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

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND BIRLA CABLES LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

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

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

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

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

2

PRESENT :

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

1. These Writ Petitions broadly fall in following three categories:-

A] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 936 of 2018 filed by four petitioners, prays for appropriate directions that after the promulgation of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (“2010 Rules”, for short), all appointments ought to be in conformity with 2010 Rules and allocation of seniority must be in accordance with the Cyclic Order provided in Schedule VII to 2010 Rules. In terms of 2010 Rules, posts in the cadre of District Judges in the Higher Judicial Service in State of Rajasthan were required to be filled up in accordance with quota of 50% for Promotees, 25% for Direct Recruits and 25% by way of Limited Competitive Examination Writ Petition (Civil) No.936 of 2018 etc etc. Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Hon. High Court for Judicature of Rajasthan and Anr.

1. Special leave granted. The parties were heard, with consent of their counsel.

2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment in LPA No. 1200/2013 (in CWJC No. 3640/2013), LPA No. 1170/2013 (in CWJC No. 3740/2013), LPA No. Signature Not Verified 1174/2013 (in CWJC No. 4265/2013) and LPA No. 1352/2013 in CWJC No. 3640/2013) of the Patna High Court, dated 24.06.2015. Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06

3. One set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23202-23204/2015) has 16:03:11 IST Reason:

been preferred by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereafter “BSSC”) and 2 the other set (referred to as “the aggrieved party appellants”) by several aggrieved parties, who were appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court, in four intra-court appeals, which had questioned the judgment and order of a learned single judge. The single judge set aside the results of the main examination, with consequential directions to the BSSC to prepare fresh results of the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010, in accordance with the directions of the Court in relation to deletion/modification of questions and answers as stipulated in the judgment. The aggrieved party appellants were not party to the writ proceedings, but had been declared selected in terms of the results first published, and subsequently were shown as not qualified under the revised results pursuant to the directions of the Court by the learned single judge. Three appeals to the Division Bench were by candidates who were writ petitioners and had impugned the judgment of the single judge in not granting them full relief in respect of all questions that were challenged. These parties were not selected in the final results declared.

List after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Interim order is extended till the next date.

Page No.# 2/2 JUDGE Comparing Assistant

CM.APPL.10636/2020 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3055/2020 & CM APPL.10635/2020 (for interim relief)

1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the disciplinary proceedings, pending against him for over 7 years as on date, on, inter alia, the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated against him on the same charge. It is W.P. (C) No.3055/2020 Page 1 of 4 pointed out that, on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner's request for being permitted to voluntarily retire from service, was also been rejected vide communication dated 12th December, 2019.

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

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

2. This petition has been moved by the State under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 30.04.2020 by the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to the respondent/accused in FIR No.111/2000 dated 06.04.2000 under Sections 420/120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, which has been investigated by the Crime Branch. According to the petitioner/State, during investigations of an extortion case relating to FIR No.249/1999 dated 13.11.1999 under Sections 387/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station DBG Road Delhi, the Crime Branch came to know that some persons were conspiring to fix the India-South Africa Cricket Test CRL. M.C. 1468/2020 Page 1 of 26 Series to be played in the months of February to March, 2000 whereunder five One-Day matches and three Test matches were to be played at various places in India. The accused/respondent is alleged to have played a major role in fixing these matches, as it is alleged by the petitioner/State that he was the main link between the players and an alleged Syndicate which was running betting on these matches and had profited hugely from these match fixings as they controlled the outcome of each of these matches.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.56/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution case, 63 bulk litres of illicit country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Investigation is over in matter and charge sheet has been filed. He is in custody since 10.03.2020. The applicant undertakes to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this Court and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. He further submits that looking to the pandemic situation of COVID- 2

2. The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is that Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) while posted as S.H.O. of Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol received information on 10/04/2007 that one Ravi Sharma alias Gudda is dealing with fake Indian currency notes and he is coming at bus stand with fake currency notes. SHO- Vijay Pratap Singh called two Panch witnesses Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) and Md Jakir khan (PW-3). and after informing them recorded the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/1) and moved to spot along with panch witnesses, ASI Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-8), Constable Arvind Pyasi (PW-7), Swatantra Singh, Arvind Dubey, Mahesh Yadav, Satya Narayan (PW-4), Rahees Khan, Pramod Pandey, Shailendra Chaturvedi and driver Chandra Prakas in Government Vehicle No.M.P.03 5682 3 and recorded that outgoing in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/31).

2. The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is that Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) while posted as S.H.O. of Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol received information on 10/04/2007 that one Ravi Sharma alias Gudda is dealing with fake Indian currency notes and he is coming at bus stand with fake currency notes. SHO- Vijay Pratap Singh called two Panch witnesses Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) and Md Jakir khan (PW-3). and after informing them recorded the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/1) and moved to spot along with panch witnesses, ASI Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-8), Constable Arvind Pyasi (PW-7), Swatantra Singh, Arvind Dubey, Mahesh Yadav, Satya Narayan (PW-4), Rahees Khan, Pramod Pandey, Shailendra Chaturvedi and driver Chandra Prakas in Government Vehicle No.M.P.03 5682 and recorded that Ravangi(outgoing) in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/31).

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N K Agrawal, Sr. Advocates Mr. Vikramaditya and Mr. Amnesh Kumar Sinha, Advocates For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bihariganj PS Case No. 294 of 2019 dated 01.09.2019 instituted under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Naushad Uzzoha with Mr. Shafiur Rahman, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gopalganj Excise Case No. 374 of 2019 dated 29.10.2019 instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018

3. It is alleged that from the house of the petitioner 6.480 litres of wine was recovered.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khutauna PS Case No. 116 of 2019 dated 17.11.2019 instituted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 272, 273 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a0 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. The allegation against the petitioner and three others is that from the Bolero vehicle he was driving, 405 litres of Nepali countrymade wine was recovered.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Kankarbagh PS Case No. 233 of 2019 dated 27.02.2019 instituted under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code.

... ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Pravin Kumar Sinha, Adv.

Amicus Curiae : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG -IV Mr.Sri Shyed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA) Date : 20 -04 -2020 Judicial system in India has to face two adage one is justice delayed is justice denied and another is justice hurried is justice buried. However, in spite of above two adage, one thing remains i.e. to provide timely justice, which is an essence of rule of law and appreciating the same, clause 40 of Magna Carta provided "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice." Speedy justice was also mandate and there are Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1827 of 2017 dt.20-04-2020 2/56 catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, which holds it to be a fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 26th June, 2001 passed by Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act, 1985") Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 55/2000 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for charge under Section 20(B)(2)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.

2. In the present case, as per version of prosecution on 12 th of October, 2000 at about 11.00 am. Sub inspector Bhupendra Singh Mourya of Police Station Nagarnar, received secret information to the effect that one person having one slight blueish coloured suit case and one green coloured bag, is keeping Ganja on barrier of Dhanpunji. The S.I. Bhupendra Singh recorded the same in the roznamcha sanha and also 2 prepared panchnama(Ex.P.2) and sent the same to the senior officer and after that he took the witnesses and police staff and went to Dhanpunji barrier. Said police officer had given a notice to the appellant as per Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 of his right of being searched by some gazetted offier, any magistrate or by him, on which the accused opted to search by this police officer(Sub Inspector). After search he was found in possession contraband article Ganja, which was seized and matter was investigated, appellant was charge- sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

1. "Whether Mr. Maghesh Kumar Singh was posted by NTPC Ltd to Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd at Corporate office, Allahabad and site office Meja.

2. Whether he suffered a finger crush injury on 26-10-2013 while living in Meja Srijan Vihar Township. If yes, name of the hospital he was admitted to and surgery performed may be furnished.

3. Whether he filed a personal accident claim form in this regard. If yes; the amount for which it was sanctioned and the payment transaction details may kindly be furnished.

Page 1 of 8

4. If the above mentioned claim remains pending since 2013, reason for the same may be intimated. If any official found negligent, the action taken against him may also be intimated."

1. "The attested copy of the very basis of the seniority list of 594 contractor's workers at BTPS as was published on notice board, the Appendix 'D' of Letter no. BT/DGM(Admn)/2/I-842 dt. 22-05-1998.

2. If there is no basis of preparing the aforesaid seniority list, then why the names of other persons were enlisted in the Appendix 'D' of the aforesaid letter."

2. The CPIO responded on 01-03-2018 & 16-05-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 12-03-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 19-04-2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2018, which was decided by the FAA's order dated 30.11.2018, upholding the PIO's reply. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 98xxxxxx90 and submitted that he had sought the information even through the direct official channel. He claims that he had met the DG twice and had been assured by the DG that information regarding marks will be provided but later the respondent denied information without assigning any reason.

1. Category-wise cut-off marks of the result declared on 16.04.2019;

2. Marks obtained by the appellant in written examination and candidates with what score have been selected from Rajasthan OBC quota;

3. On what basis will be candidates selected from among the 447 candidates finalized for medical examination.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 12.06.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.07.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

1. I want to know its next process & medical test date.

2. When will be its medical test

3. I am eagerly waiting its medial test dates many times I tried to know its previous recruitment centre but they have no information, about it please inform me medical test date He summarised his queries as:

(1) What is the reason of being so late in the process of recruitment. (2) I want to know the status of recruitment whether it will be completed or not.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of any information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 08.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 14.05.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Dhanbad seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia;

a) Whether rules or instructions issued by Director General, Railway Board in East Central Railway, Dhanbad are valid or not,

b) Whether or not the rules/instructions as per the RBI No. 61/2015, letter no. E(N-G)1-2015/R E-3/2 dated 12.06.2015, is valid in the matter of re-absorption of the medically unfit RPF/RPSF employees into an alternate position? Provide a certified copy of the said rule,

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on three points, including, "(a) What action has been taken on the appellant's application regarding making adjustments to the alternative post in Samastipur division (East Central Railway),

(b) What action was taken by the Screening Committee on the appellant's application, which was received by Electronic Grievance Redressal Arrangement (EGRS) vide no. 24652 on 05.12.2017, regarding the adjustment of the optional post, and

(c) To provide certified copies of all the documents along with the complete file in the name of the appellant, available with the Screening Commissioner, including the written application accepted by the appellant for the clerical post."

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on six points pertaining to technician post, including, inter-alia;

a) Is the proof of validation issued in the railway hospital by the screening committee on the optional post after medical distortion valid,

b) What is the medical category for the post of Technician Grade-III,

c) Does the post of technician grade-III fall in the category of sedentary job. And other related information.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 09.05.2018, provided point wise information to the appellant. Being dissatisfied by the information provided on point nos. 3 and 6, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.05.2018. FAA, vide order dated 15.06.2018, upheld the CPIO's reply. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on similar grounds and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE May 08, 2020 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:43:49 :::

The petitioner has already made a representation. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of one week from today by passing a speaking/detailed order.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:42:29 :::

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.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.22/2019 of Marikuppam Police Station. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against five accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 of IPC.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.06.2018 there was a quarrel between the victim namely Rahul and one Karthik, who is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. In the said quarrel, the said Karthik suffered bleeding injuries and in this regard, a case was registered in Marikuppam police station against Rahul and 3 his friends. Since then, there was enmity between Rahul and Karthik. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 14.09.2019 at about 9.45 p.m., Karthik along with other accused persons having formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted Rahul with deadly weapons and caused bleeding injuries to him.

This petition is heard through video conference.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.69/2020 of Bandepalya P.S., (Electronic City Sub Division) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(O), 420, 506 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the lockdown, he approached the Sessions Court by filing a petition through e-mail. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not taken up the matter on the ground that extreme urgency is not made out. Hence, the learned counsel seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.03.2020. It cannot be said that there is no urgency made 3 out. Hence, the jurisdictional Sessions Court is directed to take up the petition and dispose of the petition in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I-11209016200088 of 2020 with Himmatnagar A -Division Police Station.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including the condition with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to seek remand of the petitioners; subject to the petitioner's right to oppose it.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application.

2. Chitranjan Kumar Singh ...Opp. Parties CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : - Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.

06/06.05.2020 The present revision petition is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand (opposite party no.1).

Admit.

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Lalu Kumar Rana @ Lalu Rana has been moved by Mr. Rahul Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

In view of the allegations, let the case diary and antecedent report of the petitioner be called for from the court concerned.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Jatin Kumar Manjhi @ Jatin Manjhi has been moved by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

th 06/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall file the requisites of notice under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, to be served upon O.P. No.02, at the earliest.

2. On prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, office to list this case on 09.06.2020.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) which relates to page no. 19 of the petition may be ignored as page is otherwise legible and complete except the last line which is not of much significance. Accordingly, defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) is ignored. So far defect no. 9(iii) is concerned which relates to non-filing of duly certified typed copy of handwritten pages at Annexure-2 & 3, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also ignored.

2. Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.P. Case No. 96/2019 for the offences registered under sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Miss Babita Mittal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

2. Amit Kumar Paswan @ Amit Kumar --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Birendra Burman, A.P.P.

----

03/ 07.05.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through Video Conferencing.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-98/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-96/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-94/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-90/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-95/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed.

CR No.-84/2020 Page No.-1 of 3

3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, noticing return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-78/2020 Page No.-1 of 3 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, noticing return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 2,72,858/­. The brief facts of the present case are as under :­ 1.1 That the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s S.K. Enterprises and doing the business of government electrical contractor since 1995.

1.2 That defendant No. 2 is known to the plaintiff for more than 20 years and defendant No. 2 was running his business of sale of electrical goods as proprietor/partner of defendant No. 1 for the last 7/8 years from the aforesaid address and presently doing the business from the top floor of the aforesaid address.

1.3 That in the first week of March, 2015 defendant No. 2 had requested for a friendly loan of Rs. 2,50,000/­ from the plaintiff for some urgent business need for one week and considering the old friendship with defendant no. 2, the plaintiff had agreed to give a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­ to the defendants but defendant No. 2 was insisting to increase the amount from Rs. 2,00,000/­ and accordingly, the plaintiff had agreed to give Rs. 2,01,000/­ to the defendants as a friendly loan for one week to the defendant and transferred an amount of Rs. 2,01,000/­ on 09.03.2015 by RTGS No. 17673 from the account of his firm M/s S.K. Enterprises Page 2 of 10 bearing No. 034902000001291 with Indian Overseas Bank, Roop Nagar, Delhi to the account of defendant No. 1 bearing No. 914020024386296 with Axis Bank, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi having IFSC code No. UTIB0001838.

2.The petitioner has been transferred from Tirunelveli to Chennai, Egmore Railway Police Station. The petitioner, who is working as a Head Constable in Tirunelveli Railway Police Station, has now been asked to join at Egmore Railway Police Station in the same post.

3.Since it is an issue of transfer and an administrative order, it may not be proper on the part of this Court to examine either reasons for transfer or also the grievances of the petitioner. It is for the http://www.judis.nic.in 2/5 W.P(MD)Nos.6127 of 2020 authorities to examine the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been relieved from Tirunelveli with a direction to join at Chennai. But, he has still not joined at Chennai.

2. I had the benefit of hearing Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of the respondents, namely, the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation and the Assistant Commissioner (Zone 2), Madurai City Municipal Corporation. 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020

3. The petitioner in his affidavit had stated that the property bearing plot No.131, East Fifth Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai Town, originally belonged to his mother, and later devolved to the petitioner. The assessment was also transferred in his name in the revenue records. He claims to have paid the property tax, water tax, drainage maintenance charges up to second half year of 2017-2018. The petitioner was employed in Alagappa University and owing to that, had let out the property on rent and the tenant had put the property to commercial use. This was during the period 2015–2017. It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that originally the property was assessed to pay at around Rs.3,000/- per half year. Subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed and in the same time, the rental value per square feet at Rs.9/- had been fixed and a demand has been raised for a sum of Rs.47,580/- which has been claimed to be the property tax assessed per half year. The learned counsel claims that this is highly un-reasonable and also complains that necessary opportunity had not been granted to him prior to re-assessment of the property tax. 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020

Women are making a mark in a profession almost entirely dominated by men. Shoma Chatterji talks to the women idol makers of Kumartuli to find out about their struggle and success.