CHRIS FOY IN MIYAZAKI: The head coach is satisfied that his Red Rose squad have acclimatised quickly since arriving here in the far south of the country on Tuesday evening.

The headguards are off! YouTube sensations KSI and Logan Paul come face-to-face once more but this time in a pro-boxing fight in Los Angeles. Follow LIVE ACTION right here from Staples Center.

1. The Appellant Company was established to execute what is known as Chennai Metro Rail Project ("CMRP"). On 15.02.2011, a Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") was entered into between the Government of India, Government of Tamil Nadu and Chennai Metro Rail Limited ("CMRL"), the Appellant herein, inter-alia, for the purposes of sharing the financial burden of setting up of CMRP, the objective whereof concededly was to provide reliable, faster, economical and eco- friendly public transport services in the city of Chennai, the project undertaken being similar to the projects that have come up in different metro-cities of India including Delhi and Bangalore.

1. The present appeal has been filed by Indian Captive Power Producers Association (ICPPA) (Appellant) against the daily order dated 01.02.2019 ("impugned order") passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Respondent Commission") in Petition No. 1672 of 2017, preferred by the Appellant. Vide the present appeal, the Appellant is seeking necessary directions for expediting the proceedings in Petition No. 1672 of 2017 preferred by the Appellant. Under the aforesaid Petition, the Appellant is seeking amendment of the provisions of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011 ("GERC OA Regulations, 2011") as detailed therein. However, even after a lapse of more than 2 years, the Respondent Commission has failed to hear the Petition on merits, thereby leading to a delay in deciding the said case.

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Swasti Power Limited ("Appellant") under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("Electricity Act"), challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission's ("State Commission / Respondent No.1") Order dated 21.10.2015 in Petition No. 08 of 2015 ("Impugned Order") whereby the State Commission despite coming to the conclusion that the Respondents are in breach of their obligations towards construction of 220/33KV sub-station at Ghansali or in strengthening/augmentation of the existing 33KV evacuation system had erroneously dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant while holding that there is no specific condition under the Power Wheeling Agreement dated 30.09.2005 and Power Purchase Agreement dated 03.07.2009 executed between the parties, under which the Appellant could be compensated for the loss of generation due to inactions of the Respondent No. 2 & 3.

2. The facts, which led to filing of this appeal, in brief, are as under:

Admittedly, the 2nd Respondent is the HT consumer of electricity having Contract Demand of 3500 KVA with the Appellant. It entered into an agreement on 10.10.2011 with the Appellant-Discom for supply of power in terms of above Contract of Demand.

3. Apparently, consumer company made an application for energy drawl from open access through IEX and it was considered as short term open access (STOA) consumer. Admittedly, in terms of Regulation 26(vii) of the RERC (Terms and conditions for Open access) Regulations 2016 (for short "Regulations of 2016"), every short term open access consumer shall provide the injection/drawl schedule (block- wise maximum power) for inter-State transactions every day to SLDC, RDPPC and the Distribution Licensee before 10:00 am of the day 3 preceding the day of drawl/injection as per the open access capacity sanctioned.

1. By this appeal, challenge has been brought to order dated 04.03.2015 of first Respondent i.e. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter variously referred to as "WBERC" or "State Commission") in case No. TP-55/13-14 thereby determining Multi Year Tariff (MYT) for the period beginning with financial year (FY) 2014-15 upto FY 2016-17 by which the appellant, representing a set of industrial consumers, claims to be adversely affected. The grievances of the Appellant relate to alleged inherent inconsistency in the approach on account of "excessive allowance of power purchase cost"; non-compliance of Tariff Regulations in matter relating to "Provisional Determination of Project Cost" of specific units; incorrect treatment of "non-tariff income"; and, erroneous "recurring" allowance of "interest on working capital loan" provided by Government of West Bengal without scrutiny as to delay in repayment.

Mr. Amit Kapur Ms. Poonam Verma Mr. Saunak Kumar Mr. Rajguru Mr. Sidhant Kaushik Ms. Aparajita Upadhyay Ms. Adhishree Chakraborty Ms. Sakshi Kapoor Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Ms. Abiha Zaidi for R-2 Order PER HON'BLE MR. S. D. DUBEY, TECHNICAL MEMBER IA No. 324 of 2020

1. The dismissal of the claim brought before the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission) under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for recovery of Rs. 76,61,606/- on account of "deemed generation" against the Respondent Discom, registered as case No. HERC/PRO-69 of 2017 "for want of prosecution" by order dated 16.01.2019, followed by dismissal of the prayer for Appeal No. 75 of 2020 Page 2 of 6 restoration of the said case by order dated 25.04.2019, has led to the present appeal being instituted before us.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on all sides and have gone through the record. We are of the view that the appeal must be allowed. We set out our reasons hereinafter.

1. Against the backdrop of validity of certain acts of the third Respondent (Procurer) encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee and terminating the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) being questioned by the Appellant (Developer), the issues of the propriety of the approach of Appeal No. 319 of 2019 & IA Nos. 1565, 1566 & 1915 of 2019 Page 2 of 37 the first Respondent - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to variously as "UPERC" or "State Commission" or "Commission") - to the process of adjudication and the general expectation of its neutrality particularly at the stage of an appellate scrutiny of its decision by this Tribunal have come up for consideration in this appeal.

1. The brief facts that led to filing of the present appeal are as under:

3

In terms of guidelines issued by Ministry of Power (MoP) for determination of tariff by bidding process for procurement of power by distribution licensees, on 18.05.2009, Respondent No.3- MSEDCL issued a request for proposal for procurement of 2000 MW (+30%-20%) for a period of 25 years on long term basis. In that process, the following bidders were qualified:

i. Emco Energy Ltd. ( 200 MW @2.879 Rs/kWh) ii. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Amravati) ( 1200 MW @ 3.260 Rs/kWh) iii. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd (1200 MW @ 3.280 Rs/kWh) iv. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Nashik) (950 MW @ 3.450 Rs/kWh v. Wardha Power Company Ltd. (675 MW @ 3.620 Rs/kWh)

1. These two matters have come up against almost identical backdrop of proceedings recorded by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to variously as "TNERC" or "State Commission" or "Commission"), the Appellant in first captioned appeal being Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited, which was the petitioner in D.R.P. No. 19 of 2012, the second captioned appeal having been instituted by Samalpatti Power Company Private Limited, petitioner in D.R.P. No. 16 of 2012.

2. It appears that the said two petitions had come up for consideration before the State Commission around the same point of time, the hearing having been concluded, the orders having been reserved by similar proceedings recorded on 21.12.2018. Noticeably at that stage, the State Commission was functional in full strength with the Chairman and two Members in position. Before orders could be passed in either of the said matters, one of the members (Mr. G. Rajagopal) Appeal No. 127 of 2019 and Appeal No. 146 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 demitted office in January, 2019. Meanwhile, certain written submissions had been placed on record by the parties which were respondents before the State Commission (respondents in these appeals as well). Along with the said written submissions, certain documents were submitted to which exception was taken by the appellants primarily on the ground that it was new material, taking on board the same amounting to (as per their contention) amendment of the pleadings, it being statedly impermissible at the stage at which it had been tendered for record. Since the Registry of the Commission seems to have returned such material upon objections being taken, the respondents herein were constrained to file applications - i.e. IA No. 1 of 2019 in the first captioned matter and IA No. 2 of 2019 in the other matter.

1. This Appeal is filed by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited challenging the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "APERC/Commission").

2. The brief facts which led to filing of the present Appeal are as under:

(i) 2nd Respondent - M/s SNJ Sugars & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd.

is a sugar plant with co-generation power plant having capacity of 20 MW. It uses bagasse as a fuel for power generation. It approached the Non-conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (known as "NEDCAP") for setting up of power plant and accordingly it got the approval on 07.04.2000.

1. The Appellant West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) has come up with the present appeal challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Central Commission) in Petition No. 298/MP/2018 which had been instituted by the Respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) seeking declaration as to right to recover a sum aggregating Rs.111,74,47,434 Crores towards principal and delayed payment surcharge at the rate of 1.5% per month as on 31.08.2019 along with further interest till payment. It appears that the Appellant had resisted the claim by raising the issue of limitation pleading that the Appeal No. 20 of 2020 Page 2 of 5 petition of DVC could not be entertained, it being time barred.

His compelling portrayal of a young man in an intense, awkward relationship is setting the screen alight in Normal People.

The Oasis star, now 52, did not expose the identity of the mystery guest but admitted it was very bizarre behaviour.

The former Geordie Shore star, 32, also revealed that she's developed a crush on Good Morning Britain presenter Piers Morgan.

Former Chancellor and London Evening Standard editor George Osborne, 48, and his author wife Frances, 50, are getting divorced after 21 years of marriage, they announced in a statement today.

Almost 4,000 members of the Armed Forces pension scheme breached their annual allowance in 2017-18. This puts them at risk of five or six-figure tax bills under changes introduced in 2016.

The 3 per cent stamp duty surcharge on additional properties was introduced by the former Chancellor in 2016 and it was hoped it would raise £2.9billion in tax by the end of the 2019/2020 tax year.

Antonio Conte is thought to be desperate to reunite with the midfielder after failing to sign him last summer and in the January window earlier this season.

As part of the division's grand plan to bring back top-flight action, clubs continue to debate over the specifics of this summer's transfer window - which has unsurprisingly been thrown into chaos.

Both Barcelona and Real Madrid are planning to slash their first-team wages by 30 per cent ahead of the 2020-21 La Liga season, according to Spanish newspaper Diario AS. 

The Manchester United striker, 22, was subject to a barrage of abuse after missing a penalty in a 2-1 defeat to Crystal Palace last year.

Napoli will return to training on March 25 despite appeals to wait until the nation's lockdown ends on April 3 and criticism from the AIC for endangering players' health.

Aaron Wan-Bissaka insists pitting himself against Manchester United team-mate Marcus Rashford everyday in training has massively helped him develop as a defender.

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List again on 17.04.2020.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 18.03.2020 Shivalee SHIVALEE KHAJURIA 2020.03.18 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dasti notice is also permitted.

List on 23.03.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List again on 11.05.2020.

Meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and till next date before the Bench, respondent No. 5 shall indicate to the petitioner the bid which has been received by respondent No. 5 in respect to the e- auction Notice No. DGM/DMO/Spn/310-18 dated 07.02.2020. It is further provided that in case the petitioner has been found to be eligible in all respects and has given the bid higher then respondent No. 4, in that event, respondents shall not proceed further in the matter.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 18.03.2020 SHIVALEE KHAJURIA 2020.03.18 16:52 Shivalee I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List on 01.06.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List on 01.06.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

By virtue of order dated 29th January, 2020, it was made clear that if the matter was not argued on next date of hearing the interim directions issued would stand vacated.

Today yet again Mr. Haqani is not present and a request is made for adjournment.

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

--2--

Request as made is rejected. The interim direction in all the three cases i.e. SWP No.2002/20132, SWP No.844/2012 and SWP No.2151/2011 are vacated.

List again on 27th May, 2020.

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

" It is therefore, humbly prayed that a direction may kindly be given to the In Charge Sub District Jail, Kupwara to release the petitioners on bail after perusal of the report certified copy of which is placed on record and C. D file is called and the objections are called from the concerned prosecution agency and the arguments of both sides are heard in this behalf and till the instant bail application is finally decided the petitioners are making out a prima facie case for their release on interim bail and the accused may kindly be granted interim bail till the petition is finally decided as the same has been rules by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same prayer is made before this Hon'ble Court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that the petitioner approached initially the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, for registration of case against the respondent No. 6, by filing application/complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. PC, but even on the directions of the concerned Magistrate, the Crime Branch has not acted upon the directions. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached the respondent Director School Education, and brought into his notice the fraudulent approach adopted by the respondent No. 6 in fabricating the documents for excluding the role of petitioner as Chairman of the Holy Mission School, Narbal, Budgam, but no action is taken. It is submitted that on failure of the official respondents to take action in tune with the statutory provisions, the petitioner has no option but to approach this Court for seeking the relief as prayed for.

"6. Having said so, it would be open to the authorities concerned to consider the representation, if any, that is pending before them. However, no mandamus can be issued by this Court for enforcement of the clauses contained in the Transfer Policy for the purpose of enforcement.

02. In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned the order bearing endorsement No. GMS/B/20-1198 dated 12.03.2020, whereby, petitioner has, again, been transferred with immediate effect.

03. Since transfer is an exigency of service and it is the prerogative of the employer to see at what place the service of an employee can be utilized properly in the larger public interest. An employee holding transferable post has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place for a particular period.

"a). A writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents more particularly respondent No. 1, to consider and decide the application of petitioner forwarded by respondent No. 2 Director School Education, Kashmir, vide communication No. DSEK/Estt- III/B-Trs/06/2019/Kup/5092 dated 27.08.2019.

b) A writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for inter-District transfer in light of the policy in vogue and also in light of the Medical Board recommendations."

03. Since transfer is an exigency of service and it is the prerogative of the employer to see at what place the service of an employee can be utilized properly in the larger public interest. An employee holding transferable post has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place for a particular period.

2. The petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of detention on the following grounds:

"a) that no compelling reason or circumstance was disclosed in the order or grounds of detention to take the detenu in preventive detention, moreso in view of the fact that as on the date of passing of the aforesaid order of detention, the detenu was already in custody;

b) that the detenu has not been provided the material forming basis of the detention order, to make an effective representation against his detention order;

SWP No. 2648/2018;

CCP(S) No. 402/2019 regarding correct allotment of the GP Fund Computer Code numbers is pending before the respondents and has not been concluded, therefore, the respondents could not have proceeded to withhold the salary of the petitioners since the month of December, 2017, that too, without issuing any formal order to the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners are continuing to discharge their duties uninterruptedly at their respective places of posting, however, their salary is not being released without there being any rhyme or reason. The petitioners claim that despite they having approached the respondents repeatedly, their salary was not released constraining them to approach this Court through the medium of writ petition bearing SWP No.2648/2018, wherein they prayed for the grant of following relief(s) in their favour:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey.

Whether approved for reporting: YES/No Judgment

1. Impugned in this Heabus Corpus petition with a prayer for quashment thereof is the detention order no. 141/DMB/PSA/2019 dated 30.03.2019, purporting to have been passed by District Magistrate Baramulla, whereunder detenu namely Firdous Ahmad Wani s/o Late Ghulam Mohammad Wani R/o Mohalla Bazar Seri Warpora, Pattan District Baramulla, is under detention.

2. Grounds pleaded in support of prayer are that after having been quashed the earlier detention order no. 66/DMB/PSA/2018 dated 20th August 2018, the detenu was again detained in terms of the detention order impugned in this petition on the so called "dossier" placed before respondent no.2, on the same and similar grounds. It is submitted that his further detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State and national law, accordingly while in police custody he was ordered to be detained in preventive custody vide impugned detention order passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla. The earlier detention order was challenged in H.C. Petition No. 239/2018 which was allowed vide judgment dated 11th Dec. 2018, but instead of releasing him from custody, the detaining authority again passed the detention order impugned in the instant petition. During arguments the learned counsel has further elucidated the contents of petition with reference to annexures placed on record, and contended that neither the detention in question was legal nor were grounds HCP no155/2019 1|Page 2 thereof duly communicated to the detenu even though quite vague and unfounded.

In terms of order passed on 13th March, 2020, the Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Srinagar, has submitted his own affidavit and those of his accompanying staff namely Gulzar Ahmad Shah (Nazir), Irfan Ahmad Ganai, (Driver); Ali Khan (S.I), Ghulam Mohammad (SgCT), Tariq Ahmad (Constable), Mohammad Younis (SgCT). The affidavits so filed are taken on record. Copy of the affidavits along with the report of the Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Srinagar, be furnished to the respondent for her response to be filed by or before the next date of hearing with copy in advance to Mr. N. H. Shah, learned Sr. AAG.

List on 15th April, 2020.

CM NO. 1853/2020 By this application, the applicant/ respondent is praying for providing her the copy of the application and other relevant documents for enabling her to file reply.

Permission is granted and the objections as also the report submitted by Mr T. M. Shamsi, ASGI, is taken on record.

Perusal of the communication supra reveals that the detenue, on reference to Medical Superintendent of AIIMS Hospital on 3rd March, 2020, for medical examination, has been informed about constitution of Medical Board in terms of letter No. M.22- 9/Medical Board/ 2020-ESTT (H) dated 13.03.2020. The Medical Superintendent has, however, reported that at present the general condition and vitals of the inmate are stable and satisfactory. The communication further reveals that the detenue will be sent to the Medical Board as and when called by it.

Let Mr B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, keep the detention records available on the next date of hearing.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey.

Whether approved for reporting: YES/No Judgment Through the instant petition, petitioner father of detenu seeks quashment of detention order bearing no. DMS/PSA/81/2019 dated 16.08.2019, passed by District Magistrate Srinagar, whereby the detenu namely Tufail Ahmad Zaldar S/o Mohammad Shafi Zaldar R/o Ranger Stop Zaldar Mohalla, Saidakadal, Srinagar, is under detention.

2. In the dossier it is alleged that the detenu is involved in anti- national activities, disturbing the public tranquility and peace in the area of Saidakadal and its adjacent areas. It is submitted that the detenu was found indulging in disturvbing the maintenance of public order by way of resorting to stone pelting. It is submitted that the detenu is a constant threat to the security of the State. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested in cases FIR no. 70/2019 u/s 307, 147 RPC and FIR 47/2019 u/s 147, 148, 336 RPC registered at Police Station Nigeen. Therefore, on these allegations he was slapped under Public Safety Act, 1978.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for PCR Cases), Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Rural, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Third Additional District Judge (Special Court for PCR Cases), Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur Range, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Allanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Additional Sessions Judge for PCR Cases, Thirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikundam Circle, Thoothukudi District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5122 of 2020

3.The Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagiri Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML 2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5102 of 2020 To

1.The District Sessions Judge (Special Judge for P.C.R. Cases), Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.