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

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

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the Bank.

Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bank are directed to file paragraph wise counter affidavit within a period of eight weeks.

In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner shall take all necessary steps to remove the defects as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter vide Office notes dated 21.04.2020 within a period of six weeks.

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

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

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

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N.Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State along with Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel of the Board.

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for modification in the order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No.67419 of 2019 whereby a Bench of this Court had granted provisional bail to the petitioner in connection with Sastri Nagar P.S.Case No.733 of 2019 on fulfilling certain conditions and the provisional bail was to be confirmed only after fulfillment of the remaining part of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19089 of 2020(2) dt.27-04-2020 2/4 terms.

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

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/-

U

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the BIADA.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission for filing of Interlocutory Application to amend the relief/s as sought for in the writ application, whereby he wants to challenge the order dated 24.04.2020 issued vide Memo No. 1237/D by which the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have rejected the representation of the petitioner made vide Annexure-5 to the writ application.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2019 and has got no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. There Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10317 of 2020(3) dt.29-04-2020 2/3 is no allegation of tampering of witnesses against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of disclosure made by the co-villagers. The names of the co-villagers have not been disclosed by the prosecution. It is alleged that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln. The brick kiln in question belongs to the joint family of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged occurrence. There is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that the mother of the petitioner has expired on 13.04.2020. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. There is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future. Other similarly situated co- accused, namely, Babban Ray has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr.Misc.No.78312 of 2019 dated 29.01.2020.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned A.A.G.-4 for the State.

Following reliefs have been sought for in paragraph 1 of the writ application:

1(i) To set aside/grant an order of stay of the order of settlement of Shairat of "Suhiya Bhagar Jalker", Shahpur, Bhojpur for the financial year 2020-21 contained in Memo No. 994/Ra, dated 07.04.2020 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent no. 4, Additional Collector, Bhojpur as the same has been passed without following the procedure of open tender/Bid/Dak as per the Advertisement dated 27th February 2020 (Annexure-1) published in the local Daily Newspaper.

Mr. N. K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Alok, Standing Counsel-27 appeared for the State respondents.

The Office has pointed out some defects. The petitioner shall ensure removal of the defects within two weeks of the start of normal functioning of the Court, failing which this application would stand dismissed.

In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashment of order contained in Annexure-1 vide Memo No. 683 dated 06.04.2020 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna High Court CWJC No.5626 of 2020(2) dt.01-05-2020 2/3 Ara (respondent no.2), whereby the PDS License No. 13/2016 of the petitioner was cancelled.

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the BIADA.

The present interlocutory application has been filed seeking amendment in the relief portion i.e. paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition and consequently in paragraph no. 2 and the prayer portion thereof. The amendment sought for in paragraph 2 of the I.A. is as follows:

"1(iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 24.04.2020 as contained in memo no. 1237/D dated 24.04.2020 whereby and whereunder the Respondent BIADA has rejected the application dated 22.04.2020 (Anx.-5 )filed by the petitioner Company for issue of lockdown pass;

Learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the BIADA are present.

Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, learned counsel for the BIADA submits that the arguing counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore is engaged before D.B.-II, hence the matter be taken up tomorrow at 10.30 A.M.

As prayed for, list this matter tomorrow i.e. on 06.05.2020 at 10.30 A.M. under the same heading.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

Learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the BIADA are present.

Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, learned counsel for the BIADA submits that there is a bereavement in the family of the arguing counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore, hence the matter may be passed over for the day.

As prayed for, list this matter tomorrow i.e. on 07.05.2020 at 2.15. P.M. under the same heading.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

2. Naturally, filing of the writ application has been found to be defective being inconsistent with the filing procedure prescribed under the High Court Rules, on many counts.

3. The petitioner is a Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS) registered under the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 and is, therefore, a body corporate. The PACS has been given licence to run a fair price shop. There is no averment in the writ application as to when such licence was granted to the PACS, though it is stated in paragraph-5 of the application that for last one decade various similar cooperative societies of the State are successfully conducting the business of fair price shops in addition to discharge of their other duties including procurement of food grains under the procurement schemes of the Government.

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

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

Heard Mr. Sanjay Singh and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Counsel and Mr. Yashraj Bardhan for the BIADA and Mr. Vikas Kumar, S.C.-11, for the State.

Order is reserved.

Learned counsels for the parties seek permission to file a written note of argument by tomorrow.

Permission is accorded.

Put up this matter on 12.05.2020 at 10.30. A.M. under the heading 'For Orders'.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

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

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

2. The petition was filed on 16.08.2019 against an order dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure N) whereby the petitioner's application for migration of CMTS Licence effective from 31.12.1998 for Tamil Nadu Service Area to Unitied Licence (UL) was rejected for the second time by the respondent. Before adverting to the issues, it will be useful to take note of some significant and relevant facts.

3. The historical facts relating to the petitioner company; its wholly owned subsidiary, Aircel Cellular Ltd. (ACL); the details of its licences and also subsequent allocation of spectrum which came to be bundled with the said licence are not in dispute. The petitioner's CMTS Licence for Tamil Nadu Circle was for a period of 10 years and due to expire on 30.12.2008. In terms of National Telecom Policy of 1999, DoT offered a migration package. The migration package, inter alia, changed the "Fixed Fee" policy for Indian Telecom Licences to a "Revenue Share" regime. The period of licence got extended upto 20 years and as a result petitioner's licence was to be valid till 30.12.2018. In 2010, the petitioner acquired 5 + 5 MHz of 2100 MHz (3G) and 20 MHz of 2300 MHz spectrum (BWA) in the Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle through auction. These are fully paid for and the validity of allotment is of 20 years i.e. till 2030. In 2015, the petitioner further acquired 10 + 10 MHz of 1800 MHz spectrum in the Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle through auction. Petitioner has the right to use the said spectrum for a period of 20 years Le. till 26.05.2035 and under a deferred payment plan, it claims to have paid 33% of its price.

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

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

2. Only to avoid repetition of facts relating to the petitioner and because the nature of agreements with the respondent(s) in both the petitions are similar, both the petitions involving claim for a money decree have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgement and order.

3. As noted earlier, the petitions have been filed for money decree. In BP No. 39 of 2018, the total claimed amount is for Rs.1,31,40,753.00 involving dues payable from October 2015 onwards, In B.P. No, 163 of 2018, the claim is for an amount of Rs.7,53,44,675.00 to cover dues from January 2011 | onwards. The prayer has been made for pendente lite and future interest also at the rate of 18% p.a. in both the petitions. In B.P. No.163 of 2018, there is an additional prayer for an amount of Rs. 63,843.00 said to have been deducted by the respondent{s) as TDS during the Financial Year 2011-12 but allegedly not deposited with the Income Tax Authorities,

>. Learned counsel for the appellants has also filed written notes of arguments and in reply a further written note of arguments has been filed by learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent, as an account holder in the State Bank of India (SBI), suffered a loss of Rs. 18,35 lakh through 20 internet transactions and the money was transferred to 20 accounts, all with the SBI. The account holder/complainant filed Petition No. 1 of 2013 before the leamed A.O./Secretary to Government, Information Technology, Electronics and Communications Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. After hearing the parties in detail and taking into consideration the defence of the Bank, which is the appellants herein, and all the relevant documents, learned A.O. by the impugned order dated 12,3.2014 has allowed claim of the complainant who is respondent herein and directed SBI to pay the entire amount of Rs. 18.35 lakh with interest from the date of loss ie. 13.5.2012 till the date of payment along with the costs of Rs. 39,750.00. The rate of interest is 18% per annum. Admittedly, nothing has been paid by SBI so far.

2. At the outset, it is deemed useful to record that besides the two agreements both dated 1.4,2012 between the parties which are covered by present petition, the petitioner and a sister concern of the respondent namely, Mi Marathi Media Ltd. also had a similar agreement with the petitioner. Some of correspondences ayailable on record support the aforesaid fact and disclose common meetings on the issue of outstanding dues.

3. Against Mi Marathi Media Utd, alryost in similar factual situation, petitioner had preferred BP No. 39 of 2018 for claiming an amount of Rs. 1.31 crores approximately. After considering ali the relevant issues, that broadcasting petition alongwith BP No. 163 of 2018 was heard ex-parte and substantially allowed by a recent judgment and order of this Tribunal dated 14.2.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon that judgment more so because this petition is also against the sister concern of Ml Marathi Media having aimest identical factual background and is also being heard ex-parte. This petition has been filed for a money decree for an arnount of Rs. 2,46,20,606/- and for pendente lite and future interest @ 18% ¢.a, 4, The petitioner is Union of india in the capacity of a service provider. The respondent, who is a broadcaster Heencee, is.alse a service previder. The respandent has been shawn ta be ef a "Hcencee" within the meaning of the term under the TRA! Act, 1997. The petition is, therefore, claimed ta be covered within the ambit of Section 14 of the TRAI Act.

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

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

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

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

1. Goa Foundation Through Dinesh George Dias G-8, St. Britto's Apts. Feira Alta, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa - 403507.

2. Peaceful Society Through Kumar Kalanand Mani R/o Peaceful Society Campus Honsowado-Madkai, Post: Kundai 403115, Goa .....Appellants Versus

1. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003

2. State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400023

3. State of Karnataka Through the Chief Secretary, Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore - 560001

National Green Tribunal Bar Association Through the Secretary Trikoot II Bikaji Cama Palace New Delhi .....Applicant Versus

1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Environment & Forest Prayavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

2. State of Uttranchal Through Chief Secretary Department of Environment and Forest Uttranchal Secretariat, Dehradun Uttrakhand- 248006

3. Divisional Forest Officer IT Cell, PCCF Office, 87-Rajpur Road, Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248001

4. VS Sidhu IPS Officer Police Officers Colony Kishanpur, Dehradun Uttrakhand-24800 .....Respondents Counsel for Applicant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for Respondent Shri Sachin K. Verma,Adv. Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 8: Shri D.S.Kanesh, DFO Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Shri Rajendra Babbar, Adv. Counsel for Respondent No. 5: Shri Naman Nagrath, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Qasim Ali, Adv. Counsel for Respondent No. 6 & 7: Shri Om Shankar Shrivastav, Adv. & Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv. Dated : October 1st, 2014 J U D GEM E N T

1. This Application was originally filed as Writ Petition No. 6930/2009 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur as Public Interest Litigation. In pursuance of the order dated 05.12.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in consonance with the judgement dated 9th August, 2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Others Vs. Union of India & Others (2012) 8 SCC 326, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Central Zone Bench, National Green Tribunal, Bhopal and was registered as Original Application No.114/2013. The matter was listed for hearing on 13-1- 2014 since the Hon'ble High Court, while ordering the transfer of the case, directed that the parties shall appear before this Tribunal on 13-1-2014.

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

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

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

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

2. It was stated that OP-1 is an association of man-made fibre manufacturers in India; OP-2 is the largest producer and seller of Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) in India; OP-3 is a company registered in Thailand and promoted by OP-2; and OP-4 is a company belonging to the Aditya Birla Group operating in Indonesia and engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting VSF to customers located in the US, Europe, Turkey, Japan, Korea, China and other countries in both textile and non-woven segments.

3. The Informant alleged that OP-2 is the sole producer of VSF having a market share of almost 100% in India and it is misusing its sole position in the domestic market to squeeze the textile industry consumers. With regard to OP-3 and OP-4, it was alleged that OP-2 imports and markets its products and Case No. 62 of 2016 2 Public Version OP-3, operating from Thailand and OP-4, operating from Indonesia, have joined hands to exploit the Indian market.

----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 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

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

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.

This Suo-Moto Writ Petition has been taken up pursuant to a note dated 07.05.2020 of Registrar General, which was put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 08.05.2020 and as directed, the same has been listed before this Division Bench today.

We have perused the file and have heard Mr. Rahul Mehra, Ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Government of NCT of Delhi and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Director General (Prisons).

It has been noticed that for effective implementation of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Petition (Civil) W.P. (C) 3080/2020 Page 1 of 3 No.1/2020-In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons vide its orders dated 23.03.2020 and 13.04.2020, a High Power Committee (HPC) was constituted by High Court of Delhi to decongest the Jails to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Novel Corona Virus) and as per the recommendations of this Committee dated 28.03.2020, 07.04.2020 and 18.04.2020 and on the basis of orders in WP (C) No.2945/2020 titled as "Shobha Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.", 2177 Under Trial Prisoners (UTPs) were released on interim bail for a period of 45 days from the date of their respective release.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

WP(C).8416/19 4

3. The singular contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent had committed a fundamental error in adopting the revised assessed tax of the year 2007-08 as the basis for revising the assessment and refixing the compounded tax liability for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. In support of this contention, attention is drawn to Section 7(b) of the KGST Act and reliance is placed on the decisions in Sicilia Hotel Pvt. Ltd (Supra), and Kalyan Tourist Home v. State of Kerala (2017 (2) KLT 761).

4. Opposing the contentions, the learned Government Pleader would submit that, the power for revising the assessment after payment of compounded tax under Section 7(b) cannot be limited to be based only on the tax payable as conceded in the return or accounts or the turnover tax paid for any of the previous consecutive three years. It is contended that there is no inhibition in Section 7 that revision of assessment cannot be on the basis of assessed tax. It is submitted that this position has been succinctly laid down by the Division Bench in Kalika Hotel and Bar, Amballur(M/s) v. State of Kerala (2012 (3) KHC 85) and The Commercial Tax Officer v. M/s Hotel Breezeland Ltd. (2019 (2) KLT 432).

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.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 22.09.2004, the Excise Party attached to the Thirurangadi Excise Division had found the accused at a place called Nagaram near the Chiramangalam Thirichilangady Road by about 8.30 p.m, carrying a white jerry can having capacity of 25 litres. The accused was accosted and the contents of the jerry can examined, upon which it was found to contain 'wash' used for manufacturing arrack. Thereupon Crl.A.No.1750 of 2007 3 the accused was arrested, 500 ml of wash drawn as sample and the sample bottle sealed. Thereafter, the balance wash in the jerry can was destroyed by pouring it out. On chemical analysis, the sample was found to contain 2.27% by volume of ethyl alcohol.

2. The prosecution allegations, which led to the conviction of the appellant, are as follows:-

On 29.08.2005, PW3; the Sub Inspector of Kanjar Police Station, while on patrol duty, got information that the accused was selling liquor from her house. Thereupon, PW3 proceeded to the spot along with police party, including women police constables. On reaching near the house of Crl.A.No.474 of 2008 3 the accused, the police party found the accused pouring some liquid from a bottle into a glass, adding water to it and handing over the glass to a person who was standing outside the veranda of the house. That person drank the contents of the glass and give it back to the accused along with some money, which she kept inside her purse. By the time, the police party reached the house of the accused, the person who drank from the glass ran away. On examination of the bottle in the possession of the accused, it was found to be a bottle of 1.5 litres capacity containing 1.350 litres of Indian Made Foreign liquor. An amount of Rs.50/- was found inside the purse. From out of the bottle, sample was drawn and sealed. The bottle containing the liquor, the glass, the bottle containing water and the purse containing five ten rupee notes were seized and the accused Crl.A.No.474 of 2008 4 arrested. The sample, when subjected to chemical analysis, was found to contain 42.17% by volume of ethyl alcohol.

The petitioners in the writ petition, W.P (C) No.12189/2007, are the appellants herein, challenging judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The 1 st appellant is the State of Sikkim and the 2nd appellant is the Distributor of the paper lotteries organized by the 1st appellant in the State of Kerala. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short) is under challenge in the writ petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition, the State of Kerala and its officials.

2. Brief history of the impugned legislation may be worthfull to mention. By virtue of the Finance Act, 2001, introduced with effect from 23-07-2001, the State of Kerala has introduced Section 5BA to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('KGST Act' for short) imposing licence fee on the draw of W A No.648/2008 -4- lotteries, in lieu of tax payable under Section 5 (1) of the KGST Act. Validity of Section 5BA was under challenge before this court. In the decision in Commercial Corporation of India Ltd. V. Additional Sales Tax Officer and others (2007 (2) KLT 397) = (2007 (2) KHC 427) this court held that Section 5BA of the KGST Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Eventhough the State of Kerala filed appeal before the Division Bench, it was dismissed by relying on the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunrise Associates V. Govt. of NCT of New Delhi and others (AIR 2006 SC 1908), in which earlier ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Anraj V. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1986 SC 63) was reversed and it was held that no tax can be levied, collected or demanded in connection with sale of lottery tickets. A Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Kerala against the Division Bench decision was also dismissed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in State of Kerala V. Prabhavathy Thankamma and others ((2009) 3 SCC 511).

By around 7:30 PM on 3-8- 2002, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera Police Station (PW1) received secret information that a person by name Anil Kumar (appellant) would be reaching the bus waiting shed situated at Matlayi by around 8:30 PM for the purpose of selling the opium in his possession. Immediately, PW1 recorded the information in the General Diary, intimated his Superior Officer, the Circle Inspector of Police, Nileshwaram and proceeded to the spot. The police party lay in wait near the bus waiting shed and by around 8:45 PM, the appellant reached the spot in an autorikshaw and entered the bus waiting shed. Immediately, the Police party rushed to the waiting shed and on the Crl.A.244/06 3 appellant attempting to flee, apprehended him. PW1 thereupon, asked the appellant whether he required the presence of a Gazetted Officer while his body was searched and on the appellant answering in the negative, his body was searched and a plastic packet recovered from the pocket of his pants. On examination, the packet was found to contain opium, for the possession of which the appellant had no licence. The opium was weighed and found to be 350 gms in weight. Two samples of 25 gms each, were collected from the contraband and were packed and sealed separately. The remaining opium was also packed and sealed in the same manner. Ext.P3 seizure mahazar was prepared and the accused was arrested. Exhibit P4 FIR was registered thereafter. Later, Exhibit P8 chemical analysis report was received finding the sample to be opium.

Income Tax Appeal Nos. 135/2019 & 146/2019 are filed challenging a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA Nos.536/Coch/2018 and 537/Coch/2018, dated 12-03-2019. Income Tax Appeal No.313/2019 is filed against the revised order passed by the same Tribunal ITA No.537/Coch/2018, dated 11-10-2019. The assessee was the appellant before the Tribunal, who is the appellant herein. The revenue is the respondent.

2. Appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in wholesale and retail trade of beaverages within the State of Kerala, and is a 'State Government Undertaking' falling within the 'Explanation' provided under Section 40 (a) (iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). With respect to I.T. Appeal Nos. 135, 146 & 313/2019 -5- the assessment year 2014-2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Thiruvananthapuram finalized the assessment of income tax against the appellant, under Section 143 (3) of the Act, through the order of assessment dated 14- 12-2016. But, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and set aside the order of assessment, on holding that the same is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, to the extent it failed to disallow the debits made in the Profit and Loss Account of the assessee with respect to the amount of surcharge on sales tax and turn over tax paid to the State Government, which ought to have been disallowed under Section 40 (a) (iib) of the Act. Against order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, issued under Section 263 of the Act, dated 25-09-2018, the appellant approached the Tribunal in ITA No.536/Coch/2018.

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

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