A surfer has been killed in a shark attack off a Northern California beach, state park officials said Saturday.

The Metropolitan Police Federation's Ken Marsh said British authorities 'needed to be firmer right from the beginning'. Pictured: Sunbathers in Greenwich Park, London yesterday.

Major League Baseball appears tentatively set to approve a plan that would call for an 80-game regular season beginning in early July. MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred is seen above.

Broadway star Ruthie Ann Miles, 37, has given birth to a baby girl and announced it on her Instagram. Hope Elizabeth was born last month to her and husband Jonathan Blumenstein.

Ethan Weiss took to Twitter to share a selfie from his seat on the crowded 737 jet, which took off from New York on Saturday.

The comedian and political commentator devoted part of Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher monologue to addressing the potential fallout of Reade's claims against the former Vice President.

2. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Mandi Depot through its Regional Manager at Mandi H.P.

3. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Rohru Depot through its Regional Manager at Rohru H.P.

4. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla through its Managing Director at Shimla H.P. (HRTC Head Office)Shimla-III ......Respondents/Opposite parties Coram Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma Member Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kanwar Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Dhiraj Kanwar Advocate. JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:

ITA No.2493/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 6

2. We heard the parties and perused the record. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a residential house property for a sum of Rs.12.75 crores on 06-11-2015. She purchased another residential house property on 17-02-2016 for Rs.11.02 crores. The new house property was purchased in the joint name of the assessee and her son Shri Kurada Sagar Chakravarthy. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.8.47 crores u/s 54 of the Act towards the cost of new residential house property against the long term capital gain arising on sale of original house property. Since the new residential house property has been purchased in the name of assessee and her son, the AO restricted the deduction u/s 54 of the Act to 50%, i.e., he allowed deduction to the extent of Rs.4.23 crores only. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal.

No one appears on behalf of State as copy of the petition has not been served in the Office of Advocate General.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the regular bail petition in the Office of Advocate General through email i.e. advocategeneralbihar@gmail.com.

List this case on 15.04.2020 at 11:00 am.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/-

U

Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel, assisted the Court on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted the Court on behalf of the State.

In this application, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- XVI, Patna, in Cr. Appeal No.4 of 1999, whereby the lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of conviction and punishment dated 10.12.1998 passed in Gardanibagh P.S. Case No.770 of 1988.

Heard Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner was apprehended by the police on suspicion, from out side his house, and thereafter house of the petitioner was searched and two litres of country made liquor was recovered.

List this case on 11.05.2020, in order to enable learned counsel for the State to file counter affidavit.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/-

U

Heard Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General No.9, appearing for the State- respondents.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3963 of 2020(2) dt.06-05-2020 2/6 The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of government contract registered as Class-I Contractor. Since the petitioner was lowest bidder its bids were accepted by the respondent No.8, the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Saharsa, Bihar. Consequent upon the petitioner and respondent No.8 entered into 118 agreements separately for the purpose of different works as mentioned in different agreements, a copy at Annexure-4 series to the writ petition. The petitioner had deposited certificate of different deposits as security money for separate contracts. The certificates of deposits of money either in the fixed deposit or term deposit scheme were issued by the post office of Mithapur Branch. Later on those certificates were found to be forged document. Thereafter, the petitioner was intimated about by respondent No.8 and petitioner supplied fresh documents in the nature of certificate of deposit in the IDBI Bank as security for the referred contract. A copy of the fresh documents dated 13.12.2019 are at Annexure-5 series. The respondent No.8 verified the genuineness of the subsequent documents from the IDBI Bank vide letter at Annexure-10 series dated 26.12.2019. The Bank reported that the documents are genuine one. Patna High Court CWJC No.3963 of 2020(2) dt.06-05-2020 3/6 The petitioner has stated on oath that respondent No.8 accepted the subsequent documents of deposit in the IDBI Bank as security money and the said documents are still in possession of respondent No.8. The acceptance of the subsequent security document was by necessary implication as respondent No.8 verified the genuineness of those documents from the bank authorities and the bank authorities reported the same as genuine documents. The act of verification was for some purpose and not for fun.

3. Both the Appeals arise out of and are directed against the same order dated 19.5.2018 passed in Complaint No.14/2016 by Shri S V R Srinivas, Principal Seoretary, Information and Technology, Government of Maharashtra in the capacity of Adjudicating Officer (AO) exercising jurisdiction under section 46 of the Information Technology Act,2000, Since parties and the issues are common, both the Appeals have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgement.

4. The proceedings before the learned AO commenced on filing of a complaint on 14.12.2015 by the complainant, Sandeep Singhal, a businessman residing at Nagpur. The complaint contains all the relevant informations with respect to both the respondents, Bank of India, Rana Pratap Nagar Branch, Nagpur and Vodafone Cellular Ltd., Maharashira, The particulars of claims show that Rs. 18,75,381.41 has been claimed towards actual losses sustained because of alleged negligence of the bank andfor because of negligence of M/s. Vodafone in illegally issuing the duplicate SIM Card to an imposter, Rs. 5 lakhs have been claimed towards actual costs on account of travelling and ldgation expenses etc. Rs 10 lakh has been claimed towards damages on account of mental agonies caused to the complainant.

2. The petition has been filed for a money decree for an amount of Rs. L81,81,517/- and also for pendente lite and future interest with effect from Financial Year 2014-15 along with certain further claims which require i i s been consideration of foreign exchange fluctuations. The said amount has b 2 claimed for recovery of dues/outstanding dues in relation to an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent dated 10.08.2011 whereunder respondent was provided 3 MHz of Ku-band Space Segrnent Capacity on INSAT --~ Asiasat 5 Satellite System.

3. The petitioner, Government of India, has preferred this petition as a service orovider and the respondent, a broadcast licencee, is also a service orovider. The respondent has been shawn to be a "licencee" within the meaning of the term under the TRA] Act, 1997 (the Act}. The petition is thus claimed to be covered within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Prof. A.R. Yousuf (Expert Member) Dated: September 25, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The Ministry of Environment and Forest (for short 'the MoEF'), Government of India vide their letter dated 21st December, 2011 accorded Environmental Clearance for Parsa East and Kanta Basan Opencast Coal mine project of 10 MTPA production capacity along with a Pit Head Coal Washery (10 MTPA ROM) to M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited involving a total project area of 2711.034 hectare under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (for short 'EIA Notification, 2006') subject to the specific conditions stated in that Order. 2

2. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. This application was filed by the Applicant in the matter of the grant of the mining lease to the Respondent No.1 for executing the construction work of the road from the Jaora-Piplodha-Jalandharkheda & Piploda - Sailana at the instance of the Respondent No. 8/Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MPRDC). For the aforesaid purpose the Respondent No.1 was granted temporary mining lease in July, 2013 for mining of material i.e. stone/boulder and murrum from the land in Khasra no. 308/1/1/a, village Amba, Tahsil Sailana, District Ratlam. The question raised by the Applicant was looking to the close proximity to the site of the aforesaid mining lease granted to the Respondent No.1, to the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary famous for the Lesser Floricon bird, commonly known as Kharmour which is reported to be on the verge of near extinction and the aforesaid Sanctuary is one of the few habitats left over for the breeding purpose preferred by this bird, would be extensively disturbed as a result of the mining activity in such close proximity of the Sanctuary as also the fact, as was revealed before the Tribunal during the hearing, that the extent of the area of the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary was limited to just about 13 sq.km.

2. Considering above, the sentence in paragraph 30, reading "The industry has also filed M.A.No.145/2014 in connection with such closure with a prayer to direct MPCB to give hearing before restart" Should be read as "The industry has also filed MA No.145/2014, with a prayer to direct the MPCB to take decision on the Application of the Applicant for revocation of closure directions at the earliest, on the basis of merit of the matter".

3. Considering the above specific directions, we do not find any necessity to rectify the operative part of the Judgment. However, considering the fact that hearing has already been extended to the said Industry on 19.8.2014, by the Member Secretary, as mentioned by the Applicant- Industry, and also by MPCB in its affidavit Misc Appln. No.155/2014 Page 2 dated 2nd September, 2014, we expect that the learned Member Secretary will expedite decision making, and take a decision on the request of the Industry for re-start, in any case, not later than two (2) weeks from today.

24. "Considering foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Application will have to be partly allowed in order to protect Environment and ecology, as well as the Forests area. Consequently, we partly allow the Application and give following directions:

1. The interim orders given by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, on 30/4/2004 referred in para-9 above shall continue to operate, as the state government has not submitted the necessary data and reports on the present status of forest and an updated action plan to increase the forest cover in the state to the desired level and also, comprehensive statement of the compliance of various directions of Apex court and High Court, issued in this regard. The Tribunal is required to continue the interim orders on Pre-cautionary Principle basis in the absence of above information and Tribunal is willing to reconsider the position if the state government approaches the Tribunal with necessary data, reports and action plan. The said interim orders shall be part of this final order. "

24. "Considering foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Application will have to be partly allowed in order to protect Environment and ecology, as well as the Forests area. Consequently, we partly allow the Application and give following directions:

1. The interim orders given by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, on 30/4/2004 referred in para-9 above shall continue to operate, as the state government has not submitted the necessary data and reports on the present status of forest and an updated action plan to increase the forest cover in the state to the desired level and also, comprehensive statement of the compliance of various directions of Apex court and High Court, issued in this regard. The Tribunal is required to continue the interim orders on Pre-cautionary Principle basis in the absence of above information and Tribunal is willing to reconsider the position if the state government approaches the Tribunal with necessary data, reports and action plan. The said interim orders shall be part of this final order. "

2. There is no dispute about fact that Respondent No.2 formulated a policy as published in Government Resolution dated 12th March 2013. Case of the Appellant is that, Respondent No.5 auctioned various sand-beds of Yavatmal District as per guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra in its Policy OM dated March 12th, 2013. He alleges that due to such illegality, extraction of sand by lease holders including Respondent No.6, one of such auction lease holder, being carried out. The Appellant is more concerned with sand-beds at village Babhulgaon. He would Misc Appln. No.155/2014 Page 3 submit that before grant of Environmental Clearance, State Environment Appraisal Committee (SEAC) ought to have considered whether the sand-bed is below 5 ha. area and distance between two (2) sand-beds is atleast 1 k.m. The SEAC failed to consider such kind of parameters and recommended the case to the SEIAA (Respondent No.4). The SEIAA thereafter granted the EC without proper assessment and appraisal. Consequently, the Appellant challenges the EC and the auction proceedings.

"M.A.No.628 0f 2013 "Notice of this Misc Application on the question of limitation be issued by registered post/acknowledgement due and Dasti as well.

Notice returnable on 04th September, 2013."

...........Sd/xxx..........................., CP (Swatanter Kumar) ..........Sd/-xxx.........................., JM (U.D. Salvi) ..

..........Sd/xxx..........................., JM (S.N.Hussain) .............Sd/xxx........................, EM (P.S.Rao) ............sd/xxx........................, EM (Ranjan Chatterjee) Page 3 (J) M.A. No.628/2013, ,Appln. No.17/2013 & Appeal No.80/2013 (WZ)

2. Briefly stated, case of the Appellant is that as per Judgment of Apex Court in "Deepak Kumar Vrs. State of Haryana, 2012(4) SCC 629" sand beds (sandghats) situated below 5 ha. area may be leased out only if distance between the two (2) ghats is of atleast 1 k.m. It is in keeping with such directions of the Apex Court that the MoEF has issued OM dated 24th December 2013. The State has no authority to consider the project activities of granting lease of area over and above 5 ha. of sandghats into the category of 'B-2' as per class 2(I)(iii) of the OM dated 24th December 2013. Such a project will have to be treated as category 'B-1' project for the purpose of appraisal and must be appraised by the MoEF. The SEIAA could not have done the work of assessment/appraisal nor the SEIAA could have granted the EC. According to the Petitioner the Respondents purposefully downsized the (J) Appeal No.10/2014 (WZ) 3 sand beds without keeping marginal space of 1 k.m. between the two (2) sand beds. It is stated that the auction conducted by both the Collectors is illegal and erroneous. Consequently the Appellant seeks to challenge the same and urges to quash the same.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Dr. R.C. Trivedi (Expert Member) Dated: October 16, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The first applicant in this application claims to be a public spirited person who has been working in the field of environment conservation. The second applicant is an organisation working in the field of environment across the country. Both these applicants raise a specific substantial question relating to environment with respect to water pollution in the River Ganga, particularly, between Garh Mukteshwar and Narora, due to discharge of highly toxic and harmful effluents. It is alleged that highly toxic and 4 harmful effluents are being discharged by the respondent units into the Sambhaoli drain/Phuldera drain that travels along with the Syana Escape Canal which finally joins River Ganga. These units had constructed underground pipelines for such discharge. According to the applicants, Simbhaoli Sugar Mills was established in 1933 and presently is operating three sugar mills and three distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The total crushing capacity of all three complexes is of 20100 TCD. The unit at Simbhaoli alone has a crushing capacity of 9500 TCD. In just outside the premises of this sugar mill, untreated effluents are being discharged into the drain which finally joins the River Ganga. The other unit, Gopalji Dairy which is producing milk and milk products of different kinds, also discharges untreated effluents in the same Simbhaoli drain. The contamination from discharge of trade effluents is so high that it not only pollutes the Syana Escape canal and the River Ganga but also threatens the life of endangered aquatic species such as dolphins, turtles and other aquatic life. It has also polluted the groundwater of villages from where it passes through, like Bauxar, Jamalpur, Syana, Bahadurgarh, Alampur, Paswada and Nawada village. It is the submission of the applicant that the Gangetic Dolphin is a highly endangered species and is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It is also submitted that the WWF India has come out with a report on Ganges and has recorded the finding that a large number of factories like sugar, chemicals, 5 fertilizers, small-scale engineering etc. located at the bank of the river, discharge their effluents directly into the River Ganga and pollute the river to a considerable extent. It is estimated that nearly 260 million litres of industrial waste-water, largely untreated, is discharged by these units while the other major pollution inputs include runoff from the agricultural fields. It is submitted that more than 6 million tonnes of chemical fertilizers and 9,000 tonnes of pesticides are used annually within the basin. The dumping of untreated effluents has also been reported in several newspapers many times and one of the news article published in India Today dated 19th July, 2010 titled as "Ganga Chokes as Sugar Mills Dump Wastes" reported that Simbhaoli Sugar Mills has been rushing its poisonous industrial waste directly into the River. As a result thereof, the colour of green water is black and it stinks around the year. Several large fishes have died and four of the buffaloes of the villagers died after they drank the drain water.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Dr. R.C. Trivedi (Expert Member) Dated: October 16, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The first applicant in this application claims to be a public spirited person who has been working in the field of environment conservation. The second applicant is an organisation working in the field of environment across the country. Both these applicants raise a specific substantial question relating to environment with respect to water pollution in the River Ganga, particularly, between Garh Mukteshwar and Narora, due to discharge of highly toxic and harmful effluents. It is alleged that highly toxic and 4 harmful effluents are being discharged by the respondent units into the Sambhaoli drain/Phuldera drain that travels along with the Syana Escape Canal which finally joins River Ganga. These units had constructed underground pipelines for such discharge. According to the applicants, Simbhaoli Sugar Mills was established in 1933 and presently is operating three sugar mills and three distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The total crushing capacity of all three complexes is of 20100 TCD. The unit at Simbhaoli alone has a crushing capacity of 9500 TCD. In just outside the premises of this sugar mill, untreated effluents are being discharged into the drain which finally joins the River Ganga. The other unit, Gopalji Dairy which is producing milk and milk products of different kinds, also discharges untreated effluents in the same Simbhaoli drain. The contamination from discharge of trade effluents is so high that it not only pollutes the Syana Escape canal and the River Ganga but also threatens the life of endangered aquatic species such as dolphins, turtles and other aquatic life. It has also polluted the groundwater of villages from where it passes through, like Bauxar, Jamalpur, Syana, Bahadurgarh, Alampur, Paswada and Nawada village. It is the submission of the applicant that the Gangetic Dolphin is a highly endangered species and is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It is also submitted that the WWF India has come out with a report on Ganges and has recorded the finding that a large number of factories like sugar, chemicals, 5 fertilizers, small-scale engineering etc. located at the bank of the river, discharge their effluents directly into the River Ganga and pollute the river to a considerable extent. It is estimated that nearly 260 million litres of industrial waste-water, largely untreated, is discharged by these units while the other major pollution inputs include runoff from the agricultural fields. It is submitted that more than 6 million tonnes of chemical fertilizers and 9,000 tonnes of pesticides are used annually within the basin. The dumping of untreated effluents has also been reported in several newspapers many times and one of the news article published in India Today dated 19th July, 2010 titled as "Ganga Chokes as Sugar Mills Dump Wastes" reported that Simbhaoli Sugar Mills has been rushing its poisonous industrial waste directly into the River. As a result thereof, the colour of green water is black and it stinks around the year. Several large fishes have died and four of the buffaloes of the villagers died after they drank the drain water.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Dr. R.C. Trivedi (Expert Member) Dated: October 16, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The first applicant in this application claims to be a public spirited person who has been working in the field of environment conservation. The second applicant is an organisation working in the field of environment across the country. Both these applicants raise a specific substantial question relating to environment with respect to water pollution in the River Ganga, particularly, between Garh Mukteshwar and Narora, due to discharge of highly toxic and harmful effluents. It is alleged that highly toxic and 4 harmful effluents are being discharged by the respondent units into the Sambhaoli drain/Phuldera drain that travels along with the Syana Escape Canal which finally joins River Ganga. These units had constructed underground pipelines for such discharge. According to the applicants, Simbhaoli Sugar Mills was established in 1933 and presently is operating three sugar mills and three distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The total crushing capacity of all three complexes is of 20100 TCD. The unit at Simbhaoli alone has a crushing capacity of 9500 TCD. In just outside the premises of this sugar mill, untreated effluents are being discharged into the drain which finally joins the River Ganga. The other unit, Gopalji Dairy which is producing milk and milk products of different kinds, also discharges untreated effluents in the same Simbhaoli drain. The contamination from discharge of trade effluents is so high that it not only pollutes the Syana Escape canal and the River Ganga but also threatens the life of endangered aquatic species such as dolphins, turtles and other aquatic life. It has also polluted the groundwater of villages from where it passes through, like Bauxar, Jamalpur, Syana, Bahadurgarh, Alampur, Paswada and Nawada village. It is the submission of the applicant that the Gangetic Dolphin is a highly endangered species and is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It is also submitted that the WWF India has come out with a report on Ganges and has recorded the finding that a large number of factories like sugar, chemicals, 5 fertilizers, small-scale engineering etc. located at the bank of the river, discharge their effluents directly into the River Ganga and pollute the river to a considerable extent. It is estimated that nearly 260 million litres of industrial waste-water, largely untreated, is discharged by these units while the other major pollution inputs include runoff from the agricultural fields. It is submitted that more than 6 million tonnes of chemical fertilizers and 9,000 tonnes of pesticides are used annually within the basin. The dumping of untreated effluents has also been reported in several newspapers many times and one of the news article published in India Today dated 19th July, 2010 titled as "Ganga Chokes as Sugar Mills Dump Wastes" reported that Simbhaoli Sugar Mills has been rushing its poisonous industrial waste directly into the River. As a result thereof, the colour of green water is black and it stinks around the year. Several large fishes have died and four of the buffaloes of the villagers died after they drank the drain water.

2. Brief facts and allegations in the present case are summarised as under:

a. The Informants i.e., Mr. Meet Shah and Mr. Anand Ranpara are individuals residing in Ahmedabad and Rajkot, respectively.

b. OP-1 is the Ministry of Railways, which controls Indian Railways, a departmental undertaking of the Government of India which is administered by the Railway Board. The Ministry of Railways through Railway Board also owns and administratively controls a large number of Public Sector Undertakings including IRCTC.

c. OP-2, IRCTC is a public sector enterprise incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is stated to be an extended arm of Indian Railways. OP-2 is, inter-alia, engaged in online ticketing operations of Indian Railways.

Case Nos. 36 of 2015, 31 of 2016 and 58 of 2016 33

Koushik Das: Yes, one BCDA N.O.C. is required with the application.

Shri Arajit Das: Yes, that is essential, you prepare your papers I need the orders, otherwise it is problem to me. I have submitted my drug licence number, trade licence number everything.

Koushik Das: Yes, but only those papers are not enough, there are something more, you have deal with Alembic before and done with other parties also.

Shri Arajit Das: that is not required.

4. Saransh Biotech Pvt. Ltd Opposite Party No. 4 5. Aarav Pharmaceuticals Opposite Party No. 5 6. Laxmi Pharma Opposite Party No. 6 7. M C Pharma Opposite Party No. 7 8. Maa Ambey Enterprises Opposite Party No. 8 9. Goyal Pharma Opposite Party No. 9 10. MD Medical Store Opposite Party No. 10 CORAM Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through Jitsi Meet Application.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 508/2019 Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur for the offence under Section 307, 353,332 and 333 IPC & Section 3 PDPP Act.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, for the complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020 Learned counsel for the parties were heard through video conferencing.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 167/2019, Police Station Khinvsar, District - Nagaur for the offences under Sections 498-A & 304 IPC.

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3665/2020

1. Ganesh Lal Joshi S/o Late Shri Mithu Lal Joshi, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Sadar Bazar, Chikarda, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.

2. Imak Lal Sain S/o Shri Devi Lal Sain, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bus Stand Chikarda, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3666/2020

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Department Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The District Collector, Udaipur

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abhishek Purohit for Mr.Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 This application is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for extension of period of first parole granted to him pursuant to order dated 24.4.2020 passed by this Court.

1. Subash Chandra S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Dhani Ratanpura Bypass, Village Chotala, P.s. Sadar Dabawali, District Sirsa. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh).

2. Manpreet Singh @ Mana S/o Jasveer Singh, Aged About 19 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh).

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

The above appeal was originally filed as a 'Motor Accident Claim Appeal', ('MACA'). The appeal memorandum reflected that the appeal was filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.), read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When the Registry of this court noted defect, the appeal was sought to be be filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Registry has not yet accepted the same for the reason that the order impugned is not an Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Unnumbered Crl. Appeal 16 of 2020 -:4:- Registry noted that, probably an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alone may lie against the order impugned. However, the matter was posted before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability. On 05.09.2016, learned counsel appearing for the appellants conceded that the Registry is correct in holding that an appeal will not lie under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He sought time for curing the defect, which was allowed. Thereafter the case was re-presented with correction made in the 'Docket Sheet' in the cause title portion, styling it as an 'appeal', instead of "MACA". But the memorandum of appeal in all other respects remained as such. On the request of the counsel for the appellants, the matter was posted before this Bench, for hearing on the question of maintainability. Senior Advocate Sri. P. Vijayabhanu has consented to assist the court as Amicus Curiae. Hence the question of maintainability was heard in detail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The registration of the first information report is the process in terms of which the criminal law is set in a cognizable case. True, the first information report and all further proceedings thereto can be quashed by this court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice where the allegations made in the first information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any cognizable offence, or where the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 5 private and personal grudge. It is, however, settled that the power to quash the first information report is a power that must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in rarest of rare cases. It is also settled that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry in such cases as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report. The court cannot also enquire whether the allegations in the first information report are likely to be established [See M.Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, (2003)11 SCC 251].

2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this petition are that in the above dispute raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour court was called upon to adjudicate a reference wherein the issue was "whether the denial of employment of Smt.Ramani Amma, Smt.Geetha.G. and Geetha.R, who were employees of Western India Cashew Company, was justifiable and if it was found otherwise, the relief for which they were entitled to."

3. The case of the Union, which espoused the cause of the workers, was that the delinquent workers were employed by the management in their packing centre at Puthentheruvu, Karunagappally. Since 26.10.2012 was a public holiday owing to Bakrid, the factory was closed. On 27.10.2012, when the workers reached the factory, they were denied employment by the Management. The Union raised an industrial dispute and the matter reached the District Labour Officer, who convened a conference. In the meantime, a WP(C) No.12490/2018 3 show cause notice was issued to the workers and consequently on 2.11.2012, the workers were suspended from service pending enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed who proceeded with the enquiry and submitted a report with the finding that the workers were guilty of all charges. Banking on the said report, the workers were dismissed from service with retrospective effect. According to the Union, the enquiry which was conducted was a farce and is therefore vitiated. The principles of natural justice were violated and the management failed to bring home the charge. They also contended that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the nature of charges levelled against the workers.

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

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

"That CISF No.902292498 Constable K. Lakshmanan of CISF Unit, NMPT Mangalore was W.P.(C) No. 28322 of 2015 4 detailed for B' Shift duty on 29.05.2009 from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs along with No.721370091 HC/GD K. Sreedharan at K.K. Gate-Out. Shri K. Korappan, AC, CISF Unit NMPT Mangalore, while carrying out surprise checking at 2055 hours on 29.05.2009 along with SI/Exe R.R. Singh, In-charge(CIW), Shri K. Korappan directed to SI/Exe R.R. Singh to conduct pocket checking of B' shift duty personnel deployed at K.K. Gate. Accordingly SI/Exe R.R. Singh conducted pocket checking of Constable K.Lakshmanan in presence of No. 753460102 ASI/Exe P.K. Thampy, In-charge, KK Gate and No.773430028 HC/GD Kuttan Pillai K.K., Main Gate-In and found an illegal money of Rs.1573/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred seventy three only) in possession of Constable K. Lakshmanan in various denominations and the amount was seized which was kept hidden between his belt and waist. When asked by Shri K. Korappan as to where the money came from and why he kept such huge amount with him, Constable K. Lakshmanan did not give any satisfactory reply. Immediately a seizure list was prepared wherein signature of witnesses were obtained. In this regard, a GD has been made at Sl. No.1324 at 2117 hours on 29- 05-09 at KK Gate. As per Unit standing instructions, duty personnel are not allowed to keep more than Rs.10/- for refreshment purpose during duty hours.

2. Notice issued shall indicate that reply shall be filed within two days of the receipt of notice.

List on 27th April 2020.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (GITA MITTAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 23.04.2020 Raj Kumar RAJ KUMAR 2020.04.23 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ordered accordingly.

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

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

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

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

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

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

When this case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of these petitions, the petitioner has been retired on superannuation, therefore, these petitions have been Page 2 of 2 SWP No.34/2017 in SWP No. 893/2017 rendered infructuous and may be dismissed as such. His statement is taken on record.

Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous along with connected CM(s).

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

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

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.44/2020 was registered at Police Station Khairthal, (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:14 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2343/2020] District Alwar, Police District Bhiwadi for offence under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.242/2014 was registered at Police Station Thanagazi Alwar for offence under Sections 457, 380 of I.P.C.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail. Petitioner is in custody for last one and a half years. Criminal antecedents pointed out against the petitioner are prior to the year 2014.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Counsel for the complainant has not given his detail, hence, could not be connected.

3. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

4. F.I.R. No.343/2019 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 323, 365, 201, 302/34 of I.P.C. (FIR has been lodged for offence under Section 302 of IPC.)

5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that eye witnesses have turned hostile. As per the FSL report, cause of death is inconclusive. There was only a bruise on the person of the prosecutrix.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain (through jitsi meet) Mr. Parth Sharma (through jitsi meet) Mr. Rinesh Gupta (through jitsi meet) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP(CBN) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners through Jitsi Meet.

1. Due to outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19), the lawyers are not appearing in the Court.

2. Heard Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya, learned counsel for the petitioner, through whatsapp video calling as well as learned Public Prosecutor, who is present in the Court.

3. Despite video whatsapp calling, Mr. Ishwar Lal Jain, learned counsel for the complainant has failed to respond.

4. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.61/2018 Registered at Police Station Tapukda, District Alwar (Rajasthan) for the offences under Sections 376-D & 506 of IPC.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter and the petitioners are the real brothers of the husband of the prosecutrix. Counsel further submits that one month prior to lodging of the present FIR, the (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:06 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2033/2020] prosecutrix also lodged the FIR No.0031/2018 on 15.01.2018 at Police Station Tapukara, District Alwar, in which, the petitioners were also made accused under Sections 143, 341 & 323 of IPC, in which, charge-sheet has been filed only against the husband of the prosecutrix and not against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that when the Investigating Agency submitted the negative final report against the accused-petitioners in the earlier FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, the present FIR has been lodged against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that according to the FSL report dated 03.12.2019, semen could not be detected on the clothes and vaginal swab of the victim. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are in custody since February, 2018.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. For Complainant : Mr. Brahm Singh Gurjar. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

3. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

4. F.I.R. No.355/2019 was registered at Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 302, 436, 34, 120-B of I.P.C.