Tag: Administrative Law

Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulatory Assets, while a valid regulatory tool, must be created only in exceptional circumstances and liquidated in a time-bound manner. It upheld the legal framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, and directed strict adherence to the newly inserted Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules, which mandates a maximum 3% gap in revenue and a 7-year liquidation period for existing assets. The judgment emphasizes the duty of Regulatory Commissions to ensure cost-reflective tariffs and affirms APTEL's power under Section 121 to issue directions against regulatory failure. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from petitions and appeals filed by three private power distribution companies (Discoms) in Delhi—BSES Rajdhani, BSES Yamuna, and Tata Power Delhi—agains...
Read More
No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank

The Supreme Court held that pay fixation of re-employed ex-servicemen is governed solely by government guidelines, which banks cannot override. It ruled that reducing pay without providing an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such an administrative action legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: After retiring from the Indian Navy, the appellants were re-employed by Punjab National Bank between 2015-2017 as Single Window Operators. Their initial pay was fixed at a higher amount, with four appellants receiving ₹40,710 and one receiving ₹34,160. However, following a 2018 clarification from the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) that capped the maximum basic pay for ex-servicemen at ₹31,540, the bank issued a circular and subsequently reduced the appella...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Departmental Inquiries: Authority for Minor Penalties Can Issue Major Charge Sheets
22Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Departmental Inquiries: Authority for Minor Penalties Can Issue Major Charge Sheets

The Supreme Court held that under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a disciplinary authority competent to impose only minor penalties is fully empowered to institute proceedings and issue a charge-sheet for imposing major penalties. The final order, however, must be passed by the authority competent to impose a major penalty. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, R. Shankarappa, was a Sub Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications who retired in 2018. In 2003, he was prosecuted by the CBI in two cases: one for demanding and accepting a bribe, and another for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He was convicted in both cases, but the High Court later stayed the conviction and sentence, with the criminal appeals remaining pending. Paralle...
Read More
Win for Taxpayers: Supreme Court Says GST Authorities Can’t Skip Adjudication After Payment
22Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Win for Taxpayers: Supreme Court Says GST Authorities Can’t Skip Adjudication After Payment

The Supreme Court held that payment of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act does not absolve the proper officer from passing a reasoned order under Section 129(3). Such an order is mandatory to safeguard the taxpayer’s right to appeal and ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and due process under Article 265 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s ASP Traders, a Karnataka-based dealer, consigned 17,850 kg of dry arceanut to a Delhi-based company. During transit, the goods were transhipped, and seven bags went missing. The vehicle was subsequently detained by the Uttar Pradesh Mobile Squad in Jhansi. A notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, alleging discrepancies including the shortfall in quantity and questioning the existe...
Read More
Supreme Court Protects Bank Officer’s Pension Rights: Mandates Board Consultation for Deductions
11Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Protects Bank Officer’s Pension Rights: Mandates Board Consultation for Deductions

The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, prior consultation with the Board of Directors is mandatory before reducing the pension of a compulsorily retired employee below the full admissible amount. The Court emphasized that pension is a constitutional right under Article 300A and cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to procedural safeguards. The word "may" in Regulation 33(1) does not grant discretion to reduce pension below two-thirds of the full amount but clarifies eligibility. The judgment clarified that clauses (1) and (2) of Regulation 33 must be read harmoniously, and any reduction in pension requires prior Board consultation, rendering post-facto approval insufficient. The High Court's interpretatio...
Read More
Public Trust Doctrine Violated in Hasty Land Allotment :Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation
14Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public Trust Doctrine Violated in Hasty Land Allotment :Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation

The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of land allotment by UPSIDC due to the allottee's persistent payment defaults and failure to fulfill contractual obligations. The Court found that UPSIDC had followed the prescribed procedure for cancellation, including issuing multiple notices. The Court also annulled a subsequent allotment of the same land, emphasizing the need for transparent and non-discriminatory allocation of public resources in line with the Public Trust Doctrine Facts Of The Case: Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT) applied in March 2003 to purchase 125 acres of land in Uttar Pradesh for floriculture. On September 18, 2003, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) allotted the land, conditional upon certain terms, including a payment schedule. KNMT de...
Read More
Supreme Court Mandates Timely Promotions and Cadre Review for CAPF Officers
11Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Mandates Timely Promotions and Cadre Review for CAPF Officers

The Supreme Court affirmed Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) as 'Organized Group-A Services,' entitling officers to Non-Functional Financial Upgradation. It directed a six-month cadre review and recruitment rule revision. The Court also suggested progressively reducing IPS deputation posts in CAPFs to address officer stagnation and grievances Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a long-standing grievance of officers belonging to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) – including CRPF, BSF, SSB, ITBP, and CISF. These officers sought recognition of their services as 'Organized Group-A Services' (OGAS), a crucial classification for ensuring parity with other Group-A services and entitlement to benefits such as Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU). A primary co...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Mandate: New Public Notice for Nagaland Village Recognition
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Mandate: New Public Notice for Nagaland Village Recognition

The Supreme Court, exercising judicial review over executive decisions, set aside the High Court's directive for village recognition in Nagaland. The Court emphasized adherence to customary laws and specific Office Memorandums requiring "No Objection Certificates" from ancestral villages. It remanded the matter for comprehensive consideration of objections, including those from the appellant, affirming that inter-district boundary disputes are irrelevant to village recognition. Facts Of The Case: This Supreme Court judgment stems from a dispute concerning the recognition of Kakiho Village in Nagaland. The core of the matter involved the application of existing government Office Memorandums (O.M.'s) dated March 22, 1996, and October 1, 2005, which outline criteria for village recognition...
Read More
Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?
6Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?

The Supreme Court examined whether Air Force Schools qualify as a "State" under Article 12 or an "authority" amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The majority held that despite partial government control and funding, the schools lacked pervasive state dominance, relegating disputes to private contract law. However, the dissenting opinion emphasized their public function, deep administrative control by the Indian Air Force, and indirect public funding, making them subject to writ jurisdiction. The split verdict clarifies the distinction between regulatory control and pervasive state authority in educational institutions Facts Of The Case: The case involved two civil appeals before the Supreme Court concerning the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad. In Ci...
Read More