PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:51 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

2. The present respondents have filed First Appeal No.1909 of 2019 challenging the Judgment and award in land acquisition proceedings i.e. Land Acquisition Reference No.122 of 2011, decided by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga on 02-08- 2014. The appeal is admitted and it is pending before this Court for its turn for final hearing. They have also filed an application for stay ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:30 ::: 3 CriApln 90-2020 to the execution of the award and a conditional order was passed by this Court. The appellant therein were directed to deposit the entire decreetal amount awarded by the Reference Court along with interest accrued within six weeks from the date of the order i.e. 22- 06-2018. After the amount was deposited by the appellants therein, the present applicants had filed Application No.7291 of 2019 for withdrawal of the amount. After hearing the parties, this Court passed following order : -

(ii) The applicants to deposit the fine amount in the trial Court within eight weeks from today;

SQ Pathan 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 06:03:59 ::: LD.VC.OCR.25.20.doc (iii) The applicants shall report to the trial Court once in six

months, till the aforesaid appeal is finally heard and decided. 6 The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. 7 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed by the Senior Private Secretary.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called;

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

SQ Pathan 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 06:03:51 ::: Apeal.196.20.doc 8 Stand over to 3rd July 2020. 9 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed

1 By the aforesaid interim application and criminal application, the applicant/petitioner, who appears in-person has made several grievances as against the Investigating officer-ACP Ms. Asmita Bhosale, amongst other grievances. In an earlier petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 1135/2019, this Court having considered the allegations and counter allegations levelled by the petitioner therein i.e. Sheetal Shah, was of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 1135/2019 is treated as representation to the Commissioner of Police and as such directed the Commissioner of Police to take cognizance of the said writ petition within four weeks from the date SQ Pathan 1/3 wp.3402.19.doc of the order. Since multiple reliefs are sought in the petition, in particular, transfer of investigation of all five FIRs registered with different police stations, this Court directed that the investigation of all the five FIRs be assigned to a responsible high ranking officer, not below the rank of A.C.P and on such officer being designated to investigate, the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the said investigation. The said order was passed on 4th June 2019 and was disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 2 The grievance of the applicant/petitioner in both the aforesaid applications is that there is a threat to her life and to her children and that the Investigating Officer Ms. Asmita Bhosale and other Officers are not investigating the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner has made several allegations of corruption as against some of the officers. According to her, the said investigation in the five FIRs is not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

2. The appellant is apprehending the arrest in Crime No.282 of 2019 registered with Ghargaon Police Station, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. The first information report has been lodged by present respondent No.2.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. L. S. Mahajan for appellant, learned APP Mr. P. K. Lakhotia for respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil for respondent No.2. Perused the affidavit-in-reply along with documents.

4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Special Judge failed to consider the enmity between the applicant and the informant. A complaint application has been filed by the present appellant in respect of the property dispute. It was contended that there is a Big house (Wada) of the forefathers of the appellant. It is now in dilapidated condition. There was certain space behind the said Wada. When the family -2- ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:55 ::: 2-Apeal-6-2020.odt of respondent No.2 started levelling the land behind the Wada, it was objected by the appellant so also a written complaint was filed on 08-09- 2015 to the Grampanchayat. However, the Grampanchayat with some political motive had made entries in the name of the family of respondent No.2. Therefore, a complaint application was then made by him to the Collector. The informant got annoyed with the same and, in fact, application under Section 14-G of the Maharashtra Grampanchayat Act was filed by the appellant against the Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and the Gram Sewak of the Grampanchayat. It was stated that all of them together had shown the open space belonging to the appellant in the name of one Maruti Karbhari Mundhe, Suresh Karbhari Mundhe and Pramod Rambhau Mundhe. It is further stated that present respondent No.2 is the near friend of said Mundhe family and by taking advantage of the caste of the informant false complaint has been lodged and those two persons from Mundhe family whose name has been taken in the application before Collector by the appellant are shown to be the eye witnesses to the incident. In fact, these two witnesses by name Mundhe were not even present when the incident had taken place. Therefore, when the FIR is filed with mala fide intention, the learned Special Judge ought not to have considered that there is bar for entertaining pre- arrest bail applications in view of Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act. -3- ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:55 :::

2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. -1- ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:45 :::

2(i)-appln-3675-19.odt

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. C. Bora holding for learned Advocate Mr. M. L. Wankhade for applicant and learned APP Mr. P. G. Borade for respondent-State.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:34:03 ::: (2) Cr.WP 1611/2016 both the parties and matter is taken for fnal hearing at the stage of admission itself.

3. Present petition has been fled by the original accused, invoking the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and the inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 2015 dt. 21-09-2016 by learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon and also to challenge the order passed below Ex.1 in Regular Criminal Case No. 573 of 2006 dt. 26-11-2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon.

2. Present appeal has been filed by original accused under Section 14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the Atrocities Act) with Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in order to challenge the order of rejection of their bail petition No.78/2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad (Special Court) on 17.1.2020.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that they are apprehending arrest at the hands of M.I.D.C., Waluj Police Station in respect of Crime No.12/2020 dated 07.01.2020, on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Section 294, 452, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(w)(i)

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. H. I. Pathan for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Y. K. Delmade for respondent No.1.

3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:39 ::: 3 WP 1700-2019 husband that, the learned trial Judge failed to consider that, there was nothing on record which would positively show that the wife has been subjected to domestic violence. A cryptic order has been passed only on the basis of contents of the application and by ignoring the say filed by the respondent. There was nothing to show that, the husband had deserted the wife. Further the husband had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court at Nanded vide Petition No. A 91 of 2016, it has been decided on 02-02-2018, thereby decreeing the petition and directing the wife to resume cohabitation. Under such circumstance, the wife is not entitled to get maintenance much less interim maintenance. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

1. Present review application has been filed by original appellants for review of judgment and order dated 1st August, 2019 passed by this Court in aforesaid First Appeal.

2. Present review applicants are the original claimants, who filed MACP No.256/2013 before learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (herein after referred to as the ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:35 ::: (2) Review Appln.No.199/2019 Tribunal) for getting compensation for the accidental death of one Hanmantrao Manikrao Deshmukh, on whom present review applicants were depending.

2. Admit. With consent of learned Advocates for the respective parties, taken up for final disposal.

3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(2) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for challenging the order of rejection of bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No.46/2020 on 21.1.2020 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Jalna.

2. Since arguable points are made, the appeals are admitted.

3. By consent the appeals are taken up for final disposal. ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:31:54 :::

3 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1

4. Both these appeals have been filed by the original accused in Crime No.03 of 2020 dated 08-01-2020, registered with Mahur Police Station District Nanded for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(3), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by present respondent No.2. These appeals have been filed as per the provisions of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Since arguable points are made, the appeals are admitted.

3. By consent the appeals are taken up for final disposal. ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:00 :::

3 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1

4. Both these appeals have been filed by the original accused in Crime No.03 of 2020 dated 08-01-2020, registered with Mahur Police Station District Nanded for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(3), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by present respondent No.2. These appeals have been filed as per the provisions of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3 Present respondent No.1 is the original complainant, who has filed private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.106/2015 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. It was filed against five persons contending that they have committed offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 469, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4 Brief facts narrated in the complaint are, that the original accused No.3 is the President of institution by name Anjuman Eshat-e-Taleem and accused No.4 is the Secretary. The said institution is registered as Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It receives 100% grants from the Government to run college by name Maulana Azad Higher Secondary School at Khultabad. Accused No.1 is serving as Assistant Teacher since 2011 and ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:24 ::: 4 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd prior to that he was serving as Shikshan Sevak in the subject of Phychology and Sociology. Accused No.2 is the Headmistress of the said school since 2008. Original accused No.5 was then Deputy Director of Education. It is contended that when accused No.1 was in service, he has completed the course of M.A. 1st part in Psychology for the academic year of 2008-09 from Vivekanand College, Aurangabad. His attendance on the Transfer Certificate of said college is said to be 75%. Thereafter, for the year 2010-11 he has completed the M.A. 2nd part in Psychology as a regular student of the said college. The college timing is stated to be 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and for 2010-11 it is from 12.00 noon to 5.40 p.m.. The Institution record shows that during the said period, he has taken only 8 days Earned Leave. This shows that accused No. 1, in conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 4, was only signing the attendance register and taking the salary/honorarium of Rs.9,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for two years. It is stated that in the past also there were instances in the said college run by the accused, in respect of payments made towards salary without candidate putting any work. That amount has been recovered by the Government. All those persons had come to this Court, however, those petitions were rejected and criminal proceedings are pending against two of them. The complainant had given a complaint application on 18.01.2012 to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. He has passed an order on 11.06.2012. It was ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:24 ::: 5 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd directed that the accused No.1 should deposit the entire amount, which he has received towards honorarium with the Government. Further directions were given to take action under Rule 28(5) of Maharashtra Private Schools (Terms of Service) Rules, 1981. It was also stated in the said order that since the accused No.1 has derelicted from duty, inquiry be held and after the report is received then only the further action of continuation in his service would be taken. Therefore, the continuation was not done and as the salary was not given, accused No.1 staged agitation from 09.07.2012 in front of the office of Deputy Director of Education. He was advised on 12.07.2012 to file an appeal and he was then prevented from continuing the agitation. The appeal was filed by him and stay was granted to the order passed. In view of the said stay the accused No.1 was given continuation of service. No opportunity was given to the complainant to put forth his say by the Director of Education when stay was granted. The complainant thereafter filed writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6756 of 2012. In that petition the Director of Education was directed to file affidavit. Accordingly, affidavit was filed on 24.04.2013. It was specifically stated that on 17.04.2013 further order has been passed that the stay has been vacated and the order passed by Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad on 11.06.2012 is confirmed. In view of the said contentions in the writ petition, the writ petition came to be rejected. In the meantime, accused No.5 took charge as ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:24 ::: 6 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad and he gave letter on 24.06.2013, thereby cancelling the confirmation to the service given to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 4 had not taken any steps for inquiry in view of the order dated 11.06.2012. A false report was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education. Accused No.1 has not even deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which he had taken as honorarium for two years. Yet, after accepting the false report the accused No.5 has continued the services of accused No.1 by letter dated 26.08.2013. It has been submitted that all the accused persons with common intention with each other prepared false report, prepared false attendance register, pay bills and other documents, thereby all of them have cheated the Government as well as the students, and therefore, he says that offence has been committed by all the accused persons. He, therefore, prayed for issuing process and punishing the accused persons.

3 Present respondent No.1 is the original complainant, who has filed private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.106/2015 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. It was filed against five persons contending that they have committed offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 469, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4 Brief facts narrated in the complaint are, that the original accused No.3 is the President of institution by name Anjuman Eshat-e-Taleem and accused No.4 is the Secretary. The said institution is registered as Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It receives 100% grants from the Government to run college by name Maulana Azad Higher Secondary School at Khultabad. Accused No.1 is serving as Assistant Teacher since 2011 and ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:08 ::: 4 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd prior to that he was serving as Shikshan Sevak in the subject of Phychology and Sociology. Accused No.2 is the Headmistress of the said school since 2008. Original accused No.5 was then Deputy Director of Education. It is contended that when accused No.1 was in service, he has completed the course of M.A. 1st part in Psychology for the academic year of 2008-09 from Vivekanand College, Aurangabad. His attendance on the Transfer Certificate of said college is said to be 75%. Thereafter, for the year 2010-11 he has completed the M.A. 2nd part in Psychology as a regular student of the said college. The college timing is stated to be 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and for 2010-11 it is from 12.00 noon to 5.40 p.m.. The Institution record shows that during the said period, he has taken only 8 days Earned Leave. This shows that accused No. 1, in conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 4, was only signing the attendance register and taking the salary/honorarium of Rs.9,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for two years. It is stated that in the past also there were instances in the said college run by the accused, in respect of payments made towards salary without candidate putting any work. That amount has been recovered by the Government. All those persons had come to this Court, however, those petitions were rejected and criminal proceedings are pending against two of them. The complainant had given a complaint application on 18.01.2012 to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. He has passed an order on 11.06.2012. It was ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:08 ::: 5 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd directed that the accused No.1 should deposit the entire amount, which he has received towards honorarium with the Government. Further directions were given to take action under Rule 28(5) of Maharashtra Private Schools (Terms of Service) Rules, 1981. It was also stated in the said order that since the accused No.1 has derelicted from duty, inquiry be held and after the report is received then only the further action of continuation in his service would be taken. Therefore, the continuation was not done and as the salary was not given, accused No.1 staged agitation from 09.07.2012 in front of the office of Deputy Director of Education. He was advised on 12.07.2012 to file an appeal and he was then prevented from continuing the agitation. The appeal was filed by him and stay was granted to the order passed. In view of the said stay the accused No.1 was given continuation of service. No opportunity was given to the complainant to put forth his say by the Director of Education when stay was granted. The complainant thereafter filed writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6756 of 2012. In that petition the Director of Education was directed to file affidavit. Accordingly, affidavit was filed on 24.04.2013. It was specifically stated that on 17.04.2013 further order has been passed that the stay has been vacated and the order passed by Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad on 11.06.2012 is confirmed. In view of the said contentions in the writ petition, the writ petition came to be rejected. In the meantime, accused No.5 took charge as ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:08 ::: 6 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad and he gave letter on 24.06.2013, thereby cancelling the confirmation to the service given to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 4 had not taken any steps for inquiry in view of the order dated 11.06.2012. A false report was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education. Accused No.1 has not even deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which he had taken as honorarium for two years. Yet, after accepting the false report the accused No.5 has continued the services of accused No.1 by letter dated 26.08.2013. It has been submitted that all the accused persons with common intention with each other prepared false report, prepared false attendance register, pay bills and other documents, thereby all of them have cheated the Government as well as the students, and therefore, he says that offence has been committed by all the accused persons. He, therefore, prayed for issuing process and punishing the accused persons.

CRM No. 3354 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Jalpaiguri Women Police Station Case No. 144/2019 dated 07.11.2019 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And In the matter of : Kalpana Roy ... Petitioner Ms. Jeenia Rudra .. for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioner undertakes 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 petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased victim. The prayer for bail of the husband of the victim has been rejected earlier today.

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.

It is to be noted that earlier petitioner has also filed a writ petition being WP 5064 (W) of 2020 challenging the transfer.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not join the new college due to several reasons including his ill-health. He further submits that his salary has been stopped and he has not received the salary from the month of March 2020 onwards.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, has defended the action of the university and submitted that the university had no intention to stop payment of the petitioner's salary. The same, according to him, has taken place due to the petitioner not having joined his new post even though the transfer order was issued on March 3, 2020.

And In the matter of: Amit Kumar Kamat @ Amit Kumar @ Lala...petitioner Mr. Koustav Bagchi.........for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed.........................for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hour of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

The petitioner claims that since the petitioner has been in custody for a long time and the charges are of dacoity, the petitioner should be given a reprieve temporarily.

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.

And In the matter of : Kheru Mondal & Anr.

... Petitioners Mr. Subir Debnath .. 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.

And In the matter of : Sonu Singh & Anr.

... Petitioners Mr. Arka Chakraborty .. 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.

04. 2020 b.

CRM No. 3356 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kushmandi Police Station Case No. 25 of 2020 dated 05.03.2020 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 305/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In the matter of : Jahirdur Islam @ Jahedur & Anr.

... Petitioners Ms. Jeenia Rudra .. for the petitioners Mr. Swapan Banerjee ..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.

ab with 01 CRAN 1583 of 2020 (Via Video Conferencing)

In the matter of : an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.04.2020 in connection with Bally Police Station Case No. 25 of 2018 dated 01.03.2018 under Sections 195(A)/506/509/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re :- Bikash Pandey @ Vikash Pandey @ Vicky ... Petitioner.

Mr. Achin Jana ... For the Petitioner. Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury Mr. T. K. Ghosh Mr. P. Bose ... For the State

ab with 02 CRAN1420 of 2020 (Via Video Conferencing)

In the matter of : an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Egra P.S. Case No. 194 of 2020 dated 21.03.2020 under Sections 341/354A/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

And In Re :- Laltu Jana ... Petitioner. Sk. Sahjahan Ali ... For the Petitioner. Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury Mr. T. K. Ghosh Mr. P. Bose ... For the State

04. 2020 b.

CRM No. 2996 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Lalgarh Police Station Case No. 117/2019 dated 22.10.2019 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

And In the matter of : Hablu Bag @ Bhatuk ... Petitioner Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra .. for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioner undertakes 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.

Sri Barid Baran Roy & ors.

Mr. Anindya Bose.

.....for the petitioner.

Mr. D. Banerjee.

....for the O.P. No. 1 Mr. Arijit Bardhan.

...for the O.P. Nos. 15 & 16.

This matter has been listed at the instance of the learned advocate for the petitioner for extension of an interim order dated December 23, 2019, passed by this Bench. It is contended that all the opposite parties have been served as per the direction of the Court and the affidavit-of-service will be filed before the Regular Bench.

Mr. Bardhan, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties 15 and 16, is also present via video conference.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

With W.P. No.5334 (W) of 2020 In re: Letter of Dr. Vimal Khawas Ph.D With W.P. No. 5335 (W) of 2020 In re: Letter of Mr. Ritesh Tiwari With W.P. No. 5336 (W) of 2020 In re: Letter of Raja Satyajit Banerjee The order dated 28.04.2020 be corrected by substituting the word "warriors" in the place and stead of the word "worriers" in the 1 st sentence of 2nd paragraph at page 5 of the order.

Vs.

Smt. Manika Dhara (Pal) and Ors. Mr. Sakti Pada Jana ..for the Applicants Let the matter appear a fortnight hence whenever the court convenes.

The State should show cause why the State should not be directed to pay the writ petitioner's salary till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the writ petitioner undertaking to refund the same in the event the appeal succeeds.

Advocate for the writ petitioner should communicate this direction to Advocate appearing for the State and the relevant authorities well in advance of the next date of hearing.

Vs.

Kalyan Kishore Pradhan and Ors. Mr. Sakti Pada Jana ..for the Applicants Let the matter appear a fortnight hence whenever the court convenes.

The State should show cause why the State should not be directed to pay the writ petitioner's salary till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the writ petitioner undertaking to refund the same in the event the appeal succeeds.

Advocate for the writ petitioner should communicate this direction to Advocate appearing for the State and the relevant authorities well in advance of the next date of hearing.

-vs-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellants : Mr. Soumopriyo Chowdhury Mr. Abhishek Gupta Ms. Ishita Roy.........Advocates For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.PP Mrs. Kakali Chatterjee.........Advocate Heard on : 11.02.2020 Judgment on : 07.05.2020 Arijit Banerjee, J.: 1) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12th

February, 1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Coochbehar in Sessions Trial No. 2(6) 96 arising out of Sessions Case No. 97/94, thereby holding the appellants guilty of having committed offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The appellants are two (2) out of thirteen (13) accused persons. Nine (9) accused persons were acquitted by the Ld. Trial Judge and four (4) accused persons including the appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two (2) of the convicts died during the pendency of the appeal.

Andrew Hebbs, 67 (pictured), told us this week that an appointment with a Toyota dealership for a recalled seatbelt fault on his Prius hybrid had been cancelled.

Large SUVs often loaded with equipment and electronic systems that can go wrong - resulting in high repair bills if you need to get issues fixed. These are the older models to search for - and avoid.

Bournemouth host Everton in today's Premier League clash at Dean Court. Sportsmail's Sam McEvoy will provide live coverage for Bournemouth vs Everton  including score, lineups and build-up.

Quique Sanchez Flores takes charge of his first game back as Watford manager after replacing Javi Gracia in the dugout. Sportsmail's SAM McEVOY will provide live coverage for the tie.

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. This is an Application seeking stay of operation of the Order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Central Commission") whereby the State Commission in Petition NO. 54 of 2017 has determined the completed capital cost of GVK's 540 MW power project located in Punjab as under:

S.No. Claimed by Recomm- Approved GVK ended by by the Ld. Joint PSERC* Auditor 1. Land 123.77 123.77 96.75 2. Preliminary Expenses 0.25 0.25 3. Boiler Turbine Generator 1050.22 1050.17 1050.17 Package including Engineering, Erection, Civil Works, Taxes and 4. Balance of Plant including 927.40 895.06 783.57 Engineering, Erection, Civil Works, Taxes and 5. Duties. Spares for BTG Package. 0.11 0.11 6. Non-EPC. 337.31 285.56 204.60 7. Start-Up Expenses 31.68 15.00 0 7. Power and Water for 32.57 32.57 32.10 Construction. 8. Consultancy and 54.13 11.03 Engineering charges 9. Pre-operative Expenses 186.55 126.56 74.04 10. Insurance 16.56 16.56 16.56 11. Capital Cost excluding 2760.55 - 2269.18 IDC & Financing Charges Page 2 of 98 IA NO. 136 OF 2020 IN APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2020 12. Interest During 1474.84 1455.77 777.50 Construction (IDC) 13. Financing Charges 31.99 31.99 11.69 14. Total Capital Cost 4267.38 4103.83 3058.37

1. The Appellant is a generator maintaining and operating two units of coal-fired thermal generation plants. For purposes of setting up the said units, the construction work started some time in 2011. It had entered into an arrangement with the second Respondent (Discom) for supply of electricity for purposes of start-up, its need continuing the first unit having been commissioned on 11.02.2014 followed by the second unit commissioned on 02.08.2015.

2. The Appellant was a consumer for start-up power for the period 01.09.2013 to 31.05.2015. By the billing raised for supply of such electricity in terms of the Supply Agreement dated 07.01.2013, the Respondent Discom treated it as a commercial consumer on the reasoning that it would fall in the residual category, referring in this context to the tariff schedule, in absence of any separate category for start-up power consumer being specified in tariff schedule.

1. Indian Railways, an establishment working under the control of the Central Government in terms of the Railways Act, 1989, has been constrained to come to this Tribunal by the present appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to assail the decision of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "TNERC" Appeal No. 188 of 2019 & IA No.980 of 2019 Page 2 of 9 or "State Commission") dated 25.03.2019 passed in Petition No. M.P. 4 of 2019, declining to entertain the request, inter-alia, for direction to the respondents - State Transmission and Distribution Companies - to process the application and grant non-discriminatory open access based on its claim of being a deemed licensee with certain other ancillary reliefs, the prime reason being that the State Commission was not satisfied with the "form" in which such petition had been presented.

Mr. Hemant Sahai Mr. Aditya K. Singh Ms. Anukriti Jain Ms. Molshree Bhatnagar Ms. Puja Priyadarshini Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Ranjitha Ramachandran Ms. Poorva Saigal Ms. Anushree Bardhan Mr. Shubham Arya Ms. Tanya Sareen Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey for R-2 2 Original Petition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2019 Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Mr. Nishant for R-3 & 4 Mr. Brahmanandam (Rep.) for R-5 ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 2 OF 2019 SB Energy Solar Private Limited 1st Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset Area-8, Hospitality District, Aerocity, NH-8, Delhi - 110037. .... PETITIONER Versus

1. These Appeals are filed by the solar power plants challenging impugned order dated 05.10.2019 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as "APERC" or "State Commission"). The petitions pending before APERC was for 9 Appeal Nos. 368, 369, 370, 371, 372 & 373 of 2019 approval for procurement of power by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited and Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, which are hereinafter referred to as "AP Discoms", at the tariff competitively determined.

1. The present Execution Petition is filed by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Page 1 of 25 EP No.09 of 2016 in A. No. 171 of 2012 Limited ("TPDDL/Petitioner") for execution of the Judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 171 of 2012. The said Appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the tariff order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Delhi Commission/Respondent") in Petition No. 05 of 2012 whereby, the true up of expenses of the Petitioner for FY 2010-11 and ARR for the Control Period FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 were determined. By the said judgment this Tribunal has inter-alia decided as under:-

1. The relevant Tariff Regulations - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms & Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Tariff Regulations 2014") - in so far as they govern the obligation of the procurer of electricity to pay to the generating company for the supply received do not define or specify the "due date" for such payment. The Regulations do make provision for incentive for timely payment, the rebate admissible being subject to gradual decrease over the period specified also specifying surcharge leviable for late payment. As is the usual practice in the power industry, the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) contain stipulation, inter-alia, for Letter of Credit (LC), the terms and conditions settled by the parties indicating the event on which such LC can be encashed. It is the contention of the Appellant (Distribution Licensee - Procurer) that the period specified in the Regulations for rebate to be availed by payment of the bill for supply of electricity should also be treated as the period within which such payment can be legitimately insisted upon, the end of the said period being "due date" prior to which the LC cannot be invoked. The PPA which was entered upon between the parties herein carries a stipulation that the payment of the periodic bill (raised on Appeal No. 26 of 2018 & IA No. 131 of 2018 Page 2 of 24 month-to-month basis) is to be made by the last bank working day of the month in which it is raised, described as the "due date". It is also the contention of the Appellant that this stipulation (as to due date) runs contrary to the Tariff Regulations providing for the incentive (rebate) for timely payment (within 30 days), and the liability for late payment surcharge (LPSC) and, consequently, the PPA will have to be enforced only after being aligned and brought in line with letter and spirit of the Regulations.

1. The present Appeal No. 340 of 2016 has been preferred by M/s. Azure Sunrise Private Limited (Appellant) against the Impugned Order Dated 14th December, 2016 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter the "State Commission") in Petition No. 19/ 2016 (hereinafter the "Petition"), wherein the State Commission has arbitrarily and unjustifiably retrospectively reduced the approved extension of time of 137 days granted by the distribution licensee, Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (hereinafter the "CESCOM") to only 25 days, after more than 12 months of such extension being granted and acted upon by both the parties and has further recorded that the necessary consequences as per the terms of the PPA (as defined hereinafter) shall follow.

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.