Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/2021

1. Rahul Choudhary Son Of Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ajeetpatti, Magorra, Mathura U.p.

2. Suresh Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Udal Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 90, Saroj Vihar, Balajipuram, Aurangabad, Mathura, U.P.

3. Deepak Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Resident Of Baroli Chauth, Bharatpur (Raj.)

4. Ankit Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaturvedi, Resident Of Nayabas, (Kyrakhera), Koyal, Raya, Mathura, U.P.

5. Anuj Kumar Son Of Shri Rohtash Singh, Resident Of House No. 8/62/3, New Kaushalpur, Agra, Dayalbag, U.P.

2. Sumit Bhardwaj Tehsildar (L.r), Laxmangarh, District Alwar

3. Shriram Meena S/o Deviram Meena, Principal Government Upper Primary School Kajota Laxmangarh

4. Mukesh Chand Meena, Lr Mauzpur

5. Sanjay Kumar Meena Patwari, Chimrawali Gaur

6. Imtiyaj Mohammed Patwari, Mauzpur A

7. Bhagat Singh Choudhari Patwari, Mauzpur B

----Accused/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 05/11/2024 Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, an appeal is provided under Section 14-A of the The Schedule Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act of 1989').

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.437/2024, registered at the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(b) & 25(8) of Arms Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also the fact that no recovery has been effective from the accused-petitioner and more particularly the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, [2024:RJ-JP:46153] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13722/2024] deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.438/2024, registered at the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(b) & 25(8) of Arms Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also the fact that no recovery has been effective from the accused-petitioner and more particularly the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, [2024:RJ-JP:46152] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13712/2024] deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.263/2024, registered at the Police Station Special Crime and Cyber Crime Police Station, Commissionerate Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 419, 120-B of IPC and 66 (C), 66 (D) of IT Act.

2. Heard.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashindra Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.179/2024, registered at the Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 382, 336, 379, 323 & 143 of IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused namely; Abhishek S/o Hira Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.71/2024, registered at the Police Station Clock Tower, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341 & 308 of IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 22.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenging the judgment on conviction dated 18.11.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned judgment') and order on sentence dated 11.01.2024 (hereafter 'the impugned order on sentence'), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 103/2017 (Old SC No. 39/2017) arising out of FIR No.732/2016, registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh.

2. The learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment has convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'), Sections 354/354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Section 18 of the POCSO Act read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 511 of the IPC read with Section 376 of the IPC as well as Section 506 of the IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeals No. 8 & 47 of 2024 Decided on 05.11.2024 ________________________________________________________________

1. Arbitration Appeal No.8 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar and Another ...Respondents

2. Arbitration Appeal No.47 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Maya Devi and others ...Respondents Coram:

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

1. Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No. 2, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Lakhimpur, District Kheri, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No.3, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to act upon the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 and impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 and create any hinderances in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question of the Petitioners.

1. The case has been heard through Video Conferencing from Allahabad.

2. Heard Sri Vaibhav Kalia (in bail no.1538/2023), Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava (in bail nos.11541/2022, 14110/2022, 14113/2022 & 14164/2022), Sri Manish Mani Sharma (in bail nos.1575/2023, 1640/2023, 1920/2023, 1998/2023, 2066/2023, 2090/2023 & 2316/2023), learned counsels for the applicants and Sri Ajai Kumar, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsels for the informant as well as Ms. Parul Kant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

First Bail Applications Moved On Behalf Of The Applicants:-

3. Applicant- Nandan Singh Bisht went to jail on 19.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302, 120-B, 34, 427 IPC, Section 30 of Arms Act and Section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station- Tikuniya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 along with Arbitration Appeal Nos.86 & 88 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.11.2024

1. Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant.

Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh. ...Respondent. 2. Arbitration Appeal No.86 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Narain Singh. ...Respondent. 3. Arbitration Appeal No.88 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Babu Ram. ...Respondent. Coram:

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. Mr. Khalid Jahangir Qazi, a national of United States of America holding the status of an Overseas Citizen of India,1 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking entry to India. He challenges the legality of two restrictive measures imposed upon him - order dated 12th May, 2023 issued by the Consulate General of India, New York,2 cancelling his OCI card under the Citizenship Act, 1955,3 and the Citizenship Rules, 2009; and a subsequent blacklisting order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the Foreigners Act, 1946,4 restraining his entry into India. The underlying basis of these actions, as asserted by the Respondents, is the Petitioner's alleged involvement in activities deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of India.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal1 is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 19 February 2013 in terms of which an Award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal2 has come to be upheld. In terms of the Award dated 05 October 2005, the petitioner- appellant was directed to frame a policy of regularisation in respect of the respondent workmen. Both the Tribunal as well as the learned LPA Tribunal Single Judge have essentially held against the appellant on the ground that the engagement of the respondent-workmen through a contractor was merely a ruse to overcome the obligations which would have stood attached in case it were to be recognized to be the principal employer.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant regular first appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as 'CPC') seeking the following reliefs:

Signature Not Verified

RFA 9/2022 Page 1 of 60

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:12.11.2024

18:37:54

"(a) call, summon and peruse the records of the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Jay Thareja, Ld. ADJ-07, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.7447/2016 titled as "Apama Ashram Vs. Mohan Jha & Ors. ";

ANISH DAYAL, J.

"Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future"

- Justice V.R Krishna Iyer.

These words resonate deeply in the assessment by this Court of the plea of premature release after 26 years of incarceration.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR W.P.(CRL) 1485/2024 Page 1 of 58

Signing Date:12.11.2024

12:03:39

1. The petitioner seeks directions for setting aside the Minutes of Meeting of the Sentence Review Board ("SRB") held on 30th June 2023 rejecting the premature release of the petitioner and order dated 21 st November 2023 by which the Minutes of SRB were approved by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi; ("LG"). Petitioner, therefore, seeks directions for premature release in FIR No.48/2001, PS Rajender Nagar for offences under Sections 302/186/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 68 of the Excise Act, 2009. Additionally, the petitioner prays that this Court frames guidelines to ensure that all decisions taken by the SRB are in consonance with the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 ("DPR").

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Criminal Appeals under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. have been filed by the appellants impeaching the judgment and order 10.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Shravasti in Sessions Trial No. 6/2006 (State vs. Dharmendra Kumar & another) arising out of Case Crime No. 135/1997, under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Ikauna, District Shravasti thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 25 Arms Act for two and a half years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine five months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

3. An FIR was lodged on 25.06.1997 at Police Station- Ikauna, District- Shravasti registered as Case Crime No. 135/1997, under Section 307 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 25 Arms Act against the accused-appellant and Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu. As per the FIR, the case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on provocation of accused Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu, the appellant opened fire with country made pistol, which was recovered from the possession of the appellant, on police party. In this incident, no one sustained firearm injury.

The instant batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially challenges the recommendations made by the Municipal Valuation Committee-III (hereinafter referred to as 'MVC-III') under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'DMC Act') which are sought to be implemented to levy property tax by erstwhile East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'EDMC'). EDMC was reunified alongwith other Corporations and is now called the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation').

1. Mr. Devansh Mohta, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the Applicant in Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ.

2. Arguments could not be concluded today.

1

3. On the request of the Counsel for the parties, put up this matter for further hearing on 25.11.2024.

4. List on 25.11.2024 for further hearing.

..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM November 11, 2024, Original Application No.44/2020/EZ With Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ In Original Application No.43/2020/EZ SKB

1. In this original application, registered suo motu, the Tribunal is considering the issue of delay in filing the reports by the State Expert Committees and its effect on the unclassed forests.

2. By order dated 31.07.2024, 38 respondents were impleaded and notices have been served upon them.

3. Replies on behalf of only UT of Ladakh and State of Andhra Pradesh have been received.

4. The previous order also indicates that there are 7 States, i.e., Goa, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, who do not appear to have constituted the Expert Committees till now.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC submits that the Ministry is in touch with the authorities of all the States and the last meeting was held on 03.10.2024 and that after collecting the relevant information, the MoEF&CC will file the reply within four weeks.

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 submits that the reply has been filed but the same has been filed belatedly, therefore, it has not come on record. The office is directed to place it on record.

2. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 is directed to supply a copy thereof to the Counsel for the Applicant within one week.

3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has also informed that the Officer of UPPCB had visited the site and found that the solid waste was unauthorizedly dumped in an area of 1600 sq.m. He has pointed out that there is no sanction/approval granted by the UPPCB in respect of this secondary collection point. He has sought two weeks' time to file the reply.

1. Mr. Devansh Mohta, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the Applicant in Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ.

2. Arguments could not be concluded today.

1

3. On the request of the Counsel for the parties, put up this matter for further hearing on 25.11.2024.

4. List on 25.11.2024 for further hearing.

..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM November 11, 2024, Original Application No.44/2020/EZ With Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ In Original Application No.43/2020/EZ SKB

1. The Miscellaneous application has been moved for clarification in respect of directions issued by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 194/2024 dated 30.09.2024.

2. Issue notice to the respondents returnable within four weeks. Respondents are directed to submit their reply within six weeks through E-filing portal, preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.

3. Applicant is directed to take necessary steps for service to the respondents by both ways and also on available email.

M A No. 19/2024(CZ) Dr. Brijmohan Sapoot Kala Sanskriti Sewa Sansthan vs. State of Rajasthan

4. Applicant is directed to supply the copy of the application and relevant documents to the Respondent(s) within a week and after compliance of service, the applicant has to submit an affidavit that the notice and copy of the application have been served upon the respondent(s).

1. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Singh, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant on admission.

2. The learned Counsel is referring to document at page 42 of the Original Application which is in Hindi vernacular. The Applicant should have filed the English translation of the said document since the Hon'ble Expert Member sitting at Chennai Bench cannot be expected to read this document.

3. Even otherwise, Rule 33 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices & Procedure) Rules 2011 provides in clear and candid terms that the language of the Tribunal shall be English provided that the parties to a proceeding before the Tribunal may file documents drawn up in Hindi, if they so desire. Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its discretion permit the use of Hindi in the proceedings, and the Tribunal hearing any matter in its discretion direct English translation of pleadings and documents to be filed.

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 submits that the reply has been filed but the same has been filed belatedly, therefore, it has not come on record. The office is directed to place it on record.

2. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 is directed to supply a copy thereof to the Counsel for the Applicant within one week.

3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has also informed that the Officer of UPPCB had visited the site and found that the solid waste was unauthorizedly dumped in an area of 1600 sq.m. He has pointed out that there is no sanction/approval granted by the UPPCB in respect of this secondary collection point. He has sought two weeks' time to file the reply.

1. Vide order dated 29.08.2024 Prakash Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit was directed to file the reply. Learned counsel representing respondent/ Prakash Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit has submitted that due to technical reasons reply has not been uploaded. The same may be filed within two weeks with copy to the opposite parties.

2. In the meantime, learned counsels for the State and BMC are directed to trace the map, revenue record with regard to allotment/allocation of green belt in the Map as approved.

3. Applicant present in person has submitted that the present matter relates only to the cutting of trees. MPPCB has issued notice to the Prakash Grih OA No. 139/2023(CZ) Krishnarani Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit with assessment of environmental compensation but the same has not been replied till date. State PCB is directed to finalise the matter and report within two weeks.

1. Case called out. No one is present on behalf of the Applicant.

2. Affidavit dated 04.11.2024 has been filed by the Respondent No.3, Central Pollution Control Board bringing on record the Joint Committee Report; the same is taken on record.

3. We find that the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) has not been impleaded in the present proceedings as Respondent. We, accordingly direct the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) through its Chief Managing Director (CMD) be impleaded in the array of Respondents as Respondent No.5.

4. Issue notice to the newly added Respondent No.5 in the following address, returnable within four weeks: -

1. Heard Mr. Supriyo Dutta, representing the Applicant is present in person.

2. This Original Application has been registered on the basis of a letter petition submitted in the office of the Tribunal through email dated 18.07.2024 alleging that industrial factories and workshops around the village of the Applicant at Purbannapara located at Makardah Mouza under Domjur Block, District, Howrah has been causing severe environmental problems to the lives of the local people due to obnoxious gaseous effluents.

3. It is also alleged that the Saraswati Canal has been blocked due to it being used for dumping of waste water and other industrial waste material3 by several industries present in the area that continue unregulated dumping of the industrial wastes also resulting in deterioration of the environment in the locale.

1. In this original application, registered suo motu, the issue under consideration relates to the large-scale encroachment on the forest land across the country.

2. The Tribunal by the order dated 19.04.2024 had required the States/Union Territories(UTs) to furnish the detailed information in the format provided in that order and also to supply a copy thereof to Counsel for the Respondent No.1, MoEF&CC, who was directed to compile the information in a separate table which was also provided in that order.

3. The MoEF&CC has filed the interim affidavit dated 30.07.2024 disclosing that the reply was received by the MoEF&CC by 23 States/UTs out of which, 16 States/UTs had provided the data in the prescribed format.

1. In this original application, one of the Alumni of Respondent No. 2, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) has made an allegation of large-scale felling of trees within the campus without any permission by the competent authority. The allegation is that the trees of Shagaun, Sandalwood, Mango, etc. have been cut.

2. The Tribunal on 31.07.2024 had issued notice to the respondents and had also formed a two-member Joint Committee with a direction to the Committee to visit the site and ascertain the correct position and submit the report.

3. The Joint Committee has submitted the report dated 29.10.2024 disclosing that the Divisional Forest Officer, Varanasi in the year 2022- 23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 (till now) had granted permission to cut 135 trees in the campus. But as against this, Respondent No. 2 had cut 149 trees, and university could not clarify the position in respect of 14 trees. The Joint Committee had found that 6 Mango, 3 Gold Mohar, 1 Kathal and 2 Mahua trees were illegally cut on the spot for which the Forest Department of Varanasi has registered the Forest Offence No. 43/2024- 25 dated 23.10.2024. The report of the Joint Committee further discloses that Committee constituted by the Forest Department, Varanasi had found that total 161 trees were cut in the campus and permission only for 135 trees was granted, therefore, 26 trees were cut by the university administration without the permission of the Forest Department for which the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi had sent the letter no. 1053/2-43 dated 15.10.2024 to the Deputy Director, Forest (Central), Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The report further reflects that 7 sandalwood trees have been cut illegally without any permission.

1. Heard Ms. Haripriya Patel, the Applicant appearing in person (in Virtual Mode).

2. The present case has been taken up in pursuance of an article published in the New Indian Express dated 19.08.2024 "Three jumbos die in Odisha in 24 hours, electrocution cases rise". The article also mentions that: -

a) one elephant calf dies after being hit by a goods train on the Rourkela-Bimlagarh line near Roxy of Barsuan range under the Bonai Forest Division (BFD) in District: Sundargarh in the early hours on Sunday dated 18.08.2024;

b) a female elephant aged about 7 years died in Tamra Forest in Gurundia Block on the night of August 15 due to diseases; and

The 'preliminary report' dated 24.07.2020 filed by the Expert Committee constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2020 is taken on record. On the request of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, adjourned to 06.08.2020. Liberty to file further submission, if any, before the next date.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S. P. Wangdi, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM July 29, 2020 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) & Original Application No. 44/2020(EZ) DV

1. Though the Respondents No. 5 to 11 are served and affidavit of service has been filed but no one has entered the appearance on their behalf, nor any reply has been received from them.

2. The fresh report of the Joint Committee has been filed by the UPPCB along with the reply dated 08.11.2024.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks one week time to examine the report and file objection, if required.

4. It has also been pointed out that OA No. 269/2024 involving the same issue against the same project proponent is pending.

5. List alongwith OA No. 269/2024 on 21.11.2024.

Prakash Shrivastava, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM November 11, 2024 Original Application No. 121/2024 dv..

1.1 We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Hearing concluded. Order reserved. The order will be uploaded on the website, after due consideration, on or before 19.02.2021.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S.K. Singh, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM February 15, 2021 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) with connected matters DV

1. This original application is registered suo motu on the basis of the news item titled "दे हरादन ू : उ राखंड के 104 वग कलोमीटर जंगल पर क ज़ा... सैकड़ो पेड़ काटे , वन वभाग क भू मका सवालो म" appearing in 'Amar Ujala' dated 22.08.2024.

2. The news item relates to the encroachment of forests in Uttarakhand. As per the article, a total of 104.54 square kilometres of forest in 39 forest divisions of the State is occupied by encroachers. The news item questions the inaction by the Forest Department as the encroachment took place gradually, yet no action has been taken by the authorities. The article mentions that 11 thousand hectares of forest land in the State were encroached and the Forest Department did not even know about it and upon gaining knowledge, only 11.5 hectares of forest land were freed from encroachment. Furthermore, the Uttarakhand Forest Statistics Book published in 2017-2018 reported that 9,506.2249 hectares of forest land were encroached upon. However, under the CM's instructions, a recent campaign initiated by the Forest Department last year reported an increased figure of 11,814.47 hectares of encroached forest land. This raises questions about whether the increase occurred over the past three years or if it reflects earlier encroachments that were previously unreported.

1. After having heard the argument of learned counsel for applicant for half an hour, he could not convince us as to how Relief (A) sought in the present Original Application regarding quashing of the purported Forest Clearance dated 29.09.2016, which is annexed at page nos.47 to 49 of the paper book and purported Forest Clearance dated 27.03.2017, which is annexed at page nos.50 to 53 of the paper book, which are issued in favours of M/s Shri Mandar Gadkari and M/s. Salim Khan and others respectively, under Section 22A of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 for regularization of constructed bungalows, servant quarters, poultry, garage, swimming pool with Jacuzzi, road and laying of underground water pipeline and electricity cable along the road and other allied purposes in Raigad District of Maharashtra, subject to the conditions contained therein, fall in our jurisdiction because the said Act i.e. Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 does not fall in the Schedule- I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

1. Case taken up by video conference on Vidyo App.

2. These cases are taken up together as identical questions have been raised. The Applicant in O.A. No. 43/2020/EZ, an environmentalist, who has preferred the application alleging failure of the Respondent Authorities in preventing the blowout of Baghjan 5 oil well of the Respondent No. 1, M/s. Oil India Ltd. (OIL in short), resulting in a massive fire causing irreparable loss to the entire biodiversity of the region and loss of lives and property.

3. It is stated that on 27.05.2020 at around 10:30 AM the producing well of Baghjan 5 under the Baghjan Oilfield of OIL in Tinsukia District, Assam, released natural gas in an uncontrolled manner. Baghjan is one of the 23 oil wells set up by OIL to tap the large gas reserves in the Brahmaputra basin located near the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. The released gas is stated to be a mix of propane, methane, propylene and other gases that flow with the wind the condensate of which mostly falls on the bamboo groves, tea gardens, banana trees and betel nut trees in the area and also spread into the Dibru- Saikhowa National Park which, according to the Applicant, records over 40 mammals, 500 species of birds, 104 fish species, 105 butterfly species and 680 types of plants, including a wide variety of rare orchids. It harbours the tiger, elephant, wild buffalo, leopard, hoolock gibbon, capped langur, slow loris, Gangetic dolphin, besides critically endangered bird species such as the Bengal Florican, White Winged Duck, Greater Adjutant stork, White rumped vulture, slender billed vulture as well as the rare and endemic Black-breasted parrotbill.

1. This order is being passed in continuation of orders dated 24.06.2020 and 02.07.2020 dealing with the issue of providing remedies to the victims and for restoration of environment as a result of incident of oil blowout on 27.05.2020 and other consequential events that followed at Baghjan in Tinsukia District of Assam.

2. The Tribunal noted the case of the applicant that as a result of blowout on 27.5.2020, the Baghjan Oil well set up by the Oil India Limited (OIL) released propane, methane, propylene and other gases causing damage to bamboo groves, tea gardens, banana trees and betel nut trees in the area and also spread into the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park which, according to the Applicant, records over 40 mammals, 500 species of birds, 104 fish species, 105 butterfly species and 680 types of plants including a wide variety of rare orchids. The area harbours tiger, elephant, wild buffalo, leopard, hoolock gibbon, capped langur, slow loris, Gangetic dolphin, besides critically endangered bird species such as the Bengal Florican, White Winged Duck, Greater Adjutant stork, White rumped vulture, slender billed vulture as well as the rare and endemic Black-breasted parrotbill. The oil also spilled into the Dibru river causing a film of oil in the river that passes through the Maguri- Motapung wetlands, an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area, and along the Dibru Saikhowa National Park. The Maguri-Motapung Wetland, located less than 10 km from Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, is a part of the Dibru-Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve (DSBR) and hosts some of the most vulnerable species of birds such as Swamp Francolin, Marsh Babbler, Greater Adjutant and Pallas's Fish-eagle, Red-headed Vulture and White-bellied Heron, and over 80 species of fish. River Dibru is a tributary of River Lohit which then forms river Brahmaputra in the lower reaches. Brahmaputra river system is also a home to Gangetic dolphins. As a result of the blowout, there was also a fire on 09.06.2020. The applicant has also stated that the blowout has left behind huge volumes of residue as gas condensate which is a mixture of chemical compounds that are toxic for land and vegetation and is a known carcinogen. The blowout is not only hazardous to the health of the people but also severely affect their livelihood whose occupation is mainly agriculture, fishing and animal rearing. 1610 families were displaced as a result of the gas leak.

11/11/2024 This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 0006/2024, registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-D IPC and sections 5(l)6 and 11/12 of POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution, the petitioner on the date of alleged incident forcibly took the victim Mst.'R' away from the company of her mother and took her to Rawatsar, Nyolkhi, Sonadi etc. Thereafter, the victim Mst.'R' was subjected to forcible sexual assault-rape by the present petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal the statements of the victim Mst.'R' would indicate that at the time when she was being forcibly taken away [2024:RJ-JD:45324] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8220/2024] from the company of her mother, neither she nor her mother shouted for any help. Further, while she was forced to travel with the petitioner in public transportation to various places, she despite having ample opportunities did not shout for any help or inform anyone about the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the behaviour of the victim Mst.'R' is highly unnatural and indicates that she has levelled false allegations against the petitioner only with a view to falsely rope him in a criminal case.

Order 12/11/2024 This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.21/2024 registered at Police Station Gangasheher, Dist. Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 354, 307 and 143 of IPC.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the instant bail application at this stage on behalf of the petitioner No.1- Mohammed Imran Rehmani S/o Mohammed [2024:RJ-JD:45679] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10861/2024] Ayub Rehmani but, he seeks leave of the Court to file a fresh bail application after the statements of the injured- Ajeez are recorded.

[2024:RJ-JD:45705] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13676/2024 Ganpat Singh S/o Misri Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Narsingo Ki Dhani, P.s. Khuhari, Dist. Jaisalmer. Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Jaisalmer)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

Order 12/11/2024 These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.376/2020 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Sections 8/21, 22, 8/25, 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

[2024:RJ-JD:45546] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11930/2023] Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during naakabandi, on 04.11.2020, a team of Police Station Ratangarh intercepted one Maruti car having registration No.DL- 09-CB-6368. Upon a search being made, the contraband (15,600 tablets of tramadol) was recovered in one plastic bag. They were arrested on the spot.

[2024:RJ-JD:45604] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11138/2024 Gurvindra Singh @ Gindi S/o Dilawar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kamalewala, Teh. And Dist. Firozpur, Punjab (Lodged In Sub Jail Anupgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav, PP JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

Order 12/11/2024 These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.376/2020 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Sections 8/21, 22, 8/25, 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

[2024:RJ-JD:45546] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11930/2023] Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during naakabandi, on 04.11.2020, a team of Police Station Ratangarh intercepted one Maruti car having registration No.DL- 09-CB-6368. Upon a search being made, the contraband (15,600 tablets of tramadol) was recovered in one plastic bag. They were arrested on the spot.

Judgment 11/11/2024 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Session Case No.241/2020 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 307, 326, 324 & 448 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act and sentenced him as under :

Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 307 10 years SI Rs.25,000/- & in default of payment, IPC undergo 2 months Addl. SI Sec. 326 7 years SI Rs.5,000/- & in default of payment, IPC undergo 1 month Addl. SI Sec. 324 2 years SI Rs.500/- & in default of payment, IPC undergo 7 days Addl. SI Sec 448 IPC 1 year SI -- Sec. 4/25 of 3 years SI Rs.2,000/- & in default of payment, Arms Act undergo 15 days Addl. SI [2024:RJ-JD:45484] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-422/2024]

2. All the petitioners are accused in FIR No.40/2011 registered with Police Station Kotawali in the District of Jaisalmer for Offences under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act).

3. By the impugned order dated 13.09.2023, the charges were ordered to be framed for offences under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(X) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled [2024:RJ-JD:44266] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-2169/2023] Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989").

4. The prosecution case is that on 31.01.2011, respondent No.2 along with other officials had gone to identify the area of encroachment on the public land made by Achal Singh, petitioner No.1. When the informant was measuring the site, all the petitioners objected and allegedly committed abuses like Bhangi, Neech, Bhikhari, Mangani to the informant and others and they committed assault as well.