Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

1. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to the Respondents authorities in the nature of Mandamus/Prohibition for not declaring the land as the forest land of the petitioner of Mauza- Targachha of Khata No. Khesra No. 1 of Thana No. 517 of Area 27 acres 61 decimal of District- Banka which belongs to the petitioner upon which, this petitioner planted the trees and cultivated the land twice a year.

as contained in Memo No. 274 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Nawada to the extent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for his regularization has been turned down.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been working as daily wager against Class-IV Patna High Court CWJC No.2171 of 2019 dt.11-11-2024 post since long. Despite his continuous services for a long period, when his claim has not been considered for regularization, he moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15428 of 2010. The learned Court having considered the grievance of the petitioner has disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Nawada, to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the aforenoted direction, the petitioner filed a detailed representation. However, the claim of the petitioner has turned down by Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is put to challenge.

Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the respondent concerned to pay the compensation of the land/house of the petitioner which has been acquired for construction of Babura-Doriganj approach road and bridge as per the rate prescribed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 12 decimal land of petitioner bearing Khata No. 2623, Khesra No. 1916 and 1918 was acquired by the State Government vide Land Acquisition Case No. 01/12-13 for construction of Babura- Patna High Court CWJC No.4465 of 2018 dt.11-11-2024 Doriganj approach road and bridge. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have paid compensation to the petitioner in the year 2017 as per the rate fixed in the year 2012 though in the year 2014 new rate has been fixed by the competent authority and hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per rate fixed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings. It is submitted that in spite of several requests made by petitioner, the concerned respondent authority has not paid the enhanced compensation.

which was notified by the Bihar Government vide letter No. 14/DLA-Margdarshal- LA Act (Bharat Sarkar)-238/2013-1342 dated 14.12.2015 in the light of Section 24 (i) (a) of the Provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioners in the light of Market value of the land on 01.01.2014.

(iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are entitled under the law in the light of fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

That, this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs setting aside the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, of 2015-16 (wrongly mentioned as 2005) by which he has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent 2nd set against the order dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Jehanabad in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2015-16 by which he has allowed the claim of the petitioners for collection of rent after entering their name in Jamabandi to the land in question and/or to grant any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

has held that the writ petition is not maintainable in Patna High Court CWJC No.5157 of 2020 dt.11-11-2024 view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Sidheshwar Prasad (supra) as also the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others [L.P.A. No. 822 of 2015] and accordingly it was disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner of the said writ petition to file appropriate petition under the Act, 1947. The copy of the said order has also been brought on record as Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit.

6. Dr. Anand, learned counsel for the Corporation also countered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of merit(s).

, made by the Circle Officer, Baheri, affected families, including the petitioners have though been paid some amount of compensation, however, the same is not in consonance with the guidelines issues by the Principal Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 Secretary, Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in letter dated 26.05.2015, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

6. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation @ of Rs. 95,100/- each, in view of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and in light of the report submitted by the Revenue Karmchari dated 12.04.2016.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.673 of 2024, under Section 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun. She has sought her release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 25.10.2024, 50.17 grams smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the alleged recovered quantity is less than commercial; there is no independent witness; there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act; she is not a previous convict.

2

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.138 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused have already been granted bail.

4. This fact is admitted by learned State Counsel.

5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. The bail application is allowed.

2

7. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.257 of 2023, dated 29.04.2023, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 28.04.2023.

2

The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.32 of 202 in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.139 of 2022, dated 21.07.2022, under Sections 302, 201, 304- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the deceased was married to the applicant 5 years prior to lodging of the FIR. They were blessed with a daughter. The deceased was staying in her mother's house along with her daughter. The FIR records that on 20.07.2022, at about 01:00 PM, the applicant took the deceased along with her daughter with him. At 02:30 PM on that date he informed the son of the informant that the deceased would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, next morning at 07:00 AM, the applicant was telephoned by the informant, but the applicant told that the deceased had returned on the previous evening. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased was found.

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.1 of 2022, dated 03.05.2022, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Police Station Cyber Crime, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. It is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been rejected on 05.06.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

1. By this judgment, I shall decide present claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, filed by the petitioners/ legal representatives of Mr. Yugal Kishor (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who sustained fatal injury in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Important facts of the case as per the claim petition and the documents annexed thereto are that on 06.11.2020 at about 03:30 p.m., the deceased as pillion rider on a scooter (make-Activa) bearing registration no. HR51AN-8607, being driven by his colleague Dev Narayan Thakur at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road, was going to his house from his workplace. When they reached near Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana, in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration no. HR63B-5016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), being driven by the respondent no.1 Sunil at a high speed, rashly and negligently, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came from the back side and hit the scooter with a great force. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and came under the wheel of the offending truck and sustained head injury. The deceased was immediately removed to Medanta Medicity Hospital, Gurugram, where his MLC was prepared and he was declared 'brought dead' and his postmortem was conducted at Mortuary, Civil Hospital, Gurugram.

Sh. Anoop Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for petitioners/Lrs of deceased. None for driver and owner.

Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.

Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners U/s 166 & 140 M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest from the date of filing of the present claim petition till its realization being legal representatives of deceased Sunil Verma (married aged 25 years) on account of death of deceased who died in road traffic accident in question which occurred on 02.09.2018. The petitioners also prayed for compensation MACP No. 754/18; FIR No. 206/18 DOD:12.11.2024 for irreparable monetary loss, mental agony, loss of love and affection and future prospects plus all other heads of compensation as per entitlement, caused due to accidental death of deceased.

1. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.09.2013 complainant Late Sh. Prithvi Bhatia, r/o B-1/264, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, gave a complaint at PS Paschim Vihar, stating that he was residing at the above said address with his family. Around 2½ years back, he had got the knees of his wife operated and he required a nurse. He got a nurse/maid named Geeta from one Medicare Agency. She came for night duty to their house for 6-8 months. They also used to give an amount of Rs. 600/- towards tuition fees of her daughter. Thereafter she came to their house on 14.09.2013 and told them that she had to purchase a house and asked for Rs. 3 Lakhs, however, they refused. At this, she started quarreling with them and they sent her away from their house. She threatened them to see them and went away. After some time she came with two police officials and started shouting. The police persons namely ASI Birchha Singh and Const. Ombir came and started threatening them that they would implicate him in a rape case and get him sent to jail for a year like Bapu Aasa Ram, who was lodged in jail or to give Rs. 6 Lakhs to settle the matter. They also told that otherwise they will take him to jail and take remand. The complainant got scared and they obtained Rs. 6 Lakhs from him. The complainant further stated that he was suffering from cancer for the past thirty years and used to remain ill. He was 56 years old and he was even not capable of the allegations made by them. He sought that the complaint must be acted upon and he should be returned his money.

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 24.03.2023 seeking the following information:

"1- क्या भारतीय बीमा कंपनी को लाइसेस दे ने पर आई आर०डी० ए०आई०द्वारा प्रमाण-पत्र/लाईतेस के ननलम्वन के ललये कोई ननश्चित ननयम व शते है ।

Page 1 of 7

2- क्या भारतीय बीमा कंपनी के आईआरडीएआई लाइसेस आवेदन में हे रफेर प्रथाओ मे ललप्त होना भी एक ननयम की शते भी प्रमाण-पत्र के ननलम्वन के सालमल है ।

3- क्या आईडीआरडीएआई द्वारा मामले की पूछताछ के ललये ककसी जांि अधिकारी / जााँय अधिकाररयो की टीम को ननयुक्त करता है । 4- क्या जांि अधिकारी को जांि ररपोटट प्रस्तुत करने के ललये ककतनी समय सीमा ननिाटररत है।

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:-

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date.

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:-

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date.

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:-

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date.

This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 04/08/2021 passed in AS No.12 of 2020 by the Subordinate Judge, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31/01/2020 passed in OS No.47 of 2012 by the District Munsif, Bodinayakkanur.

2.Plaint averments in brief:-

The plaintiffs are the grandsons of one Mariammal. The suit property belonged to Mariammal absolutely. In the suit property, a shop is situated at Kamarajar Bazar, which is the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiffs are the power agent of the above said Mariammal, by a power of attorney, dated 25/02/1997. Mariammal mortgaged the property to the defendant through a registered mortgage deed, dated 16/07/1982 for a consideration sum of Rs.30,000/-. The mortgage period was five years. The rate of interest was fixed at 12% per annum. On 19/07/1982, another agreement was entered into between the parties, by which it was agreed that the payment of interest for simple mortgage should be adjusted by giving possession of the mortgaged property to the defendant, which is mentioned in the schedule. It is also agreed that the defendant must enjoy the property for five years. The house tax assessment agreed to be paid by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mortgagee. But the plaintiffs paid the taxes for the mortgaged property. On 19/07/1982, another sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid. Another mortgage deed was also executed on 19/07/1982. On 20/07/1982, another agreement was entered into. In the earlier mortgage deed, dated 19/07/1982 after the expiry of five years, the plaintiffs approached the defendant for redemption of mortgage on payment of Rs.60,000/-. But the defendant was evading and delaying. So, the suit is laid for delivery of possession after receiving the mortgage amount and for costs.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 48 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Konark P.S. Case No.118 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.506 of 2021, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Konark, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 325, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

1. In both appeals, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No. 4 of 2003 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] respectively.

CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

2. In brief, case of prosecution is that anti corruption department received complaint from PW1 Chandrakant, who reported that one Regular Criminal Case was on the file of learned JMFC, Kallam against Gorba Sukale and three others, at his instance. In that connection, informant had approached accused no.1, who was Assistant Public Prosecutor [APP] in said court, and appellant accused demanded Rs.1,000/- to put up the case properly before the court and to take further steps of issuing warrant. Unwillingly, PW1 paid part amount and balance of Rs.500/- was decided to be paid later on. As he was not willing to pay illegal gratification, he lodged report Exhibit 54, which was entertained by PW6 Dy.S.P. Gavali, and on the strength of the same, he arranged panchas, planned trap, prepared pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 35, gave necessary instructions to the CriAppeal-704-2005+ complainant and the shadow pancha. On their instructions, both, complainant and shadow pancha, visited court. There, accused no.1 demanded illegal gratification and when informant was paying the same, it was directed to be paid to accused no.2, after which pre- determined signal was relayed by informant, leading to further trap and apprehension of accused persons. Thereafter, PW6 lodged report, carried out investigation, chargesheeted both accused, who were made to face trial before learned Special Judge vide above referred Special Case No. 4 of 2003 and on appreciating prosecution evidence as well as defence witnesses, learned trial Judge, by impugned order dated 29.09.2005, held both accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the PC Act, respectively. Said judgment is now subject matter of the appeals before this Court.

1. First Appeal has been preferred at the instance of legal heir of the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2016 decreeing S. C. Suit No.19 of 2019 in terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c). For sake of convenience parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that Short Cause Suit No.19 of 2009 rsk 2 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc was instituted interalia seeking enforcement of obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, (for short, MOFA) by conveyance of the suit property together with the structure and building known as "Chandraraj Apartment" in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaint pleads that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property which was entrusted to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for development. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 represented that they are the owners of sub-divided land bearing S. No 5 (a)(pt) and 4(a) (pt) of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali admeasuring 1502.49 square meters bearing CTS No 15-D, 15/D-1 to 6. The entire larger Plot of land was subdivided into different sub-divided Plots being Plot Nos. A, B, C, D and certain portion towards 15% recreation ground on the northern side of the property. The conveyance was sought by the Plaintiff -Society in respect of sub-divided Plot No. B along with benefit of 22 feet internal road and 15% recreation ground to be enjoyed in common with the other occupants and residents of the remaining subdivided Plots. The subdivision was certified by the Architects. The building plans were sanctioned by the planning authorities and IOD and CC was obtained on 30 th April 1982. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 entered into flat purchasers agreement with the individual flat purchasers under MOFA in or about the year 1984 rsk 3 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc and were put in possession of their respective tenements after obtaining occupation certificate on 23rd October, 1989. As there was non compliance by the Defendants of their statutory obligations, the flat purchasers formed and registered the Plaintiff Society in the year 1991.

-

1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.39/2018 (State Vs. Kamlesh Dube and Others) thereby questioning the legality of judgment and order of convicting both the appellants under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 302 2 cr.appeal.128.2022-JF.odt read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing both of them for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer 3 months imprisonment.

2. The facts in short are as under :

On 19.09.2017, one Sumit Kamble died at about 1.46 p.m. It is alleged that appellant Kamlesh Dube and Shekhar Dube committed his murder. It is the prosecution case that both accused and the deceased were working as a driver on garbage vehicle at Kanak Resources Company. On the day of incident i.e. on 19.09.2017 at about 1.46 p.m. Sumit along with his friend Rahul and Yogiraj went to the Bhandewadi Dumping Yard by riding on the motorcycle of Sumit. At said place, the sister of informant Rahul and other women were picking the garbage. Kamlesh and Shekhar both accused also went there to unload the garbage by their garbage vehicle. Kamlesh was on driving seat whilst Shekhar was sitting beside him. Kamlesh has married with the sister of deceased Sumit. Kamlesh and sister of Sumit namely Tanu were having love affair, which was not liked by Sumit. Both of them ran away and performed marriage before 15 days. On their return, sister of Sumit was staying with Kamlesh. Because of said marriage, there was dispute between Kamlesh and Sumit. They used to quarrel with each other. On the date of occurrence, when Sumit saw Kamlesh, he went to him and there was hot exchange of words between them. At that time, Shekhar alighted from truck and assaulted Sumit with

Through: -

Mr. S. N. Ratanpuri, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 11.11.2024 Vide Judgment dated 07.10.2022, respondent No. 3- Director General Doordarshan Copernicus Marg, New Delhi was directed as under:-

"Be that as it may, with the consensus of the parties, respondent No. 3- Director General Doordarshan Copernicus Marg, New Delhi is directed to consider the claim of petitioners with respect to payment of fee, if any, due to every petitioner in terms of rules applicable and pass speaking order within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is served upon him."

Through: -

Ms. Sufaya, Advocate vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The minor petitioner was born on 5th October, 2011. The case set up by the petitioner is that at the time of his birth his uncle told his biological father that since he did not have any issue, he would adopt him and, therefore, his uncle got his name entered in the parentage column of his date of birth certificate.

12.11.2024 The petitioners, through the medium of instant petition, has called in question Order No. 233 PDA of 2024 dated 6th November, 2024, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Pahalgam Development Authority-respondent no. 3, by virtue of which, all the adventure activities in Pahalgam permitted by the Director Tourism Kashmir vide No. DTK/Rec/3/2022-06/2747 dated 18th May, 2022, TDK/Rec/3/2022-06/2856 dated 29th June, 2022 and DTK/Rec/3/2022-06/3030 dated 6th February, 2023 have been suspended till formalities are fulfilled by the adventure agencies. The order further reveals that all concerned site incharges of Pahalgam Development Authority shall ensure suspension of the adventure activities with immediate effect.

11.11.2024

1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the recommendations made by the State Level Evaluation Committee (SLEC) in its 4th meeting held on 09.10.2024, whereby the petitioner's technical bid was marked as "non-responsive." This decision was based solely on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria specified under Clause 2.2.2.5(iv), "...iv. In case of project executed by applicant under category 3 and 4 as a member of Joint Venture, the project cost should be restricted to the share of the applicant in the joint venture for determining eligibility as per provision under Clause 2.2.2.2. In case statutory auditor certifies that the work of other member(s) is also executed by the applicant, then the total share executed by applicant can be considered for determining eligibility as per provision under clause 2.2.2.2"

Through: -

None CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 11.11.2024 This is an application filed by the petitioners to place on record the documents.

For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with the submissions made at Bar, by learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

08.11.2024

1. The short grievance of the petitioners is sourced to an order No. 141 of 2007 dated 28.11.2007 in terms whereof they along with three other persons namely Imtiyaz Ahmad Beigh, Bashir Ahmad Bhat and Rachi Pal came to be promoted on regular basis to the posts of Electrician in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4820 in the Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Limited.

2. In far as the original date of appointment of the petitioners in the service is concerned, the petitioner No. 1 Mohammad Shafi Dar is appointee of 1st April, 1994, the petitioner No. 2 Abdul Gani Rather of 1st April1994 in Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Limited, whereas the respondent No. 5 Imtiyaz Ahmad Beigh is an appointee of 1st July, 1996.

11-11-2024

1. Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 17th May, 2024 respondent no. 4 (State of J & K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government Revenue Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar/Jammu) and respondent no. 5 (Assistant Commissioner) were granted four weeks' time for filing reply, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3000/-(three thousand) to be deposited in the Advocates Welfare Fund. Since the needful was not done, this Court vide order dated 3rd April, 2024 granted last and final opportunity to said respondents for doing needful, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/ (five thousand) (inadvertently mentioned in order dated 16th October, 2024 as 50000/-) which order was also not complied with and in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court vide order dated 16th October, 2024 directed respondents 4 and 5 to appear before this Court on the next date fixed and to file an affidavit stating therein reasons for not complying orders passed by this Court mentioned supra.

12.11.2024 The instant application has been preferred by the applicants for seeking a direction to summon the copy of challan from the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chadoosa. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the applicants that they have already moved an application way back on 6th October, 2023 before the competent court for providing certified copy of the challan as also the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. besides copy of the proceedings, but till date needful has not been done.

The CM is, accordingly, disposed of and Registry is directed to seek report of the particular court as to why till date in spite of filing of the application, the needful has not been done.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The subject matter of this petition falls within the definition of 'service matters' as contained in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has become applicable to the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, after coming into force of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-

08-11-2024

1. The petitioner-unit through its proprietor by the medium of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged order no. 187 JK PCC of 2024 dated 15th October, 2024, whereby respondent no. 5 has directed to close down the stone crusher of the petitioner-unit under the name and style of M/s Goodluck Stone Crusher, Lasjan Chadoora B.K. Pora, District Budgam. In terms of the said order, respondent no. 5, has also directed the other respondents to take further action against the unit of the petitioner as mentioned in the impugned order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, places reliance on an order dated 13th July, 2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in an identical matter being WP(C) No. 1418/2024 and submits that the case of the petitioner is identical to the aforesaid case and accordingly prayed that the same order be passed in the present writ petition as well with a view to maintain parity.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The present petition in terms of Section 482 Cr.PC came to be preferred by the petitioner namely Farooq Ahmad Dar through his brother Ali Mohammad Dar.

At the motion stage this Court vide order dated 17.11.2023, called upon the petitioner to address regarding maintainability of the present petition. thereafter, none has turned up for further prosecution of the case.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 Vide common Judgment dated 26.05.2022, passed by this Court in SWP No. 1002/2018 titled Tasleema Jan Vs. State and Ors., and SWP No. 876/2015, titled Roomi Akhter Vs. State and Ors., following directions were passed against the resondents.

"i) The respondents shall consider the claim of both the candidates, Roomi Akhter and Tasleema Jan, in respect of their engagement as Angan Wari Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question. Both the petitioners shall be associated with the consideration process by allowing them to put forward their stand effectively.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 195-JKPCC of 2024 dated 16.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 212-JKPCC of 2024 dated 18.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.

Petitioners are seeking quashing of the charge-sheet filed in C.C.No.503/2023 and the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Deodurga, taking cognizance of offences punishable under Section 171 (f) of IPC, Sections 177 and 192 (A) of IMV Act, 1988 and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981.

-3-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8071

02. In brief, the charge-sheet allegations are that, petitioners being the driver and owner of an Ambulance bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AK-6853 has exhibited a photo of one Sri. Shivanagouda Nayak, a BJP candidate and the said Ambulance was parked in front of Nadagoud Hospital, Arakera.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in M.A.No.7/2023 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi1.

2. The relevant facts leading to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.11/2023 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalghatagi2 wherein the respondents herein arrayed as defendants. The reliefs sought for in the suit are extracted herein for ready reference.

"14. Prayer: That, the most respectfully and graciously prayed that, this hon'ble Court be please to pass decree in favour of plaintiff as under:-

4. In brief, the present appeal arises out of the dismissal of the appellant's suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the event the divorce suit subsequently initiated by the wife is decided, the same may prejudice the outcome of the present appeal.

6. That apart, the divorce suit was initiated by the wife subsequent to the initiation of the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

7. Accordingly, apart from the husband otherwise being entitled to an order of stay in lieu of the circumstances as indicated above, the principle of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure may also be deemed to be applicable in the present case.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Special Court, Kolkata, in the proceeding being Special Case No. SEBI/39/2018.

2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had joined in Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited as an executive director on 27.04.2004, for the erection and commissioning of renewal energy power project. The said Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited is a group of companies under Amrit Projects Ltd. a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. After being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, Kailash Chand Dujari, the Managing Director of Amrit Projects Ltd. and its group of companies had offered the petitioner to become director of several other group companies of Amrit Projects Ltd. After joining the said Amrit Group the petitioner was to look into the development and set up of a power project of 10 M.W. in the District of Bankura, West Bengal. The said project was successfully completed under the supervision of the petitioner. The said Amrit Project Limited had started a business receiving deposits from the public at large without consulting with the petitioner. The petitioner had tendered resignation and resigned from the said Amrit Projects Limited and all its group of companies in the year 2013.

Darogi Yadav @ Bhupati, aged about 40 years, S/o. Shri Bodhan Yadav, R/o. Vill.- Dudhania Tola, P.O.- Khaira Block, P.S.- Cherko Pathar, Dist.- Jamui, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

Moola Satyanarayan Reddy, aged about 49 years, s/o late Rama Reddy, r/o House No.4-150/1, Janambhumi Nagar, Mancherial, PO, PS & District- Mancheril, Telengana-504208 ... Appellant Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Superintendent of Police, Chief Investigating Officer, NIA ...... Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

-------

For the Appellant : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. PP Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.

-----

03/12.11.2024 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/325/354-B/379/452/ 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the petitioners tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and also snatched the gold chain from her neck worth Rs.95,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the neighbours and relatives of the informant. They have been implicated in this case by the informant due to previous enmity. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no. 17 of the present application. They also undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Chandan Singh, aged about 24 years, S/o. Kuldeep Singh, R/o. Toiladungary, P.O. & P.S.- Golmuri, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. ------ 03/11.11.2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 231/2024 arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 13/2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 468/2024, for the offences registered under Sections 341/323/325/307/302/504/506/120(B)/34 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of Sri B.K. Sahay, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur.

Shashi Dungdung, aged about 24 years, S/o. Late Amrus Dungdung, R/o. Vill.- Karangagudi, Baijutoli, P.O. & P.S.- Kersai, Dist.- Simdega.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

Shashi Dungdung, aged about 24 years, S/o. Late Amrus Dungdung, R/o. Vill.- Karangagudi, Baijutoli, P.O. & P.S.- Kersai, Dist.- Simdega.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner: Mr. P. K. Roy For the State: Mr. S. P. Jha, A.P.P ----- 03/11.11.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 341/323/307/504/506/34 IPC has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He along with his wife has been roped in this case by the informant due to land dispute. Even if the contents of the written report are taken to be true, the informant sustained lacerated injury on his left eyebrow and there was bleeding from his left nostril. He was advised to undergo X-Ray of skull and CTC of head, however, he did not undergo the said scanning. The injuries sustained by the informant have been found simple in nature. The said fact has been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the present anticipatory bail application. The petitioner, however, undertakes to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

1. Maya Kunwar, W/o Late Kamlesh Sah

2. Parwati Kunwar, W/o Late Narayan Sah

3. Lilawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Sah All are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Anutha Singh, R/o Jeshu Tower, Dibdih, P.O.-Doranda, Office Adress-J.K. International Public School, Agru, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi.

.......... Opp. Parties.

With A.B.A. No.1856 of 2024

-----

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Sudama Sah

2. Kaushal Kumar, S/o Late Kamlesh Sah Both are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.