Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv.

Dated: 30th September , 2014 Delivered in open court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh, Judicial Member

1. Admit.

2. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that the matter raised in this application has already been covered by the decision of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 315/2014 (CZ) in case of Ram Swaroop Chaturvedi V/s Chairman, MPSEIAA & Ors. decided on 11.09.2014 in the matter of the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013, issued by the MoEF, Government of India.

3. We have considered the application as well as submissions made before us. We would accordingly dispose of this petition in the light of our earlier judgement dated 11.09.2014 in O.A.No. 315/2014 and the directions contained therein shall also apply to the applicant in so far as the applicability of the aforesaid orders of MoEF dated 24.12.2013 is concerned. In case an application is submitted by the Applicant, online or as prescribed under the procedure alongwith requisite fee, such application shall be entertained by the MPSEIAA in accordance with law within two months without being influenced by the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013 issued by the MoEF in so far as its operations have been stayed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Application No. 343 of 2013 (M.A.No. 1093/2013) in the case of Ranbir Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors and Page 2 of 3 Application No. 279/2013 (M.A.No. 1120 of 2013) in case of Promila Devi Vs. State & Ors. dated 28.03.2014.

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.

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.

Case No. 36 of 2019 1

Brief facts and allegations

2. JSW Paints is stated to be a part of the JSW group of companies, which is involved in several sectors, including steel, energy, cement, etc. JSW Paints was incorporated in the year 2016 and launched its decorative paints in May 2019 in Bengaluru and Hubli in Karnataka. JSW Paints has introduced many innovative approaches in the paints industry for the first time in India.

3. Asian Paints is a listed company and is primarily engaged in manufacture and sale of decorative and industrial paints. According to its Annual Report for the FY 2018-19, it is the 3rd largest paint company in Asia and largest in India. In India, it has 8 manufacturing plants for decorative paints and 2 for industrial paints.

2. The Informant is an individual user/consumer of the services provided by PayU and other e-payment gateways.

3. PayU is a fintech company that provides payment technology solutions to online merchants. It was founded in the year 2002 and has its head-quarter at Hoofddorp, Netherlands. It allows online businesses to accept and process payments through payment methods that can be integrated with web and mobile applications. Further, PayU is the e-payment division of Naspers, a global internet and entertainment group and one of the leading technology investors in the world. Naspers is a leading financial services provider in the global growth markets and is engaged in the business of providing payment gateway services and other digital payment enablement services to both consumers and businesses. It also holds a Non- Banking Financial Company ('NBFC') license in India to offer credit services.

5 Mr. Rishi Gulati, "IGBT-based power quality compensation solutions are high Business end solution in terms of technology as compare to non IGBT Development which our company manufacturing. As per my market Manager, experience, I can say that approximately IGBT based power Cummins India quality compensation solution cost double to the customer as Ltd. compare to non IGBT base solutions. Switching speed is in nano seconds in IGBT based solutions whereas switching speed is in milliseconds in TSC or non-IGBT solutions."

2. The Informant has filed the information for Teleclub (Alberta Limited), Canada in the capacity of its CEO. It is submitted by the Informant that Teleclub is one of the international telecom carriers in Canada.

3. As per publically available information, OP-1 is an Indian subsidiary of Britain based Vodafone Group PLC, which started Indian operations in 2007 with the acquisition of controlling interest in Hutch Essar. In 2018, Vodafone acquired Idea Cellular and became the largest telecom service provider in India. Likewise, OP-2 and OP-3 are also major telecom service providers operating in India. Further, as per publicly available information, OP-4 is the largest Information and Communications Technology ("ICT") service provider, systems integrator and all-in-one network solutions company operating in India, which has partnered with major network operators to deliver global network solutions.

1. The present case pertains to alleged cartelisation amongst certain parties in relation to Requests for Quotations ('RFQs') issued by certain Automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers ('OEMs') for supply of (i) Anti-Vibration Rubber Products ('AVR Products'); and (ii) Automotive Hoses (Water and Fuel) ('Hoses').

Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 1

PUBLIC VERSION

2. The case commenced upon receipt of certain information under the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (the 'LPR') which disclosed that two or more of the following companies had exchanged information and/ or reached agreements amongst themselves, as to who would supply AVR Products and Hoses in response to the RFQs issued by certain Automobile OEMs:

Case No. 37 of 2019 1

2. The Informant, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of export of stone aggregates/ boulders and has stated that it exports stone aggregates/ boulders through rakes allotted by OP. For allotment of rakes, the Informant places indent itself or through its consignor at respective railway sidings. The Informant also stated that OP follows quota system for dispatch of rakes. Under such a system, the Informant got rakes allotted to it at various sidings in Howrah and Malda Division of the Eastern Railways, which is OP in the present case.

3. The Informant alleges that from July 2019 onwards, OP stopped allotment of rakes to it and instead, the rakes were allotted to Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd. as per the directions of the Indian Railway Board contained in letter No. 2017/TT- III(M)/71/D/10/Quota dated 18.07.2019. The Informant claims that this decision was taken by Indian Railway Board as per the request of the Bangladesh Railway Board. The Informant has stated that non-allotment of rakes has impacted its goodwill amongst its customers as it is not being able to meet its prior commitments.

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

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020

Learned counsel for the applicant did not login. The Public Prosecutor was 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. 06/2020, Police Station Sangaria, District - Hanumangarh for the offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

..

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4048/2020. Sunil Jat S/o Shri Suwa Jat, aged about 29 years, resident of Bholi, Tehsil and District Bhilwara, Police Station Mangrop, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar (through video calling).

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP (through video calling).

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

..

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4047/2020. Mahrilal S/o Mohan B/c Joshi Age 55 Years R/o Uttarvada Police Station Badisadri, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma (through video calling).

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP (through video calling).

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

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

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

For Respondent(s) : None present.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Defect pointed out by the office is overruled. 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). 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. 185/2019, Police Station Siwana, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, 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.

----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. Lal Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Mr. D.K. Godara 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. 101/2019, Police Station Jayal, District - Nagaur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 427 & 302 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act.

----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 second 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. 283/2019, Police Station Surajpol, District Udaipur for the offence under Section 457, 380 IPC.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, 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.

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.

(Presently lodged at District Jail, Merta).

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(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).

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 10/2020, Police Station Mulasar, District Nagour for the offences under Sections 376, 384 & 379 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (1)(I), 3(1)(W)(II) & 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Order dated 30.04.2020 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected. (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:02 PM)

----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. Gurav Chauhan @ Goru S/o Rakesh Chauhan, aged about 20 years, Resident of Ward No. 25, Suratgarh, Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar

2. Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu S/o Umaid Singh, aged about 22 years, Resident of Ward No. 9, Near Baba Ramdev Temple, Suratgarh, Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

(Presently lodged at District Jail, Sri Ganganagar)

----Appellants Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are abstaining from work in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

----Petitioner Versus State

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : O;fDr"k% dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA For Respondent(s) : O;fDr"k% dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 fo'o LokLF; laxBu ¼MCY;w- ,p-vks-½] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ,oa dsUnzh; ,oa jkT; ljdkj }kjk uksoy dksjksuk ok;jl ¼dksfoM&19½ds xaHkhj egkekjh ,oa laØe.k dks QSyus ls jksdus ,oa fu;a=.k ds fy;s tkjh ,Mokbtjh ds dkj.k izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku~ vf/koDrk Jh jkds"k eVksfj;k ,oa fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd Jh vfuy tks"kh dks tfj;s fofM;ks dkWy lquk x;kA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k fd vfHk;qDr eqds"k dh tekur gks pqdh gS ftlds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks eqyfte cuk;k x;k gSA blds foijhr fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tkfgj fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ls 118-5 fdyks MksMk iksLr dh cjkenxh gqbZ gS tks fd okf.kfT;d ek=k gSA vfHk;qDr eqds"k dk izFke tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 06-03-2019 dks pkyku izLrqr gksus ds i"pkr~ iqu^% tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh NwV nsrs gq;s uksV izsl djus ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk nwljk tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 24-05-2019 dks lhtj vkWfQlj lquhy dqekj ds c;ku gksus ds i"pkr~ iqu% tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh NwV nsrs gq;s uksV izsl djus ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:14 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3497/2020] lhtj lquhy dqekj ds c;kuksa esa vfHk;qDr eqds"k ds lEcU/k esa vk;s rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij r`rh; tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 22-07-2019 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA xkSjryc gS fd ml le; eqds"k ds fo:) pkyku izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq izkFkhZ&eqyfte ds fo:) /kkjk 173¼8½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr pkyku yafcr j[kk x;k Fkk D;ksafd izdj.k esa vuqla/kku iq'isUnzflag o lqHkk'kpUnz }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk] vr% izkFkhZ dks tekur dk ykHk fn;s tkus ls iwoZ bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk ikfjr vkns"k fnukad 16-04-2020 dh vuqikyuk djok;k tkuk vko";d izrhr gksrk gSA fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh is"kh ls iwoZ mDr vkns"k dh vuqikyuk lqfuf"pr dh tkosA i=koyh fnukad 15-05-2020 dks lwphc) dh tk;sA (DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 2-/AK (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The District Collector, Jodhpur.

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur.

----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.

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court no.7, Mathura in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.239 of 2008 (Virendra Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others) awarding a sum of Rs.62,866/- for the expenses incurred towards medicines and treatment of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident, alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.

3. The claimant aged 45 years filed MAC No.239 of 2008 against the driver & owner of the vehicle and the insurance company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Mathura claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with 12% interest in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident alleged to have occurred on 17.2.2008 around 12.30 p.m.

While PW1 was doing patrol duty on 3.6.1999, he got reliable information that one Rajappan (the petitioner) was CRL.R.P.NO.5/07 3 indulging in sale of arrack from his house. Thereupon, the patrol party proceeded to the petitioner's house and on searching the house found 13 bottles hidden inside the kitchen, of which 11 bottles were of 1.5 ltrs and 2 bottles of 750 ml capacity. The contents of the bottle were examined by smelling and tasting and was identified to be arrack. The petitioner, who was present in the house was arrested and the contraband seized. From among the 13 bottles, sample was drawn from one bottle of 750 ML capacity. Thereafter the sample bottle as well as the 13 bottles containing the contraband were sealed in the presence of the petitioner and two independent witnesses. The requisite formalities like, filing of occurrence report, production of accused and seized articles along with sample before the jurisdictional Magistrate were complied without delay. Further investigation of the case was conducted by PW 5, who after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

On 28-02-2019, Sri. K.P. Mathaikunju and 3 others filed a contempt of court case before this court against the respondents herein, alleging that the respondents have committed civil contempt by publishing a face book post in a face book page to which the respondents are the admins and also published a similar news in the website www.ovsonline.in on 27-02-2019, to the effect that the cases, O.P (C) No.65/2019 & Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, which pertains to the dispute regarding the 'Vadavukod Church' were dismissed by the High Court on 27-02- 2019, which in fact were only reserved for judgment on that day. It is alleged that the act of the respondents in this regard would amount to interference with the administration of justice and therefore they have committed contempt of court punishable under provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Registry of this court expressed doubt with respect to maintainability of CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -4- the above said contempt of court petition. Therefore the case was posted before the learned Single Judge who as dealing with OP (C) No.65/2019 and Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, as unnumbered contempt petition. Initially, the learned Judge appointed an 'amicus curiae' in the matter, through order dated 01-03-2019. But subsequently, on 31-05-2019, the Single Judge directed the Registry of this court to place the petition before Hon'ble Chief justice for appropriate further action on the administrative side, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Rehim P. V. M.V. Jayarajan and others (2010 (4) KLT 286). When the matter was placed for consideration before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 25-06-2019, it was ordered to place the matter as a suo motu criminal contempt case, for preliminary hearing, before the appropriate Bench. When the matter came on the judicial side, this court ordered notice to the respondents. Personal appearance of the respondents were dispensed with for the time being. The respondents appeared and each of them had filed separate affidavits. Now the case is coming up for consideration as to whether there exists prima facie contempt and to decide whether further proceedings need to be pursued in the case by framing charge against the respondents. CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -5-

2. Petitioner is the first respondent in M.C. No.11 of 2016. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the wife and son of the petitioner respectively. The respondents instituted the said proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking, among others, an order restraining the petitioner and his parents from committing any act of domestic violence. The respondents have also sought in the proceedings orders for their maintenance and for the return O.P.(Crl) No.727 of 2017 3 of money, gold ornaments, documents etc. In the course of the proceedings, the parties were referred for mediation. After the mediation, the mediator reported to the court that mediation was successful and forwarded Exhibit P2 mediation agreement entered into between the parties and signed by their respective counsel to the court. As per Exhibit P2 mediation agreement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.20,000/- per year to the second respondent. Provision was also made in the mediation agreement for the custody of the second respondent during his minority. In terms of the mediation agreement, the petitioner and the first respondent have also agreed to prefer an application for divorce on mutual consent. The Jurisdictional Magistrate disposed of the proceedings in terms of the mediation agreement. Exhibit R1(a) is the order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in this connection. The case set out by the petitioner in the original petition is that Exhibit P2 mediation agreement is one obtained from him by the mediator under the threat that he would, otherwise, be put behind bars O.P.(Crl) No.727 of 2017 4 along with his parents. It is also the case of the petitioner that Exhibit P2 mediation agreement was the result of a conspiracy between the first respondent, the mediator as also the counsel for both the petitioner and the first respondent. It is pleaded by the petitioner in the original petition that he never wanted to live separately from the respondents.

2. The petitioner, his elder brother Mohanan and his elder sister Sarasamma were residing in adjoining houses. Mohanan had a daughter named Arya, aged 13 years. She committed suicide on 2.2.2015 by hanging herself in a tree near W.P.(C) No.30976 of 2018 4 her house. The deceased was studying in 8 th standard at the relevant time. It was Sarasamma who first found Arya hanging in the three. The petitioner went to the spot hearing the hue and cry of Sarasamma. The matter was informed to the Police thereupon by the petitioner. In the autopsy, it was revealed that the deceased was subjected to both vaginal as also anal intercourse. The case which was registered earlier under Section 174 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (the Code) was consequently amended as one under Sections 305 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (the POCSO Act). In the investigation conducted thereupon, the Police came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who has abused the deceased sexually and she committed suicide on account of the said reason. Consequently, final report was filed in the case under Sections 305 and 376 (2) (f) of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO W.P.(C) No.30976 of 2018 5 Act. Exhibit P2 is the final report in the case. The accusation in the case is that the petitioner who was residing alone in the neighbourhood of the house of the deceased has raped and committed penetrative sexual assault on the deceased on 10.1.2015 and on several occasions thereafter at her house and thereby abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

"(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.

SECRETARY GENERAL: Sir, I have to report the following message received from the Secretary General of Rajya Sabha:

“In accordance with the provisions of rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Raya Sabha, I am directed to inform the Lok Sabha that the Rajya Sabha at its sitting held on the 4th December, 2019, agreed without any amendment to the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Bill, 2019 which was passed by the Lok Sabha at its sitting held on the 28th November, 2019.”          

माननीय अध्यक्ष: माननीय सदस्यगण,मुझे कुछ विषयों पर माननीय सदस्यों के स्थगन-प्रस्ताव की सूचनाएं प्राप्त हुई हैं । मैंने किसी भी स्थगन-प्रस्ताव की सूचना को अनुमति प्रदान नहीं की है ।

__________  

2. The facts in short, as averred in the writ petition, are that the petitioners, seventeen in number and belonging to District Kathua, came to be engaged as Daily Rated Labourers in Civil as well as Mechanical Divisions of PHE, Kathua between the period October 1994 to January 2000 and since then they have been discharging their duties, which has also been certified and authenticated by the respondents themselves in the year 2005 2 SWP 677/2014 and also in the year 2010. It is averred that the petitioners during all these years made a number of representations to the respondents for regularization of their services and when nothing fruitful came out, they filed SWP No.143/2009. The said writ petition was filed by as many as 26 persons including the petitioners herein, which came to be disposed of on 01.11.2013 with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioners case for regularization in the light of averments made in the petition, annexure appended thereto and of course in accordance with rules/scheme in J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 governing the field. However, instead of regularizing the services of petitioners, respondent No.2 vide Order No.PHEJ/GE/04/E of 2014 dated 04.01.2014, impugned herein, rejected the claim of petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition.

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

Issue notice of this application to the respondents. Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG accepts notice.

2 WP(C) PIL NO. 41/2019 Let a copy of this application be sent to Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG by Mrs. Deepika Mahajan, Advocate, who shall seek instructions that immediate steps are taken to ensure food and all facilities to these survival of natural calamity.

Let a copy of this application be also furnished to Mr. M. K. Sharma, Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Jammu and Ms. Sandeep Kour, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Udhampur to ensure that these people are given immediate assistance.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 30.04.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.04.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

Main petition is taken on Board and is permitted to be withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 30.04.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.04.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:20 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:19 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:20 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:19 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

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

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