution - Maintenance of Status Quo – Interim Arrangement – Supreme Court directs CLB to resolve the main petition within six months, maintaining status quo on shareholding and directorship in the interim. All other pending applications including contempt petitions and applications under Section 340 CrPC disposed of. [Paras 21-24]

Referred Cases:

none

Employment Law - Employer-Employee Relationship – Determination – Civil Appeal against the High Court order treating employees of two schools established by NALCO as its employees – Schools managed by separate societies registered under the Societies Registration Act – NALCO providing infrastructure, financial support, and benefits – Management and day-to-day control vested in the schools’ independent managing committees – Supreme Court held that the managing committees, not NALCO, are the real employers – Schools are unaided private institutions despite NALCO's involvement – Relationship of master and servant not established between NALCO and the school employees – Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside. [Paras 1-35]

Control and Supervision Test – Analysis – Held – True test to determine the employer-employee relationship includes assessing the extent of control and supervision over the employees – Merely providing financial support and infrastructure does not establish an employer-employee relationship – Control over the manner of execution and day-to-day operations lies with the managing committees of the schools, thus negating the claim of NALCO being the employer. [Para 22-24, 31-32]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Non-applicability – Analysis – Held – Employees of the schools cannot claim parity in pay scales with NALCO employees – Difference in nature of work, recruitment processes, qualifications, and job responsibilities – Principle of 'equal pay for equal work' not applicable – Employees already receiving better emoluments and service conditions compared to their counterparts in government or aided/unaided schools. [Para 33-34]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court judgment which had directed NALCO to treat school employees as its own – Employees to continue under the management and conditions set by the schools' managing committees. [Para 35]

Referred Cases:

State of West Bengal and Another Vs. West Bengal Regn. Copy Writers Assn. and Another, (2009) 14 SCC 132

A.K. Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2003) 5 SCC 163

Nihal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 65 S.C.

Chandra and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 279

Education Law - Admission Criteria Change - Civil Appeals against High Court Interim Order - Appeal concerning the interim order of the High Court of Delhi which upheld the deletion of the 'Inter-State Transfer' category from school admission criteria - Supreme Court finds that the alteration of admission criteria after the commencement of the process is unjust - Deletion of points for inter-state transfer cases without case-specific investigation deemed inappropriate - Original admissions granted to the appellants' children to remain undisturbed - Further directives for accommodation of additional candidates listed by appellants - Appeals disposed of with reliefs granted to appellants' children. [Paras 1-22]

Right to Education - Impact of Midstream Criteria Alteration - Analysis - Held - Midstream changes to admission criteria, specifically removing inter-state transfer points, violate principles of fairness and constitutional right to education - The state must honor admissions granted based on previously announced criteria - Changing criteria after the admission process begins causes undue hardship to transferred families. [Para 19-20]

Decision - Restoration of Original Admission Criteria and Accommodations - Court orders that admissions based on the original criteria (Notification dated 18.12.2013) shall remain valid - Additional candidates specified by appellants to be accommodated in schools - The Administration to ensure compliance and facilitate the continuation of studies for affected children - Benefits confined to parties who approached the court. [Paras 20-22]

Referred Cases:

None

Constitutional Law – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – Examination of statutory and constitutional provisions concerning animal rights – The Supreme Court of India, recognizing the welfare of animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act), declared that events such as Jallikattu and bullock-cart races violate the statutory provisions aimed at preventing cruelty to animals. The Court underscored the constitutional duty under Article 51A(g) to show compassion for living creatures and held that these events inherently cause unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. [Paras 26-32]

Repugnancy – Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (TNRJ Act) – The Court found that the TNRJ Act, which permits Jallikattu, is inconsistent with the PCA Act, a central legislation enacted to prevent cruelty to animals. The provisions of the TNRJ Act were declared repugnant to the PCA Act and thus void under Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the PCA Act is a welfare legislation that overrides the TNRJ Act. [Paras 65-76]

Performing Animals – Prohibition – The Court upheld the notification dated 11.07.2011 issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act, which prohibits the exhibition and training of bulls as performing animals. The Court clarified that bulls cannot be used for Jallikattu or bullock-cart races, reaffirming their status as draught and pack animals not designed for performance. [Paras 34-36, 40-41]

International Perspective – Animal Welfare – Reference to international principles and practices – The judgment highlighted the shift towards recognizing the intrinsic value of animals and their welfare in international law, drawing parallels with practices in other countries that have incorporated animal welfare into their legal frameworks. The Court called for amendments to elevate the rights of animals to constitutional rights in India. [Paras 47-56]

Decision – Declarations and Directions – The Supreme Court issued several directives to ensure the protection of animal rights, including the implementation of the five freedoms (freedom from hunger, thirst, fear, distress, discomfort, pain, injury, and disease, and freedom to express normal behavior). The Court also urged the Parliament to amend the PCA Act to provide stricter penalties and elevate animal rights to constitutional status. [Paras 77-78]

Referred Cases:

Lilavati Bai Vs. The State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India, AIR 2012 SC 1254

N.R. Nair and Others Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 2337

M. Karunanidhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 898

Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 1614

Vijay Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 2072

Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I Vs. Union of India, (2013) 3 ABR 1089

N. Adithayan Vs. The Travancore Devaswom Board, AIR 2002 SC 3538

Service Law - Seniority Dispute - Quota Rule Application - Confirmation and Recruitment – Appeals against the High Court decision to follow the Supreme Court judgment in Paramjit Singh v. Ram Rakha regarding the application of the quota rule at both recruitment and confirmation stages – Supreme Court analyzed the interpretation of relevant rules, particularly Rule 10 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 – Held that the rule of quota should be applied at the stage of confirmation to maintain seniority determined by date of confirmation – Affirmed that this interpretation avoids arbitrariness and ensures equitable treatment for both promotees and direct recruits. [Paras 27-39]

Application of Precedents – Paramjit Singh v. Ram Rakha – Constitution Bench in B.S. Yadav v. Union of India – Discussed – Paramjit Singh case not overruled by B.S. Yadav – Both cases examined on their specific rules and factual matrix – Paramjit Singh ruling upheld as it pertains directly to the same rules and service cadre – Confirmed that the interpretation in Paramjit Singh remains valid and applicable. [Paras 28-32]

Decision – High Court’s Approach Justified – Adherence to Precedent – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's adherence to the Paramjit Singh decision – Emphasized the doctrine of stare decisis and the necessity to follow binding precedents unless specifically overruled – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 34-39]

Referred Cases:

R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1995 SC 1371

Suraj Parkash Gupta and Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir Others, AIR 2000 SC 2386

Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sangathan v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2000 SC 622

Paramjit Singh and Others v. Ram Rakha and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1073

G.S. Lamba and Others v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1985 SC 1019

Contempt of Court - Non-Compliance with Judicial Orders - Contempt Petition filed by teachers' association against State Government for willful disobedience of Supreme Court judgment directing the merger of teaching cadres - Government's subsequent actions and introduction of 2014 Rules found to frustrate the effect of the court's judgment - Held, non-compliance with court's order constituted contempt - Directions issued to restore combined gradation list and provide benefits to merged teachers - Detailed observations made regarding the importance of compliance with judicial orders and the responsibilities of the state in honoring such directives. [Paras 1-36]

Role of State Government - Analysis - Held - The State Government's actions, including the introduction of the 2014 Rules, were scrutinized and found to be an attempt to undermine the merger's intent as directed by the Supreme Court - Government's attitude and handling of the matter were criticized, and clear directions were issued to rectify the situation - Strong remarks made about the obligation of the state to comply with judicial directives and the adverse impact of non-compliance on affected individuals. [Paras 19-35]

Decision - Restoration of Combined Gradation List - Court directed the revival of the combined gradation list issued on 17.08.2007 and ordered the state to take necessary steps to provide all consequential benefits to the merged teachers - Specific instructions given to amend Rule 27 of the 2014 Rules to include options for teachers similar to other sub-cadres - Cost of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the state for the proceedings. [Paras 36]

Referred Cases:

Dr. Ashish Ranjan v. Dr. Anupama Tandon and Another, (2011) 1 RCR(Civil) 291

J. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 291

Indian Airport Employees Union v. Ranjan Chatterjee and Another, (1999) 2 SCC 537

Delhi Development Authority v. Skiper Construction Company (P) Ltd. and Another, (1996) 4 SCC 622

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. L.K. Tripathi and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 417

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Declaration under Section 6 – Validity – Civil appeal against High Court judgment upholding the declaration under Section 6 – High Court held declaration made within prescribed limitation – Appeal preferred by landowners who purchased the land after notification under Section 4 – Land Acquisition Collector's report and subsequent acceptance by Lt. Governor leading to declaration under Section 6 – Award made by Land Acquisition Officer in 1987-1988 – Held, High Court judgment set aside, appeal allowed in terms of similar decision in connected cases. [Paras 1-6]

Land Acquisition – Purchase of Land Post Notification – Rights of Subsequent Purchasers – Analysis – Held, appellants, as subsequent purchasers, have standing to challenge the acquisition process – Noted that various orders in related cases affected the proceedings – High Court granted stay of dispossession, no possession taken by Respondent despite award. [Para 2, 5]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's impugned judgments dated 17.12.2004 and 27.7.2007 set aside – Appeal allowed in terms of the decision in connected cases – No order as to costs. [Para 6]

Referred Cases: