Hodgson has reportedly told friends that he does not believe he will be allowed to guide his team from the touchline or even take training sessions, according to The Sun.

Steve Parish has defended attempts to get the season back up and running amid the coronavirus pandemic, stressing not doing so would be a major financial blow to taxpayers and the football community.

Crystal Palace are confident that Roy Hodgson will not be barred from managing on safety grounds amid the coronavirus crisis when the Premier League resumes.

2. The petitioners were appointed as Associate professors in the Department of Surgery of the 2nd respondent. They have completed their Masters degree in their respective subjects and were recruited by the 2nd respondent in the year 2005. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a notification on 10.07.2008 calling for applications for appointment of Associate Professors. The educational qualification for the said post as per notification are as under :

"5. EDUCATION QUALIFICATION :- For the post of Associate Professor :-

1.He/She must possess requisite recognized :4: Post graduate qualification in the respective subject.

2. Respondents No.1 to 4 are the State and the statutory authorities who are empowered to and authorized to sanction layouts including private layouts and vested with the obligation to ensure that the said layouts are formed and administered in accordance with the WP Nos.67289-291 OF 2010 5 applicable laws including the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('KTCP Act' for short), as also Karnataka Urban Development Act.

3. The concerned plots and/or the layout fall within the purview and jurisdiction of Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority ('HDUDA' for short). The said Authority coming within the purview of KTCP Act.

2. Petitioner claims to be appointed as a Lecturer in Urdu in the 8th respondent Institution viz., Nehru Arts, Science and Commerce Degree College, Ghantikeri, on fulltime basis and has been working therein for nearly ten years. The petitioner claims to have passed M.A. in Urdu and has worked as Guest Lecturer for 3 years in P.G.Department of Urdu and Persian, Karnataka University, Dharward; 6 years as an Academic Counsellor in MANUU; and 3 years as a Lecturer in Political Science in Anjuman Women's College, Hubli. He claims that he has been working from the year 1998 with 8th respondent, from the year 1998 till 2002 worked as Part-time Lecturer and from 2002 on fulltime basis.

2. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and formulated following substantial questions of law on 26.02.2020, which reads:

"(i) Whether under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 prior to and from 01.04.2012 appellant would be entitled to seek refund without reference to the limitation? Or

(ii) Whether the time prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be applicable for claiming refund of CENVAT Credit?"

6

CEA No.35/2018 came to be admitted on 23.07.2019 to consider the substantial questions of law indicated thereunder.

2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Vishwajith Rai for Sri. Jayaprakash K.N. for the accused- appellant and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under;

The first informant, Sri. K.Y. Raghavendra Rao is a resident of Vinoba Nagar in Davanagere. He has a daughter and a son. His daughter is a minor. When she 3 was studying in I PUC, accused No.1 used to follow her and tease her. He used to roam in front of her house. She had informed the matter to her parents. In spite of advising the accused, he did not stop following her. The matter was brought to the notice of one Leela Kumaraswamy, working in an NGO. However, accused No.1 did not cooperate when she had called him over phone to enquire about the matter. The accused was threatening the victim girl to listen to his words or to face dire consequences.

2. One Mr.Ganapati had filed a complaint, which was registered by Gokarna P.S. Crime No.27/2010, upon investigation the Investigating Officer of Kumata P.S. had presented a charge sheet on 25.07.2011. Thereafter, the :4: investigation was continued and an additional charge sheet was filed on 28.07.2012 for the aforesaid offences.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 12, who stood trial before JMFC Court had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge in the said proceedings. The application was opposed by the prosecution. The JMFC after hearing both parties by order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the application filed by the accused.

2. It is stated that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 437 of Cr.P.C seeking enlargement of bail before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala. It is further submitted that necessary report was made to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on 07.04.2020 as well as on 13.04.2020 to ensure that the petition be taken up on priority in light of urgency explained and also as it involved liberty of the petitioner and as he had made out a case for being enlarged on bail in the petition filed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

3. It is further submitted that on both occasions, i.e. 07.04.2020 and 13.04.2020, learned District Judge has refused to order that the bail petition be taken up for 3 consideration stating that it is not a case of extreme urgency.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the first informant/Police Officer attached to the respondent-police station along with other officials were on patrolling duty near a ware house situated close to Pratibha School at about 3.00 a.m., on 13.03.2020, they found these petitioners along with four others preparing to commit decoity. The petitioners were apprehended and a case was registered in Crime No.18/2020 of Roza police station for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and 3 they are not involved in any such offence much less the one now alleged against them. He submits that the petitioners are eking out their livelihood by driving the auto and also by doing coolie work. He submits that the petitioners are arrested on 13.03.2020 and since then they are in judicial custody and by imposing any conditions, they may be enlarged on bail.

2. The petitioner is seeking bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.64/2020 of Savanur Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Sections 269, 188, 149, 143, 353, 323 of IPC, pending on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Savanur in PC No.11/2020.

3. The complainant is the Tahsildar, Savanur. It is alleged that when the complainant along with his staff were on rounds within the Savanur Town to confirm and verify the compliance of Government Order of prohibition of public assembly in view of pandemic wreaking havoc, they received an information that some people have 3 gathered to offer Friday prayer at Jamma Masjid situated at Shukravarapete. The complainant along with the PSI and staff went to the spot and enquired the people gathered there and reminded them of the Government Order of prohibition of more than five members assembling at a place. It is alleged that the people gathered there started pushing and obstructing them from discharging their duty.

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

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

2. The petitioner claims to be a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the activity of manufacture of pharmaceutical medicines. The respondents/workmen 12 were working in the establishment of the petitioner- management and they individually filed claim petitions under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Amendment Act, 1988 (Karnataka) contending that they were terminated from service without any valid reasons and sought for reinstatement with backwages and consequential benefits. Labour Court after analyzing the material evidence allowed the claim petitions as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the Management is before this Court.

Justin Gaethje tormented Tony Ferguson at UFC 249 on Saturday.Fighting in front of a reduced UFC production crew and no fans, Gaethje put together the best MMA win of the year so far.Gaethje relied on in-and-out footwork, leg kicks, and striking so accurate and powerful that he brutalized his opponent's thighs and tore his face apart.Gaethje now only has one opponent he wants to wage war against — lightweight champ Khabib Nurmagomedov. "I'm happy to represent the United States of America against Dagestan … Russia's best."Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.Justin Gaethje tortured Tony Ferguson at UFC 249 on Saturday, bringing an abrupt end to one of the most intimidating runs in mixed martial arts.Ferguson had been on a 12-fight winning streak which created one half of a salivating match-up

List again on 17.04.2020.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 18.03.2020 Shivalee SHIVALEE KHAJURIA 2020.03.18 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List again on 11.05.2020.

Meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and till next date before the Bench, respondent No. 5 shall indicate to the petitioner the bid which has been received by respondent No. 5 in respect to the e- auction Notice No. DGM/DMO/Spn/310-18 dated 07.02.2020. It is further provided that in case the petitioner has been found to be eligible in all respects and has given the bid higher then respondent No. 4, in that event, respondents shall not proceed further in the matter.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 18.03.2020 SHIVALEE KHAJURIA 2020.03.18 16:52 Shivalee I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2. The petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of detention on the following grounds:

"a) that no compelling reason or circumstance was disclosed in the order or grounds of detention to take the detenu in preventive detention, moreso in view of the fact that as on the date of passing of the aforesaid order of detention, the detenu was already in custody;

b) that the detenu has not been provided the material forming basis of the detention order, to make an effective representation against his detention order;

Permission is granted and the objections as also the report submitted by Mr T. M. Shamsi, ASGI, is taken on record.

Perusal of the communication supra reveals that the detenue, on reference to Medical Superintendent of AIIMS Hospital on 3rd March, 2020, for medical examination, has been informed about constitution of Medical Board in terms of letter No. M.22- 9/Medical Board/ 2020-ESTT (H) dated 13.03.2020. The Medical Superintendent has, however, reported that at present the general condition and vitals of the inmate are stable and satisfactory. The communication further reveals that the detenue will be sent to the Medical Board as and when called by it.

Let Mr B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, keep the detention records available on the next date of hearing.

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, A.P.P.

---------

04/Dated: 06/05/2020 Heard, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy and learned counsel for the State Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, Additional Public Prosecutor.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he may be permitted to make necessary correction in application regarding the provision of law.

Permission is granted.

Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to make necessary correction within 30 days after the lock down period is over as the country is passing through pandemic disease (COVID-

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated: 06/05/2020

The appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per Act, prayer for bail of the accused is to be considered under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in appeal under Section 14A of the Act.

From perusal of record, it appears that earlier this appellant has moved before this Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 917 of 2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Coordinate Bench of this Court (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) on 16.10.2019. Subsequently, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, which is instituted as Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 147 of 2020 on the ground that the appellant is in custody since his surrender on 20.06.2019 and co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the police during investigation of the case.

2. Kanthi Choudhary ...Opp. Parties CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : - Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.

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

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

Admit.

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2.

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

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

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

Admit.

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the court fee as soon as the judicial work in the High Court gets normal after end of the lockdown prevailing due to Corona (Covid-19) pandemic.

3. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 17.04.2020 issued by the District Certificate Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan (the respondent no.5) whereby the Director of the petitioner-company has been directed to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison for not depositing the certificate amount. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the letter as contained in memo no. 667 dated 16.04.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan (the respondent no. 3) directing the respondent no. 5 to immediately issue warrant of arrest against the Director of the petitioner-company and to take steps for attachment of its property. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the final order if any passed under Section 10 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (in short "the Act, 1914") and to restrain the respondent authorities from taking any precipitate action against the petitioner including suspension of its agreement for milling of rice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of argument has also prayed for an interim protection from any action to be taken by the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned notice dated 17.04.2020.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Umesh Choudhary has been moved by Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will remove the defects when the physical appearance in the High Court will start.

-----

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

-----

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

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

-----

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

-----

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

---------

For the Petitioners : Ms. Shamma Parveen, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.

---------

th 02/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. The petitioners have been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 370/ 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners is present.

3. Learned A.P.P., submits that case diary is required to assist this Court in the matter, hence prays for time to procure the case diary.

4. Heard. On prayer of learned A.P.P, office to list this case on 08.06.2020.

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Birju Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

02/Dated: 07th May, 2020

1. The petitioners have been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 323, 354(A), 354(B), 376, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.PP and on perusal of the deposition of the victim, i.e., P.W. - 1, at Annexure - 2, it appears that during the trial, the victim has deposed that accused Bajrang along with three other accused had caught hold of her and she has identified Bajranj but has not identified the petitioners. In cross- examination she has categorically stated that the petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence.

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

---------

th 05/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the petitioner, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The petitioner/ appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/35, 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No.131 of 2017.

---------

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

---------

th 06/Dated: 07 May, 2020

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

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

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

2. Manoj Mahato @ Manoj Kr. Mahato

3. Mantu Mahato @ Mantu Lal Mahato

4. Kirtichand Mahato @ Kiriti Bhushan Mahato

5. Nem Chand Mahato

6. Gopal Mahato --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

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

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, A.P.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner and his alias name in the body of the petition tallies with his name in the complaint petition, Aadhar Card, impugned order and also in the body of vakalatnama except where petitioner has inscribed his signature. Therefore, the same may be ignored.

In view of the submission made, let the instant defect be ignored. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in present circumstances, undertakes to remove the remaining defect no. 9(ii) and (iii) regarding filing of certain pages within a week. Defect no. 9(v) is ignored as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, last page of the restoration application is not of much relevance. Defect no. 9 (iv) is also ignored.

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

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

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, A.P.P. -----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Md. Shamim @ Sotti in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 499 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 4917 of 2014 registered for the offences under Sections 25(1)(A)(B)(C) of the Arms Act, has been moved by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P. -----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Gulli Mandal @ Gurudeo Mandal in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 08 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, has been moved by Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Karmu Mahato @ Karmu Mahto --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

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

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A.P.P.

----

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

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

---

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

---

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

----

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

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

---------

th 04/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the petitioners, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The petitioners/ appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A), 26(2) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, II, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.361 of 2016.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for PCR Cases), Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Rural, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Third Additional District Judge (Special Court for PCR Cases), Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur Range, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Allanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Additional Sessions Judge for PCR Cases, Thirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikundam Circle, Thoothukudi District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5122 of 2020

3.The Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagiri Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML 2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5102 of 2020 To

1.The District Sessions Judge (Special Judge for P.C.R. Cases), Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Principal Sessions Judge -cum- PCR Court, Pudukkottai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5135 of 2020

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellanoor Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Third Additional District Judge / PCR Court, Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, Melur, Madurai District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5163 of 2020

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

2.Since the petitioner, who is the retired employee of the Transport Corporation, claims to have not been paid with the surrender leave salary of 24.5 days for the period from 2011 to 2019, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for direction in that regard.

3.The petitioner would submit that he has already made a representation dated 03.03.2020 in this regard, which is said to be pending. If the said representation is directed to be disposed of within stipulated time, the ends of justice could be secured.

2. The petitioners herein are the agent of M/s.Cochin Air Cargo Customs Clearing Agent (Shipping clearing and Freight Forwarding Agent) is licensed Customs Brokerage Company Lic No.1/2012, having office near at International Airport, Shanmugam, Trivandram, Kerala.

3. During the course of the business, the petitioners' concern got an order for shipment of “Air inlet automobile spare parts” from a new customer named 'Swiss Global' having office at New Delhi and after receiving KYC form, GST No., certificate of import export code, proprietor PAN and Aadhar card, accepted the shipment through Tiruchirappalli Airport. After getting shipment bills number from the exporter, the petitioners received the goods at Trichy Airport and the same has been sent for customs clearance on 09.06.2019. but, the second respondent did not give customs clearance due to non availability of E-way bill. After getting E-way bill from the exporter, the petitioners sent the same to the second respondent. But the second respondent detained the goods on 10.06.2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.The case was registered against the appellant for the offences under Section 294(b) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, 1989 in Crime No. 49 of 2015. After filing of charge sheet, the case has been numbered as Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Sessions Judge(Full Additional Charge), Sivagangai. After framing of charges, trial commenced and during the pendency of the trial, the appellant did not appear before the trial court and due to non appearance of the appellant Non Bailable Warrant was issued on 18.04.2018 and the appellant was remanded on 21.09.2019. It is stated that except the Investigation Officer, all the witnesses were examined.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.The case was registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 342, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989 in Crime No. 74 of 2012. After filing of charge sheet, the case has been numbered as Spl.S.C.No.61 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Sessions Judge(Full Additional Charge), Sivagangai. After framing of charges, trial commenced and during the pendency of the trial, the appellant did not appear before the trial court and due to non appearance of the appellant Non Bailable Warrant was issued on 04.03.2019 and the appellant surrendered before the trial court on 12.03.2020 and filed recall 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.153 of 2020 petition and the same was dismissed the appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 12.03.2020.

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

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