LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Civil Appeal · 2020 INSC 614Decided 28 Oct 2020
Civil Appeal No. 12202 of 2018
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul · Justice Hrishikesh Roy

Background

Several mining leaseholders in Village Billi Markundi, Sonbhadra District (Uttar Pradesh), had their mining activity halted after the National Green Tribunal (NGT), acting on a plea about illegal mining near the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, directed the State to stop all mining on land notified as reserved forest under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, pending a further notification under Section 20 of that Act. The leaseholders were never made parties before the NGT even though the order directly stopped their operations. They appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing their specific lands had already been excluded from the forest notification in earlier, decades-long litigation that had reached finality in their favour.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that the State of UP eventually issued the required Section 20 notification on 15.6.2020, finally confirming which leases (including the appellants') fell outside the reserved forest area and could validly operate. The real dispute left was whether the leases should be extended for the period mining was obstructed, or whether leaseholders should simply be compensated. The Court held that under the applicable Mining Rules and the State's 2017 New Mining Policy, there was no statutory basis to extend leases retroactively for the obstructed period, and the right to extension must flow from statute or lease terms, neither of which existed here. Instead, exercising its special "complete justice" power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that security deposits and advance royalties paid by the leaseholders be refunded with 9% simple interest from the date mining was obstructed, since the leaseholders had suffered through no fault of their own.

Lesson Learnt

Even when a government delay or an order passed without hearing you causes real financial loss, courts generally cannot bypass clear statutory rules to grant relief (like retroactively extending a licence) that the law does not provide for, but they can use equitable powers to ensure monetary compensation with interest for the harm caused.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case