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

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

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

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

1. Leave granted.

2. The moot question in this appeal emanating from the judgment and order dated 19.11.2018 in Writ Petition No. 39418/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh1 is: whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:16 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation?

1. This contempt petition has been filed by the original plaintiff (in CS(OS) No. 2041/2013 filed in High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1), under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 2 and read with Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 3 in reference to the order dated 22.2.2019 passed by this Court in SLP(C) Nos. 5147/2019 Signature Not Verified and 5350/2019, which reads thus: ­ Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:17 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 For short, “the 1971 Act” 3 For short, “the 1975 Rules” 2 “We are not inclined to interfere with the Special Leave Petition.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 29.8.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 1 in Second Appeal No. 771/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2015 passed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri 2 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34/2011 came to be affirmed, as a result of which the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 19 (original plaintiffs) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:13 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 For short, “the first appellate Court” 2 Ratnagiri3 being RCS No. 25/2005 for permanent injunction against the appellant and respondent No. 20 (State of Maharashtra), restraining them from starting the Solid Waste Disposal Project4 at the suit property, has been decreed. In other words, the trial Court had dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court allowed (decreed) the same, which decision has been upheld by the High Court in the Second Appeal.

Registry shall obtain scanned/Photostat copies of the records of G.R. Case No. 2581/2019 pertaining to Dergaon P.S. Case No. 843/2019 from the Court the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

1. The applicant, namely, Jeherul Islam has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection with Kalgachia P.S. Case No.812/2019, under Section 366(A) IPC.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

Page No.# 2/2

4. I have taken into account the accusations made by the informant who is the father of the victim. It has been alleged that on 23.10.2019 at about 6.15 PM, the applicant along with his associates came in a Maruti car, entered the house, asked the victim to serve water and in the meantime forcefully caught hold of her from the back, gagged her mouth and dragged her to the vehicle. Being helpless, she raised an alarm. Neighbours came there. On seeing that the neighbours had come, the accused fled.

1. The present petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. It is pertinent to mention that present public interest litigation has been filed with the following prayers:-

W.P. (C) 3050/2020 Page 1 of 5

a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to make provisions for the payment of salaries to the Health Workers in time. and

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to make provisions for the payment „risk and hardship‟ allowance, incentives in form of bonus, additional salary to the Health Workers who are presently serving on the frontline in view of the present lock down situation due to the COVID 19 situation in the country;

2. Summons in the present suit were issued on 24th October 2014 and vide order dated 3rd April 2018, following issues weresettled: -

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a money decree against the defendant, if so for what amount? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP iii. Relief.

3. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that he is a duly registered Class- I contractor, under the name Bharat Construction Company, a CS(COMM) 719/2017 Page 1 of 18 proprietorship firm with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The plaintiff was awarded construction work of outfall drain from A-74, Phase-I, Naraina Industrial Area to DTC Nallah at Loha Mandi Naraina in Karol Bagh Zone vide work order No. EE-Project Karol Bagh/SYS/2011- 2012/14 dated 10th February 2012. The contractual amount of the work was Rs. 4,05,26,960 and the time for completion was of 6 months.

CM(M) 769/2018 with CM APPL. 27219/2018

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 18.04.2018 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner that the petition filed by the Respondent under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Arbitration Act) impugning award dated 14.07.2016 was liable to be dismissed because Respondent had not deposited 75% of the awarded amount as stipulated in Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium CM(M) 769/2018 Page 1 of 16 Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the MSMED Act).

2. Respondents had issued a Tender Enquiry for procuring Cover Water Proof 9.1 M x 9.1 M. The bid of the Petitioner was accepted by the Respondents and contract dated 05.04.2005 was entered between the parties.

For respondents : Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocates in their respective petitions. Law laid down Significant Para Nos. Reserved on : 26.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R)

This batch of petitions is involving the similar question and issue, therefore, are being decided concomitantly.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of W.P. No.20394/2012 are being taken-up.

-6-

W.P. No. 20394/2012 & connected petitions

For Respondent/University: Shri Samresh Katare, Advocate.

Law laid down Significant Para Nos.

Reserved on : 12.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R) Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, therefore, they are heard finally. For the purpose of convenience, facts of W.P. No.1157/2019 are being taken- 2

W. P. No. 1157/ 2019 & W. P. No. 1011/2019 up.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPL PP For the Informant : Mr. Indrajit Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared.

... ... Appellant Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education, New Secretariat, Patna.

4. The Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

6. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with crime No.16/2020 registered at Police Station Mohgaona, distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 6.5 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in detention since 13.4.2020 He further submits that applicants 2 have no criminal background and have been falsely implicated in the case, and therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Heard on IA No.01/2020 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 456, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and RI for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations. Against the order of the trial Court the applicant has preferred an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara. The appellate Court vide its order dated 03.3.2020 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.189/2020 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 10 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 17.4.2020 He further submits that applicant has no criminal background and has been falsely implicated in the case, and therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.32/2020 registered at Police Station Sariya, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 10 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 19.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.38/2020 registered at Police Station Sariya, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 40 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 22.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.85/2020 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 12 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 26.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.69/2020 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 13 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 17.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 24 th of June, 2009 passed by Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ ST Act, 1989), Korea (C.G.), in Special Case No. 02/2006 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for charge under Sections 450 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations.

2. In the present case, prosecutrix is (PW-1). As per version of the prosecution on 7th of May, 2005 at about 5.00 pm in the evening while the prosecutrix was alone in the house. The appellant/accused entered in the house of the prosecutrix and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter run away. Matter was reported, investigated the appellant was charge-sheeted and convicted as mentioned above. 2

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 27.5.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar at Jagdalpur/ Special Judge under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act 2012'), in Special Session Trial No.02/2017 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Act 2012 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine 2 of Rs.1000/- and RI for 07 years and to pay fine of 1000/- respectively with default stipulation.

2. As per the version of the prosecution, the date of incident is 16.01.2017. Prosecutrix is PW-6 who is aged about 04 years. Said prosecutrix complained of pain to her mother on which her mother examined her private parts and found redness and swelling. On enquiry the prosecutrix intimated her mother that the appellant after putting soap inserted his finger in her private part. The matter was reported and investigated. The appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 21.12.2000 passed by the court of Special Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Case No. 05/1997, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act, 1955) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with further default stipulations.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment

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

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 25 th of February, 2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Special Case No.12/2015 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for charge under Sections 363, 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 200/-, R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 200/-, R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 15.02.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (CG) in Special Session Trial No.02/2016 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act 2012') and under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.8000/- and RI for 2 02 years and to pay fine of 2000/- respectively with default stipulation.

2. In the present case prosecutrix is PW-5. As per the version of the prosecution, the prosecutrix is minor and the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. Again the appellant threatened the prosecutrix and her parents to kill. The matter was reported, investigated and the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act 1985'), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 240/2014, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulations.

2

2. As per case of the prosecution, on 12.01.2014, Police Officer- Shankar Chandrakar, In-charge of Government Railway Police, Raipur received information that two persons carrying contraband article ganja are traveling in train Ahmedabad Express. On the basis of said information, the Police Officer with other staff reached to the spot and recovered ganja to the tune of 38 Kg. from the appellant. After complying with all the legal formalities, the matter was investigated, appellant was charge- sheeted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted as mentioned above.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara Distt. Durg in Session Trial No.14/2010 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2

2. In the present case, name of the victim is Ramji Yadav. As per the version of the prosecution, on 31.12.2009 at about 9.00 pm when victim Ramji Yadav along with other persons doing the work of decorating the road by writing "Happy New Year" for celebrating new year, the appellant came there and used filthy words and asked what he is writing. Quarrel took place between the appellant and the victim and the appellant hit the victim on his stomach by knife resulting which he fell down. The victim was admitted to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai. The matter was reported and the appellant was charge sheeted. After completion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 05.02.2015 passed by Special Judge [under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985")], Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special NDPS Case No. 126/2014, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- with further default stipulations for having possession of contraband article ganja to the tune of 10 kg. on 27.03.2014 at 10:50 p.m. at railway platform No. 1 of Railway Station Bilaspur (C.G.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 03.01.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 17/2015, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 307 & 323 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- & R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with further default stipulations.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 11.02.2011 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Durg (C.G.) in NDPS Special Case No. 03/2006, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with further default stipulations for having possession of contraband article ganja to the tune of 8 kg. on 27.01.2006 at 20:30 O'clock at Bus Stand- Dondi Lohara.

For State/respondent : Mrs. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 11.12.2012 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) & First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 01/2007, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 5000/- & R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively with further default stipulations.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata seeking information on two points pertaining to his representation dated 31.05.2018, including,

a) Whether his aforesaid representation dated 31.05.2018 addressed to Sr. DOM/SDAH has been considered or disposed of, and

b) If disposed of, please serve a copy of the same at the earliest.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.07.2018. The first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that no information has been furnished by the respondent and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the CPIO and the FAA.

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking information on seven points regarding reduction of pension of the Pensioner Shri Ganesh Chandra Mishra with PPO No. 02101265992 including,

a) Reason for 75% reduction of Pension,

b) Whether any inquiry was held against the Pensioner due to which pension was reduced,

c) Copy of Notice issued to the pensioner informing him that he is subject to an inquiry,

d) Receipt of confirmation showing Notice received by the Pensioner,

e) Transcript of the inquiry and report of inquiry, if any, held against the pensioner,

James Maddison put his untamed lockdown hairstyle on display as he thanked Leicester fans on Instagram after winning the ePremier League invitational on Saturday. 

Disney keeps remaking its animated classics because they're a proven box-office success.Insider spoke with three former Disney animators who worked on "Beauty and the Beast," "Hercules," "The Lion King," and "Mulan" who shared their thoughts on the adaptations. They were surprised so many of the films they worked on are getting remade, especially the more recent ones from the '90s.None of them were fans of "The Lion King," criticizing the film's lack of emoting and how closely it adhered to the original."I think it's all about the money and growing the company and making the investors and stockholders happy," "Mulan" co-director Tony Bancroft told Insider. Insider also spoke with producers and VFX artists on "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" who pushed back on claims the remakes are simply cash-grabs.If

Disney's live-action "Mulan" is scheduled for release on July 24 after being delayed several months.Insider caught up with Tony Bancroft, codirector of 1998's animated "Mulan," at the film's world premiere at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, California in March.Bancroft told Insider he "enjoyed it far more" than he expected and praised director Niki Caro on a job well done."This, to me, is what all these Disney remakes should be," said Bancroft of the film being reminiscent of the original, but being original enough to stand on its own.Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.Early social reactions for Disney's upcoming live-action "Mulan" have been extremely positive. The new film also has the backing of one of the codirectors of the original 1998 animated movie."I really enjoyed it far

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:40 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:51 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

It is to be noted that earlier petitioner has also filed a writ petition being WP 5064 (W) of 2020 challenging the transfer.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not join the new college due to several reasons including his ill-health. He further submits that his salary has been stopped and he has not received the salary from the month of March 2020 onwards.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, has defended the action of the university and submitted that the university had no intention to stop payment of the petitioner's salary. The same, according to him, has taken place due to the petitioner not having joined his new post even though the transfer order was issued on March 3, 2020.

04. 2020 b.

CRM No. 3356 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kushmandi Police Station Case No. 25 of 2020 dated 05.03.2020 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 305/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In the matter of : Jahirdur Islam @ Jahedur & Anr.

... Petitioners Ms. Jeenia Rudra .. for the petitioners Mr. Swapan Banerjee ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

Vs.

Kalyan Kishore Pradhan and Ors. Mr. Sakti Pada Jana ..for the Applicants Let the matter appear a fortnight hence whenever the court convenes.

The State should show cause why the State should not be directed to pay the writ petitioner's salary till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the writ petitioner undertaking to refund the same in the event the appeal succeeds.

Advocate for the writ petitioner should communicate this direction to Advocate appearing for the State and the relevant authorities well in advance of the next date of hearing.

The presenter, 49, moaned she was struggling to applaud for the acts after putting on a flirty display earlier in the show with the singing duo Soldiers Who Swing.

On this wonderful all-inclusive river cruise you'll sail along the mighty Danube amid stunning scenery through four countries - Germany, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary.

The singer, 22, looked in high spirits as she attended the Made In America festival in Philadelphia on Saturday.

The English singer, 24, took to the stage for a rousing performance with her loved ones watching on, including her model boyfriend Anwar Hadid, 20.

Tim Walsh, 51, is feared to have lain dead at his Cheshire home for up to seven days before he was found by worried work colleagues when he failed to turn up for a shift on August 19 last year.