Bangalore Palace Ground: Supreme Court suspends previous order on insurance of TDR certificates
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh said all the TDR certificates would remain deposited with the Registry and if released, then those would not be utilised or any third party right would be created.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- New Indian Express
OPSC's plea against HC order to pay Rs 10 lakh to OJS aspirant rejected by SC
CUTTACK: The Supreme Court has dismissed the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC)'s special leave petition (SLP) seeking intervention against the Orissa High Court order to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation for procedural lapses that resulted in non-evaluation of an answer to a question in the case of a candidate who appeared for the Odisha Judicial Service (Main) examination. In the order on Friday, a SC bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Bijay Bishnoi said, 'Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the cost amount awarded by the high court in favour of the respondent - a young law graduate, who is aspiring to become a judicial officer.' According to the case records, Jyotirmayee Dutta had appeared for the OJS Main Exam 2022. The results were declared on December 4, 2023, but she could not qualify for the next stage by a narrow margin of five marks. On August 27, 2024, she filed a petition in high court alleging that a question in the Law of Property paper was left unevaluated, and its marks were not added to the total. If her answers had been properly scrutinised, she would have qualified for the next stage. The high court then ordered for her answer script to be independently assessed by experts from three reputed universities. Though non-evaluation of a question was confirmed and marks were awarded for the question, the petitioner did not achieve the necessary marks to pass the examination. Accordingly, the high court dismissed the petition on February 13 this year, but ordered, 'However, considering the mental trauma and financial burden the petitioner has endured in pursuing this case to highlight the said lapse, this court deems it appropriate to award compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner, which shall be paid by the OPSC within a period of 60 days from the date of this judgment.' However, the high court clarified, 'It is made clear that the compensation is awarded to acknowledge the procedural flaw brought to light and to serve as a reminder for OPSC to maintain stricter scrutiny in its evaluation processes.'
United News of India
5 days ago
- United News of India
SC upholds UPSIDC's land cancellation to Kamala Nehru Memorial Trust
New Delhi, May 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the decision of the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) to cancel a 125-acre land allotment to the Kamala Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT), citing payment defaults and systemic flaws in the process of land allocation. A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh rejected the Trust's appeal against the 2017 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had affirmed the cancellation of the allotment originally made in September 2003 and annulled in December 2006. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court delivered a sharp rebuke to UPSIDC, observing that the land was allotted 'within just two months' and 'without any proper evaluation of public benefit". The Court held that such allocation practices violated the Public Trust Doctrine, which mandates that state-held resources be allocated transparently, with due diligence, and solely for the benefit of the public. 'The Doctrine requires that allocation decisions be preceded by a thorough assessment of public benefits, beneficiary credentials, and safeguards ensuring continued compliance with stated purposes,' the Court said. The Bench criticised UPSIDC for failing to adopt a transparent and competitive process in allocating such a large tract of industrial land. 'This betrays the fiduciary relationship between the State and its citizens,' the Court remarked, stressing that state authorities must ensure accountability in managing public assets. The judgment noted that no verifiable evidence was considered by UPSIDC regarding the economic benefits, employment potential, environmental impact, or alignment with regional development objectives before making the allotment to the Trust. 'Such lapses not only deprived the public exchequer of potential revenue due to the appreciated value of the land but also created a system where privileged access supersedes equal opportunity,' the Court observed. The Supreme Court further flagged concerns over UPSIDC's eagerness to re-allocate the land to another entity during the pendency of the litigation. 'We, therefore, consider it necessary to examine whether UPSIDC's procedure for industrial land allotment meets standards of administrative propriety, particularly in light of the Public Trust Doctrine mandating that public resources be managed with due diligence, fairness, and in conformity with public interest,' the Court said. In a judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant, the Court laid down binding directions to reform the process of industrial land allotment in Uttar Pradesh. It directed, 'The State Government of Uttar Pradesh and UPSIDC are directed to ensure that any such allotment in the future be made in a transparent, non-discriminatory and fair manner by ensuring that such allotment process fetches maximum revenue and also achieves the larger public interest like industrial development priorities, environmental sustainability, and regional economic objectives.' Also, the Court asked that the subject land be re-allotted strictly in accordance with the procedure above. The Court directed UPSIDC for transparent, non-discriminatory Industrial Land Allocation in Uttar Pradesh. UNI SNG RN
United News of India
5 days ago
- United News of India
SC slams Orissa Public Service Commission for evaluation error in judicial exam
New Delhi, May 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on the Orissa Public Service Commission (OPSC) for its refusal to admit a mistake in evaluating a judicial service aspirant's answer sheet in the 2022 Odisha Judicial Service Examination. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing an appeal filed by the OPSC challenging an Orissa High Court order directing it to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation to the affected candidate. Expressing serious concern over the Commission's conduct, the Supreme Court stated that such blunders in examination evaluation cannot be taken lightly and that public bodies must be held accountable. 'You, as an examination body, commit these kinds of blunders, you should be taken to task. How will the young generation have faith and trust in you? This Commission is adamant. Some arrogant elements are sitting there. You are still insisting there is no mistake. The Commission thinks too highly of itself. Case dismissed,' Justice Kant remarked sharply during the hearing. The counsel for OPSC urged the Court to at least expunge the adverse observations made against the Commission by the High Court. To this, Justice Dipankar Datta observed, 'Had you at the first instance accepted that 'there is something wrong on our part and we would examine it,' the matter would have ended.' While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that the adverse comments made by the High Court in its judgment should not be treated as precedent. 'The observations made in the impugned judgment are in the context of the mistake detected in the evaluation of one of the question papers and are not to be treated as precedent for future cases,' the bench stated. The case arose after a candidate who took the 2022 Odisha Judicial Service Examination approached the Orissa High Court, claiming she had narrowly missed the cut-off for the interview stage because one of her answers was left unevaluated. Independent expert assessment ordered by the High Court confirmed the error. Although the re-evaluated marks did not qualify her for the interview round, the High Court strongly criticised the OPSC for the lapse. It emphasised that such errors are unacceptable in competitive examinations, which are career-defining and involve significant personal and financial sacrifices by candidates. It further stressed that the evaluation process must meet the highest standards of diligence and fairness. The High Court ordered OPSC to pay Rs1 lakh as compensation for the negligence, a directive that has now been upheld by the Supreme Court with its dismissal of the OPSC's appeal. UNI SNG RN
