On instructions, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no such criminal case has been filed against the petitioner in Jalukbari Police Station and as such, prays for withdrawal of this pre-arrest bail application with liberty to file afresh as and when any cause of action arises.

Prayer is allowed.

Liberty as prayed for so granted.

Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed as not pressed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

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

7) Munnaf Ali, have sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Chhaygaon PS Case No. 207/2020, corresponding to GR Case No. 369 (K)/2020, under Sections 143/147/148/447/325/302 IPC.

Heard Mr B Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr N Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

Also perused the record and the Case Diary produced.

It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr Kalita that so far as the accused Page No.# 3/3 petitioners, namely, 1) Imdadul Hoque and 2) Bilat Ali are concerned, their sufficient implication have been given by the eyewitnesses, regarding the commission of the offence.

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 Page No.# 2/3 Presiding Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant did not appear on 14.03.2020, 16.03.2020 and today again. This application has been pending since 02.03.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been appearing consistently. I find no justifiable reason to adjourn the matter for any longer period. In any case the application is being disposed of considering the statutory provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act.

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;

1. By way of thisjudgement, weshall dispose of the above-noted appeals preferred against the common order dated 19.03.2018, whereby Appellant's (VIPL) objection petitionsunder Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter 'the Act')have been rejected, and common arbitral award dated 20.05.2017 stands confirmed.This impugned arbitralaward deals with two separate claim petitions preferred by the Appellant relating to respective Space Buyer Agreements(hereinafter 'arbitration agreements')concerning separate portions of same property. Since the objection petitions have been disposed of vide a common judgment, wealso consider it convenient to dispose of theappeals vide a common judgement.

CM.APPL.10636/2020 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3055/2020 & CM APPL.10635/2020 (for interim relief)

1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the disciplinary proceedings, pending against him for over 7 years as on date, on, inter alia, the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated against him on the same charge. It is W.P. (C) No.3055/2020 Page 1 of 4 pointed out that, on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner's request for being permitted to voluntarily retire from service, was also been rejected vide communication dated 12th December, 2019.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to impugn the show cause notice dated 15.09.2014, the demolition order dated 29.04.2015, the order of the ATMCD dated 10.08.2016 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.08.2018.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing No. 8770/14B, Shidi Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi (measuring 85 sq. yards) was purchased by Late Sh.Prem Nath Shrama, husband of the petitioner on 20.09.1982. Prior to the said property, he had also purchased the adjacent property bearing No. 8771/14 B (measuring 160 sq. yards) on 28.10.1972. Sh. Prem Nath Sharma died on 11.05.1996. Pursuant to a Will, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the two properties.

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.

CS(COMM) 336/2019 Page 1 of 21

2. Case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the plaintiff is dealing in the medicinal and pharmaceutical product under the mark AMADAY which is used for treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease and the defendant is selling its drug under the name ANADAY which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark and amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's rights in its trademark; even though the drug produced and sold by the defendant under the trademark ANADAY is used for treatment of breast cancer.

3. As per the plaintiff, plaintiff first obtained the title in the trademark AMADAY by its first application bearing No. 747783 on 10th July, 1997 and thereafter started using the said trademark AMADAY from 2001. On 4th February, 2008 defendant filed its application bearing No. 1649587 for the impugned mark ANADAY which was duly opposed by the plaintiff and the defendant did not pursue the said application and vide order dated 15 th March, 2016 of the Trade Mark Registry, the same was declared abandoned. On 8th October, 2016 defendant filed another trademark application for registration of the trademark ANADAY vide application No. 3384539 in Class 5 which is currently pending. In the third week of June, 2019 the representative of the plaintiff came across defendant's medicinal preparation AMADAY at Delhi, and hence the suit.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 5 th November, 2016, defendant No. 1 went to her parents' place along with her belongings and valuables and despite the best efforts of the plaintiff and her husband to try to settle the disputes between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to save their marriage, due to adamant behaviour of defendant No. 1, no result was forthcoming. Defendant No. 2 thus filed the divorce petition on the ground of fraud and cruelty against defendant No. 1 which proceedings are pending before the Family Courts, Rohini. Since defendant No. 2 is also not residing in the suit property and has filed the divorce petition, defendant No. 1 has no right to come to the suit property. The suit premises is neither the matrimonial home of the defendant No. 1 nor a shared household.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking immediate relief for the Rohingya families living in three different settlements in Delhi (i.e. Khajuri Khas, Shram Vihar and Madanpur Khadar) on the ground that they have been denied relief under the various relief packages announced by the Government of Delhi to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

W.P.(C) 3063/2020 Page 1 of 3

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that despite order dated 11th May, 2018 passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 859/2013, the respondent has failed to provide basic amenities such as safe drinking water, sanitation, medical aid and education for their children. The relevant portion of the order dated 11th May, 2018 passed in W.P.(C) 859/2013 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

C.R.P. 57/2019 & CM APPL.9037/2019 (for interim relief), CM APPL.9038/2019 (for calling Trial Court record)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.01.2019 whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application under Order 23 Rule 1(1) and 1(3) Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) filed by the Respondent and C.R.P. No. 57/2019 Page 1 of 9 permitted the Respondent to withdraw the Suit with liberty to file a fresh Suit for damages.

2. A License Agreement was entered into between the parties on 19.09.2015, whereby Petitioner had agreed to license part of its premises in commercial complex known as "Worldmark 1" located at Asset Area 11, situated at Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. The license was entered into for a period of 15 years for the purposes of running of multi-tenanted Food & Beverage concepts under the brand and style of Epicuria.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal appeal under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assails the judgment of the trial Court dated 13/03/2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby applicant has been convicted under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC to undergo six months and three months alongwith fine of Rs. 500/-, 00/- respectively with default stipulation.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R-1601-2020 (LALARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Also heard on I.A. No.2869/2020, an application under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the said liberty of bail. Hearing of this revision will take sometime, and therefore, the suspension of the jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail by way of suspension of sentence.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situations due to the outbreak of Novel Corona Virus COVID-19 and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application is being heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented through their respective counsels through VC and therefore, norms of social distancing/physical distancing were followed in letter and spirit.

Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter would be referred as "the Act") against the order dated 16.3.2020 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Gwalior whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail has been rejected. Appellant is in custody since 7.3.2020 in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2020 registered at Police Station Hastinapur district Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 34 of IPC and 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocities Act.

The petition is being filed by the petitioner and challenge is being made to the order dated 04.03.2020, whereby the petitioner is directed to retire on completion of 62 years of age. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Physical Instructor and is equivalent to Teacher as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma, in W.A.No.613/2016. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the Clause F of Regulation 8 of Ministry of Human Resources and Development Department as under :-

"(f) Age of Superannuation :- (i) In order to meet the situation arising out of

shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teacher in Central Education Institution has already 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.7385/2020 (Gopal Prasad Shivhare Vs. Union of India & Others) been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No. F.No.1- 19/2006-U.II dated 23.03.2007, for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education D.O. Letter No.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30-03-2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of vice- Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central Universities).

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. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bihariganj PS Case No. 294 of 2019 dated 01.09.2019 instituted under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act.

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

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.

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

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

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.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 06.4.2010 passed by Sessions Judge Raipur in Session Trial No.161/2008 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Kalu @ Tarun Bagh. As per the version of the prosecution, on 11.6.2008 at 2 noon, the appellant and the deceased were drinking liquor in the house of the appellant. During the course of drinking, a dispute arose regarding daughter of the appellant namely Suman. On this dispute, the appellant and other persons assaulted the deceased and the appellant sat on the chest of the deceased and pressed his neck due to which the deceased become unconscious. He was taken to hospital but succumbed to the injuries. The matter was reported, investigated and the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

Elon Musk says Tesla may leave its Palo Alto headquarters and Fremont, California factory. In a tweet Saturday morning, the chief executive continued his outrage against shelter-in-place orders that have forced most non-essential businesses to close. Last week, Musk likened the rules to fascism, and urged leaders to "give people their goddamn freedom back." Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.After a week of decrying coronavirus shelter-in-place orders that have left Tesla's main factory shuttered and unable to produce vehicles, Elon Musk says the company may move its factory out of the state."Tesla is filing a lawsuit against Alameda County immediately," the chief executive said on Twitter Saturday morning. "The unelected & ignorant 'Interim Health Officer' of Alameda is acting

1. "Whether Mr. Maghesh Kumar Singh was posted by NTPC Ltd to Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd at Corporate office, Allahabad and site office Meja.

2. Whether he suffered a finger crush injury on 26-10-2013 while living in Meja Srijan Vihar Township. If yes, name of the hospital he was admitted to and surgery performed may be furnished.

3. Whether he filed a personal accident claim form in this regard. If yes; the amount for which it was sanctioned and the payment transaction details may kindly be furnished.

Page 1 of 8

4. If the above mentioned claim remains pending since 2013, reason for the same may be intimated. If any official found negligent, the action taken against him may also be intimated."

1. "The attested copy of the very basis of the seniority list of 594 contractor's workers at BTPS as was published on notice board, the Appendix 'D' of Letter no. BT/DGM(Admn)/2/I-842 dt. 22-05-1998.

2. If there is no basis of preparing the aforesaid seniority list, then why the names of other persons were enlisted in the Appendix 'D' of the aforesaid letter."

2. The CPIO responded on 01-03-2018 & 16-05-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 12-03-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 19-04-2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2018, which was decided by the FAA's order dated 30.11.2018, upholding the PIO's reply. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 98xxxxxx90 and submitted that he had sought the information even through the direct official channel. He claims that he had met the DG twice and had been assured by the DG that information regarding marks will be provided but later the respondent denied information without assigning any reason.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.05.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.06.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 89xxxxx145 and reiterated facts of his case. He has sought the information since he wants to join the service and wants to ensure whether the quota-wise benefit was granted. Decision:

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 09.05.2019, upholding the PIO's reply.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone number: 87xxxxxx25 and submitted that her husband passed away in 1997. Since her son was only few months old at the time of her husband's death, compassionate appointment was sought only when he attained 18 years. But respondent denied the benefit of compassionate appointment since the appellant had approached the respondent after a gap of 20 years. Since the appellant claims she is not in receipt of the proper pension amount and the benefit of compassionate appointment has also been denied by the respondent, the family is facing a financial crisis. Hence, she sought the aforementioned information by filing the instant case. Decision:

1. Category-wise cut-off marks of the result declared on 16.04.2019;

2. Marks obtained by the appellant in written examination and candidates with what score have been selected from Rajasthan OBC quota;

3. On what basis will be candidates selected from among the 447 candidates finalized for medical examination.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 12.06.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.07.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 06.09.2019, upholding the stance taken by the PIO and observing that the information could not be provided under the RTI Act since it did not fulfill the criteria of either human rights violation or of corruption as provided in the Section 24 of the RTI Act.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference. The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 99xxxxxx54 and reiterated the facts of his case and stated that he was working with CISF earlier and is currently with IB. Appellant stated during the course of hearing that he had posed similar queries before the MHA through a separate RTI application, which has been replied and he has received the requisite information. Having thus received the desired information, he does not wish to pursue the instant case.

1. I want to know its next process & medical test date.

2. When will be its medical test

3. I am eagerly waiting its medial test dates many times I tried to know its previous recruitment centre but they have no information, about it please inform me medical test date He summarised his queries as:

(1) What is the reason of being so late in the process of recruitment. (2) I want to know the status of recruitment whether it will be completed or not.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of any information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 08.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 14.05.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of the documents of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) associated with the files related to the appointment of various Attorney Generals of India since 01.01.2010.

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.10.2018 stated that the Appeal had been examined and it was found that the CPIO on 11.09.2018 had sought certain clarifications from the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant was advised to clarify the same to the CPIO to enable him to provide the available information.

Page 1 of 5 RTI - 2 File No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2018/163414-BJ [ Date of RTI application 12.08.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 11.09.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 09.10.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.10.2018 FACTS:

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

Case RTI PIO First First 2nd Nos. application replied on Appeal Appellate Appeal/complaint filed on filed on Order on received on 644389 11.05.2019 16.05.2019 23.05.2019 10.06.2019 01.07.2019 635814 21.09.2018 08.10.2018 15.10.2018 01.11.2018 21.11.2018 627430 08.07.2018 17.07.2018 28.05.2018 31.07.2018 01.08.2018 CIC/CISFO/A/2019/644389

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 11.05.2019 seeking information through five points pertaining to an incident that took place on 19.04.2014 at around 2330 hrs wherein a truck bearing registration no. WB37 8459 loaded with TMT iron rods was apprehended by the Local Police near CISF Unit NTPC Barh. Subsequently, an inquiry was ordered by the Central Vigilance Page 1 of 8 Commission vide its OM dated January 2015. Since the matter pertains to alleged corruption by CISF officers, the following information was sought:

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and,

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2007 to 2015.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 27.04.2020, provided requisite information to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. 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 of non-receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO, Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2006 to 2015.

2. The CPIO did not provide requisite information within stipulated period to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. The first appeal was also 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 of non- receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Dhanbad seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia;

a) Whether rules or instructions issued by Director General, Railway Board in East Central Railway, Dhanbad are valid or not,

b) Whether or not the rules/instructions as per the RBI No. 61/2015, letter no. E(N-G)1-2015/R E-3/2 dated 12.06.2015, is valid in the matter of re-absorption of the medically unfit RPF/RPSF employees into an alternate position? Provide a certified copy of the said rule,

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on three points, including, "(a) What action has been taken on the appellant's application regarding making adjustments to the alternative post in Samastipur division (East Central Railway),

(b) What action was taken by the Screening Committee on the appellant's application, which was received by Electronic Grievance Redressal Arrangement (EGRS) vide no. 24652 on 05.12.2017, regarding the adjustment of the optional post, and

(c) To provide certified copies of all the documents along with the complete file in the name of the appellant, available with the Screening Commissioner, including the written application accepted by the appellant for the clerical post."

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on six points pertaining to technician post, including, inter-alia;

a) Is the proof of validation issued in the railway hospital by the screening committee on the optional post after medical distortion valid,

b) What is the medical category for the post of Technician Grade-III,

c) Does the post of technician grade-III fall in the category of sedentary job. And other related information.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 09.05.2018, provided point wise information to the appellant. Being dissatisfied by the information provided on point nos. 3 and 6, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.05.2018. FAA, vide order dated 15.06.2018, upheld the CPIO's reply. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on similar grounds and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no notice for arrest as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat in the order dated 12.04.2020, (Annexure P-1) has been received, he be permitted to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to approach the Court again, in case, needs so arises.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid with the clarification that the petitioner will be bound to file notarized affidavit, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:48:29 ::: CRM-M-12079 of 2020 Vakalatnama and deposit the requisite Court fee within a period of 10 days after the lockdown is over.

The petitioner has already made representation against the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) to the Vice Chancellor, Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University, Gurugram. The worthy Vice Chancellor is directed to decide the representation within a period of two weeks from today, strictly as per the University Statues & Ordinance as well as on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:40:51 ::: CWP-7284-2020 -2- complainants.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:40:51 :::

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner. It has been further contended that an inquiry was conducted by the DSP (Major Crime) Moga (Annexure P2) subsequent to the registration of FIR which found the petitioner and his sons innocent as they were not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence which lends credence to the factum of petitioner having been falsely implicated in the instant case. It has been thus prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail as he has been behind bars since 01.03.2020 coupled with the fact that the injury allegedly attributed to the petitioner was found to be blunt in nature.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the allegations in the FIR, the police party headed by ASI Baldev Raj, who is also the complainant in the case noticed that a motorcycle was coming and on seeing the police party, the driver of the motorcycle became perplexed and the person who was sitting on the pillion rider seat has thrown a black polythene bag on the road and the Heroin spread over the metaled road. Thereafter, the said ASI collected the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:00:35 ::: CRM-M No.12060 of 2020 (O&M) 2 Heroin and put the same in a polythene bag and on weighing it came to 20 gms. It is further stated in the FIR that the driver of the motorcycle informed his name as Arjun i.e. the petitioner whereas the person who was on the pillion rider told his name as Sandeep @ Zora.

Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per the allegations in the FIR, the co-accused of the petitioners namely Binder Singh has caused the injury on the head of the complainant and he already stands arrested, however, he has been granted the concession of the regular bail by the trial Court. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are attributed injuries on the non-vital part of the complainant and it will be a debatable issue to be decided during the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:56:16 ::: CRM-M No.12049 of 2020 (O&M) 2 course of trial, whether Sections 332 and 334 IPC are made out or not.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia submitted that the petitioner, who is a lady has been behind bars for almost 05 months. Further, a perusal of the FIR in question clearly reveals that no specific allegations have been levelled against her. It is thus very evident that she has been arrayed as an accused only because she happened to be the wife of the main accused - Navjot Singh. It has been further contended that she is confined in the Central Jail, Patiala, where one COVID-19 positive case too has been found. Hence, she be granted the concession of regular bail due to the prevailing outbreak of COVID-19 and also because the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.

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

(ii) The applicants to deposit the fine amount in the trial Court within eight weeks from today;

SQ Pathan 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 06:03:59 ::: LD.VC.OCR.25.20.doc (iii) The applicants shall report to the trial Court once in six

months, till the aforesaid appeal is finally heard and decided. 6 The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. 7 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed by the Senior Private Secretary.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called;

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

SQ Pathan 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 06:03:51 ::: Apeal.196.20.doc 8 Stand over to 3rd July 2020. 9 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed