Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Tender No. A/59919/Shirt Khakhi/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec, dated 19.06.2017 for procurement of 1,38,251 Shirt Man's Cellular Cotton 1973 Pattern (Modified) Khaki ("Item"). The Informant has stated that out of 14 firms which participated, only 09 qualified for the opening of their commercial bids.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said four firms (Opposite Parties). As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

Table 1: Details of Bidders S. No Firm Name Rate (in Rs) Status

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Request for Proposal ("RFP") No. A/59876/Durries/ Clo-1/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec dated 15.12.2015 for procurement of 8,18,009 Durries IT OG ("Item").

3. The Informant averred that 09 firms participated in the said tender including Standard Gram/OP-2 and out of the said 09 firms, only 06 qualified for opening of commercial bids. As stated by the Informant, Standard Gram/OP-2 could not qualify in technical evaluation as the firm was not registered with Association of Corporations and Apex Societies of Handlooms/Khadi Village Industries Commission ("ACASH/KVIC") which was a pre-requisite. It is further stated that while the contract was under progress, Standard Gram/OP-2 merged with Integrated Defence/OP-3. Subsequently, the L1 firm (HP Handicraft/OP-1) sublet the manufacture of the Item to Integrated Defence/OP-3 vide Letter No. HPSHHC:173/10(EM)/Durries/838081 dated 23.03.2018.

2. The Informant, a company incorporated in May, 2015, has been operating under the brand name of Treebo Hotels' and is in the business of providing franchising services to budget hotels in India. In addition to this, Treebo also provides service to numerous independent budget hotels who partner with it under its newly launched 'Hotel Superhero' scheme. Under the said scheme, Treebo only provides services such as hotel management technology services, listing on its platform and other online travel aggregators, credit facilities, support and quality control of the staff and hotel management resources etc. but does not provide its brand name.

3. MMT is an Online Travel Agency (OTA) engaged in the business of providing travel and tourism related services in India. It is a part of MakeMyTrip group of companies (MMT Group). OYO, on the other hand, provides budget accommodation to customers and is in the market for providing franchising services to budget hotels under the brand name 'OYO'.

1. The present case pertains to alleged cartelisation amongst certain parties in relation to Requests for Quotations ('RFQs') issued by certain Automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers ('OEMs') for supply of (i) Anti-Vibration Rubber Products ('AVR Products'); and (ii) Automotive Hoses (Water and Fuel) ('Hoses').

Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 1

PUBLIC VERSION

2. The case commenced upon receipt of certain information under the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (the 'LPR') which disclosed that two or more of the following companies had exchanged information and/ or reached agreements amongst themselves, as to who would supply AVR Products and Hoses in response to the RFQs issued by certain Automobile OEMs:

This Suo-Moto Writ Petition has been taken up pursuant to a note dated 07.05.2020 of Registrar General, which was put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 08.05.2020 and as directed, the same has been listed before this Division Bench today.

We have perused the file and have heard Mr. Rahul Mehra, Ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Government of NCT of Delhi and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Director General (Prisons).

It has been noticed that for effective implementation of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Petition (Civil) W.P. (C) 3080/2020 Page 1 of 3 No.1/2020-In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons vide its orders dated 23.03.2020 and 13.04.2020, a High Power Committee (HPC) was constituted by High Court of Delhi to decongest the Jails to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Novel Corona Virus) and as per the recommendations of this Committee dated 28.03.2020, 07.04.2020 and 18.04.2020 and on the basis of orders in WP (C) No.2945/2020 titled as "Shobha Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.", 2177 Under Trial Prisoners (UTPs) were released on interim bail for a period of 45 days from the date of their respective release.

"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed against the properties of the petitioners which is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent bank for the debts due from the third respondent.

(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction quashing all proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thriruvananthapuram, finding that the property sought to be taken possession is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent.

2. The facts in short, as averred in the writ petition, are that the petitioners, seventeen in number and belonging to District Kathua, came to be engaged as Daily Rated Labourers in Civil as well as Mechanical Divisions of PHE, Kathua between the period October 1994 to January 2000 and since then they have been discharging their duties, which has also been certified and authenticated by the respondents themselves in the year 2005 2 SWP 677/2014 and also in the year 2010. It is averred that the petitioners during all these years made a number of representations to the respondents for regularization of their services and when nothing fruitful came out, they filed SWP No.143/2009. The said writ petition was filed by as many as 26 persons including the petitioners herein, which came to be disposed of on 01.11.2013 with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioners case for regularization in the light of averments made in the petition, annexure appended thereto and of course in accordance with rules/scheme in J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 governing the field. However, instead of regularizing the services of petitioners, respondent No.2 vide Order No.PHEJ/GE/04/E of 2014 dated 04.01.2014, impugned herein, rejected the claim of petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition.

Issue notice of this application to the respondents. Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG accepts notice.

2 WP(C) PIL NO. 41/2019 Let a copy of this application be sent to Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG by Mrs. Deepika Mahajan, Advocate, who shall seek instructions that immediate steps are taken to ensure food and all facilities to these survival of natural calamity.

Let a copy of this application be also furnished to Mr. M. K. Sharma, Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Jammu and Ms. Sandeep Kour, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Udhampur to ensure that these people are given immediate assistance.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 30.04.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.04.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

Main petition is taken on Board and is permitted to be withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 30.04.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.04.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:19 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:20 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:19 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

The prayer is allowed. The date of hearing in the main petition is preponed from 13.08.2020 to 05.05.2020. The same is taken on Board and is permitted to be withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

" CERTIORARI: quashing the letter No.ENT/DCS/2014/2010- 215 dated 17.11.2014 whereby the District Election Officer (Deputy Commissioner), Samba (respondent No.2) has provided respondent No.3, the list of employees of the office of respondent No.3 who have been deployed for election duties and called for training as per the schedule mentioned against each".

2. Since the Legislative Assembly Elections, 2014 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir are already over, therefore, this petition with the afflux of time has been rendered infructuous.

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 489/2020 Ramdayal@r.d. S/o Ramkaran

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan

A five-storied building could not have been constructed in an unauthorised manner within a couple of days. It must have taken months for the same to be constructed. The Municipal authorities, as also the local police station, cannot feign ignorance of the building having coming up in their presence upto the fifth floor in an unauthorised manner.

In such circumstances, the said Mr. Joysurja Mukherjee, as we are now told is posted as Officer-in-Charge, Tiljala Police Station, should also be present in Court on 20th March, 2020 to assist this Court and explain how could such an unauthorised structure came up upto the fifth floor.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.) K. Banerjee A.R. [C.R.]

2

She files affidavit of service to show copy of the application was served on Chief Law Officer, Legal Cell, Kolkata Municipal Corporation. It be kept with records.

The writ petition has been listed along with the application. Sum and substance of applicant's submission is that she fears being dispossessed. In that context Court has perused letter dated 14th June, 2018, written on behalf of petitioners and communication dated 18th July, 2018, impugned in the writ petition, appearing respectively at pages 67 and 71. It appears, by impugned communication, made in reference to said letter dated 14th June, 2018, assessee number of premises occupied by, inter alia, applicant, has been automatically cancelled on amalgamation of premises.

Appearance :

Smt. Jayabati Barick, in person The Court :- Perused the report filed by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court dated 18th March, 2020. It appears from the said report to which a report of the Department of Ophthalmology, IPGME&R-SSKM Hospital, filed in terms of the order dated 12th February, 2020 passed by this Court is enclosed that Nader Chand Barik is having hundred per cent blindness as per Government of India Norms.

It further appears from the Registrar's report that save and except the deposition, all cause papers in the TS 17 of 2017 and TS 1 of 2012 are available. The report further reveals that the Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department has prayed for passing necessary direction upon various Record 2 Section of the Original Side i.e. Current Record Department, Old Record Department, New building Record (NBR) Department and Central Record Room at Khidderpore to make extensive searches to trace out the original deposition in the aforesaid suit. In my opinion, though specific direction is not required on each of the record sections for searching the record in the said departments as prayed for by the Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department as indicated in the said report but by way of abundant precaution I pass direction upon the Registrar, Original Side as also Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department to look for the deposition in the two suits being TS 17 of 2017 and TS 1 of 2012 in all possible places where records are either temporarily or permanently stored and/or kept in this Court premises or outside.

Appearance:

Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person The Court: Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person. None appears for the State. The matter is fixed for hearing on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am. The petitioner, who appears in person, is requested to serve a copy of this order to the Government Pleader.

Ld. Government Pleader is requested to appear in this matter on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) R.Bhar

Appearance:

Mr. Laxmi Pat Surana, ...petitioner in person The Court: The petitioner is present in Court. He requests for a date on which the matter may be taken up.

List this matter on 1st April, 2020.

(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) Sbghosh

In such view of the matter, a strong prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners as to the fixation of dates and time for the general election being mala fide on the part of the respondent no. 4 authorities. The balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of granting such injunction, since if the election is held and a newly elected body assumes power, the writ petition would be infructuous; on the other hand, in the event the writ petition fails, another date can be fixed for such election, if necessary upon imposition of compensatory costs being awarded against the petitioners.

Although there is a notification of this Court requesting Judges not to take up matters for hearing in the absence of all the parties, since sufficient notice 3 has been given to the respondents and in view of the extreme urgency involved in the matter, the matter is taken up for hearing.

(Through Video Conference) Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person) ...plaintiff no.1 Mr. Megnath Datta, Adv.

...for added defendant no.3 The Court : The plaintiff no.1 appears in person on video conferencing. The added defendant no.3 is represented by Mr. Megnath Datta, Advocate via video conferencing.

It is the allegation of the appearing plaintiff that the principal property involved in this partition and administration suit is under serious threat and trespassers are seeking to enter upon the same. Such position is denied on behalf of the appearing defendant. 2

To the mind of this Court, the Bank is only to perform a ministerial task subject to directions in the application. To the further mind of this Court, it would be appropriate that the Intending Purchaser who also stands to be affected qua its liquidify position arising out of the present crisis be given the opportunity to ventilate views before the Hon'ble Court as early as possible.

On the other hand, the present crisis also affects the functioning of the Free School which is claimed to be surviving on the interest earned out of the said Fixed Deposits paid by the Intending Purchaser, as well as the ability of the Trustees to quickly find a new purchaser. Therefore, having regard to the interests of all under the present conditions of a pandemic as well as the balance of convenience, it is directed for the present that the Intending Purchaser shall not insist on the Refund of the Fixed Deposits/Consideration Money till normalcy returns. The Intending Purchaser shall, on the return of normalcy, write to the Learned Receiver invoking the Refund. On receipt of such 4 communication the Learned Receiver shall take apropo steps, including seeking a time limit from the appropriate Court.

That another co-owner namely Soma Ghosh resides in the 1st floor South East corner of the said premises. It is come off from the said suit premises that there have three tenants residing since long. One namely Prabir Paul (55) S/o- Late Ajay Paul resides in Ground floor North-West side of the premises. Tenant Krishna Dhar (73) W/o- Late Debabrata Dhar residing south portion of the said premises and Shambhu Das & his brother Alok Das are residing at the front portion 2nd floor of the said building as tenants since long.

In course of present enquiry at the scheduled property i.e. 13, Kaliprosad Chakraborty Street, Kol-03 nothing unusual was found in respect of possessions, occupied by the co-owners and the tenants.

(Through Video Conference) Appearance:

Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person).

Mr. Meghnad Dutta , Adv.

Mr. Arindam Paul , Adv.

... for the added defendant no.3 Mr. D. K. Chandra, Adv.

... for defendant nos.3(i) & 3(ii). The Court: It appears that by the order dated April 16, 2020, the parties were directed to file their respective affidavit in the application filed by the plaintiffs. The said order also records that in view of the subsisting interim order, the petitioners' interest in respect of the suit property is already protected. There was no direction that the application would be appearing before this Court today. This is also not disputed by the parties.

2

The application has been filed on the ground of urgency that the special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court cannot be taken up immediately.

In view of the present situation, the time to comply with the order passed by the Trial Court is extended till June 30, 2020. However, this order will not be a charter for the applicant to continue manufacturing its products. Indeed, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that no manufacturing activity is being undertaken in the present situation.

G. A. 804 of 2020 is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties thereto.

VERSUS ASCON AGRO PRODUCTS EXPORTERS AND BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE The Hon'ble Justice SHAMPA SARKAR Date: 28th April, 2020 Apperance Mr. Saunak Ghosh, Adv. with Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.

..for the decree holder Mr. Dipanjan Roy, Adv (in person) ..for the judgment debtor The Court: GA No.803 of 2020 is an application filed by the decree holder for non-prosecution of the Execution Case no.302 of 2019 arising out of a judgment and decree dated July 26, 2017 passed in CS No.115 of 2013, in view of settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND BIRLA CABLES LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

.................

APO NO.17 OF 2019 APOT NO.138 OF 2019 GA NO.1735 OF 2019 TS NO.6 OF 2004 IN THE GOODS OF:

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

..............

2

PRESENT :

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DR.SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABORTY AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Heard on : 04.02.2020, 11.02.2020, 13.02.2020, 18.02.2020 & 20.02.2020.

1. All the four writ petitions seek identical relief in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to avail input tax credit of the accumulated CENVAT credit as of 30th June, 2017 by filing declaration Form TRAN-1 beyond the period provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter, the "CGST Rules"). Additionally, petitioners also assail Rule 117 of the CGST Rules on the ground that it is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 to the extent it imposes a time limit for carrying forward the CENVAT credit to the GST regime. However, all the petitioners have unanimously stated that if the Court were to give directions to the respondents to permit them to file the statutory Form TRAN-1 to avail the input tax credit, they would be satisfied and not press for the relief of challenging the vires of the provisions of the Act.

1. The matter has been heard through Video Conferencing.

2. Ms. Acharya, learned ASG, who appears for the Union of India, states that her briefing counsel, Mr. Gogna, CGSC is ready with advance instructions.

3. After addressing arguments on the maintainability of the present petition particularly, on the aspect of the alleged retrospectivity of the impugned Notification, Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought some time to obtain instructions from his client. The hearing was deferred to enable him to obtain instructions. He has returned with instructions to the effect that his client does not wish to press the present petition.

W.P. (C) 3057/2020 Page 1 of 2

2. This writ petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of W.P. (Crl.) 787/2020 Page 1 of 8 India, seeks quashing of FIR 319/2020, dated 20th April, 2020, registered against the petitioners at PS Moti Nagar. The FIR alleges that the petitioners have committed offences under Sections 188/269/186/353/332/506 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The recital of the facts in the FIR may be summarized thus. At 5 PM on 20th April, 2020, one Rahul (Petitioner No.2 herein), who was known to the complainant Head Constable (HC) Rishi Kumar, and was a "bad character" of the area, was seen loitering in the area without wearing a mask, in violation of the Compliance Advisory issued by the Central Government in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the complainant intercepting Rahul and querying him in that regard, Rahul retorted that the complainant had no right to stop him from walking in the area without a mask. On the complainant attempting to control Rahul, with the assistance of Const. Pravin, Rahul caught hold of the collar of the shirt being worn by the complainant and tore the shirt. Rahul is also alleged to have assaulted Constable Pravin, by kicking him. During the melee, Rahul's brother Sundar (Petitioner No.1 herein) arrived at the spot, and joined Rahul in assaulting the complainant, by administering kicks and blows. It is further alleged that they also bit the complainant on his wrist, resulting in his bleeding profusely. Thereafter, it is stated that Rahul and Sunder were taken into custody and FIR was lodged as noted above.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 5 th November, 2016, defendant No. 1 went to her parents' place along with her belongings and valuables and despite the best efforts of the plaintiff and her husband to try to settle the disputes between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to save their marriage, due to adamant behaviour of defendant No. 1, no result was forthcoming. Defendant No. 2 thus filed the divorce petition on the ground of fraud and cruelty against defendant No. 1 which proceedings are pending before the Family Courts, Rohini. Since defendant No. 2 is also not residing in the suit property and has filed the divorce petition, defendant No. 1 has no right to come to the suit property. The suit premises is neither the matrimonial home of the defendant No. 1 nor a shared household.

1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

OMP (I) (COMM.) 95 & 96/2020 Page 1 of 4

2. Petitioner, by the present petition, under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Act"), inter alia seeks a restraint on the respondent from invoking and encashing the performance bank guarantees issued by respondent no. 2 on behalf of the petitioner and further seeks a direction to respondent no. 1 to release the payments due to the petitioner under the relevant contracts.

3. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 is a Performa party.

4. Several contracts have been executed between petitioner and respondent no. 1 for provision of services, personnel and equipment. The contracts were executed as part of a composite transaction for the performance of services between petitioner and respondent no. 1 and are subject to and governed by Master Services Agreement and Master Supply Agreement.

1. The present public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking a number of directions. The prayer clause is reproduced hereinbelow:-

W.P.(C) 3068/2020 Page 1 of 8

"a) the respondent no.1 (Union of India) be directed to stop respondent no.2 (Govt. of Haryana) from doing all these restriction activities in violation of their orders dated 15.04.2020;

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 3rd February, 2005 in RCA No.98/1997 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi] partly allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the respondents/defendants against the judgment and decree [dated 27th September, 1997 in Suit No.436/1996 of the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi] allowing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants, for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and recovery of possession of Shop No.47 U.B., Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. The First Appellate Court, while has upheld the decree insofar as of dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, has set aside the decree for recovery of possession of the shop aforesaid.

It is the submission of the petitioners that the respondent nos.9 to 12 were the erstwhile tenants who are allegedly occupying the impugned premises and are presently running a quarantine center as per the Memo No. H&FW/132/2020/128 (Annexure-P/6).

Mr. Gaggar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner led by Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, submits that in spite of several representations having been made before the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station being the respondent no.8 herein and the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal being the respondent no.2 herein, no action has been taken by the State authorities.

Vs.

State of West Bengal Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Suman Banerjee ... For the petitioners Mr. Kishore Dutta , Ld. A.G. ... for the State The challenge in this writ petition is with regard to two notifications dated February 26, 2020 and March 4, 2020 by which the existing reservation in favour of the doctors has been replaced by 10 per cent weightage given to doctors serving in rural areas in all places which are locally remote.

In the earlier matter bearing writ petition no. W.P.5365(W) of 2020 which also dealt with the same notifications an order has been passed directing that the provisional list and the final list may be published as per weightage proposed in the impugned notifications in the writ petition. Needless to mention the admissions given shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition. In my view that order shall also govern the present writ petition.

And In the matter of : Dipraj @ Dipu Chhetri & Ors.

... Petitioners Mr. Navanil De .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking. The case of the first petitioner appears to be on a different footing than the two other petitioners. Though the names of the two other petitioners were mentioned in the initial complaint and in the eye witness' account, the first petitioner is neither named nor did the eye witness allude to him.