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

2. The subscriber reports furnished by the petitioner since the introduction. of new regime from 01.02.2019 as per new Regulations and Tariff Order of 2017 were not in accordance with the legal requirement. In the notice, the respondent had alleged under-reporting of subscribers in respect of its channels and later also alleged that petitioner was redistributing Zee Bangla channel in unencrypted mode. As the earlier orders would disclose, technical audit held under the orders of this Tribunal was not a smooth affair. The audit report of KPMG is on record. The parties have filed their response to the audit report. Some of the initial difficulties in the audit and reasons for delay of several months will appear from orders passed on 23.07.2019 and also some of the subsequent orders. The initial shortcomings in the petitioner's system are clear not only from the facts available on record and in the order sheets but also from reports of technical audit of petitioner's system prepared 'at the instance of some other broadcasters. As an interim measure, provisional bills were directed to be raised by the respondent on the basis of subscriber reports of the petitioner but it has been made clear that this arrangement shall not prejudice the claim of the respondent for a higher amount, if justified.

2. The other appeal (No.7of 2013) has been preferred by Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA) which has challenged the legality etc. of a subsequent Order No.30/2012-13 dated 28.12.2012 issued by AERA in exercise of powers under Section 13(1)(b) of the AERA Act read with Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act 1994(AAI Act) to re-determine the amount of DF at IGI Airport, New 4 Delhi. By this order AERA reviewed the earlier DF Order dated 14.11.2011 in a small measure, reduced the rate of DF w.e.f. 01.01.2013 and extended the levy period upto April, 2016 subject to further review. The FIA, it appears, had challenged the earlier DF order dated 14.11.2011 also. Its stand is that levy of DF to bridge the funding gap for IGI Airport is contrary to law and the relevant agreements which cast a duty upon DIAL to arrange for funds for development of the Airport. It is also pleaded that the project cost has been blown-up beyond realistic proportions and AERA has failed to exercise the required level of scrutiny which would have kept the final project cost at a reasonable and permissible level.

2. It may be useful to note that the facts relevant for the main issue of law indicated above are not in dispute and hence do not require detailed narration. For the sake of convenience, facts will be referred to from the records of T.P. No.77/2019 which has been heard as the lead matter, unless indicated otherwise.

3|Page

3. The two respondents, Tata Communications Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd. are owners / operators of certain facilities which have been described as Cable Landing Operations. For these facilities they are entitled to levy three distinct charges i.e. (i) Access Facilitation Charges (AFC), (ii) Co-Location Charges(CLC) and (iii) Operation and Maintenance Charges (OMC). Prior to 07.06.2007, the charges were based purely on contract between the parties. In 2007, TRAI issued the "International Telecommunication Access to Essential Facilities at Cable Landing Stations Regulations 2007" (2007 Regulations). This introduced the requirement of framing of Cable Landing Stations - Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) to be calculated on cost based method. Such RIOs for all the three charges were required to be submitted to TRAI, the Regulator for approval. This light- touch regulation was operational till the 2007 Regulations were amended by Amendment Regulation, 2012 dated 19.10.2012. This amendment enabled TRAI to fix and specify the highest charges which could be realizable as per agreement between the parties. On 21.12.2012, TRAI fixed all the three charges vide notification which brought into effect the "International Telecommunication Landing Station Access Facilities Charges and Co-Location Charges Regulations 2012. The said Regulations (No.27 of 2012) contained 3 schedules of charges made effective from 01.01.2013.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.Vishwanathan and learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant, Bharti Airtel, Mr.Gopal Jain through video-conferencing.

3. The applicant seeks a direction upon Bharti Airtel not to encash the Bank Guarantee (BG) to which it has become entitled vide judgment of this Tribunal dated 16.04.2020 whereby applicant's petition bearing T.P. No.77/2019 has been dismissed on merits. In the last paragraph of that judgment notice has been taken of an order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 14.11.2019 and in view of the said consent order this Tribunal has directed that the BG submitted to the Tribunal stands invoked for immediate payment to the non-applicant. The prayer in the MA is solely on the ground that moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal is likely to take some time because of the prevailing pandemic COVID-19.

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

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

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

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

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

Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv.

Dated: 30th September , 2014 Delivered in open court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh, Judicial Member

1. Admit.

2. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that the matter raised in this application has already been covered by the decision of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 315/2014 (CZ) in case of Ram Swaroop Chaturvedi V/s Chairman, MPSEIAA & Ors. decided on 11.09.2014 in the matter of the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013, issued by the MoEF, Government of India.

3. We have considered the application as well as submissions made before us. We would accordingly dispose of this petition in the light of our earlier judgement dated 11.09.2014 in O.A.No. 315/2014 and the directions contained therein shall also apply to the applicant in so far as the applicability of the aforesaid orders of MoEF dated 24.12.2013 is concerned. In case an application is submitted by the Applicant, online or as prescribed under the procedure alongwith requisite fee, such application shall be entertained by the MPSEIAA in accordance with law within two months without being influenced by the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013 issued by the MoEF in so far as its operations have been stayed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Application No. 343 of 2013 (M.A.No. 1093/2013) in the case of Ranbir Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors and Page 2 of 3 Application No. 279/2013 (M.A.No. 1120 of 2013) in case of Promila Devi Vs. State & Ors. dated 28.03.2014.

"M.A.No.628 0f 2013 "Notice of this Misc Application on the question of limitation be issued by registered post/acknowledgement due and Dasti as well.

Notice returnable on 04th September, 2013."

...........Sd/xxx..........................., CP (Swatanter Kumar) ..........Sd/-xxx.........................., JM (U.D. Salvi) ..

..........Sd/xxx..........................., JM (S.N.Hussain) .............Sd/xxx........................, EM (P.S.Rao) ............sd/xxx........................, EM (Ranjan Chatterjee) Page 3 (J) M.A. No.628/2013, ,Appln. No.17/2013 & Appeal No.80/2013 (WZ)

2. Briefly stated, case of the Appellant is that as per Judgment of Apex Court in "Deepak Kumar Vrs. State of Haryana, 2012(4) SCC 629" sand beds (sandghats) situated below 5 ha. area may be leased out only if distance between the two (2) ghats is of atleast 1 k.m. It is in keeping with such directions of the Apex Court that the MoEF has issued OM dated 24th December 2013. The State has no authority to consider the project activities of granting lease of area over and above 5 ha. of sandghats into the category of 'B-2' as per class 2(I)(iii) of the OM dated 24th December 2013. Such a project will have to be treated as category 'B-1' project for the purpose of appraisal and must be appraised by the MoEF. The SEIAA could not have done the work of assessment/appraisal nor the SEIAA could have granted the EC. According to the Petitioner the Respondents purposefully downsized the (J) Appeal No.10/2014 (WZ) 3 sand beds without keeping marginal space of 1 k.m. between the two (2) sand beds. It is stated that the auction conducted by both the Collectors is illegal and erroneous. Consequently the Appellant seeks to challenge the same and urges to quash the same.

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member

2. Hon'ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member

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

Date: 15th October, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) These appeals have been filled by appellant herein challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, namely, the Appellant Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control (Appellant Authority) made in Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014 whereby the appeals have been dismissed.

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member

2. Hon'ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member

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

Date: 15th October, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) These appeals have been filled by appellant herein challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, namely, the Appellant Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control (Appellant Authority) made in Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014 whereby the appeals have been dismissed.

2. The Informant is an individual user/consumer of the services provided by PayU and other e-payment gateways.

3. PayU is a fintech company that provides payment technology solutions to online merchants. It was founded in the year 2002 and has its head-quarter at Hoofddorp, Netherlands. It allows online businesses to accept and process payments through payment methods that can be integrated with web and mobile applications. Further, PayU is the e-payment division of Naspers, a global internet and entertainment group and one of the leading technology investors in the world. Naspers is a leading financial services provider in the global growth markets and is engaged in the business of providing payment gateway services and other digital payment enablement services to both consumers and businesses. It also holds a Non- Banking Financial Company ('NBFC') license in India to offer credit services.

Case No. 34 of 2019 1

2. The Informant is an association of the plywood manufacturers in State of Assam. The OP is a public sector undertaking of Government of Assam established for production of methanol and formalin.

3. As per the Information, formalin is used by plywood units for manufacture of resin, which, in turn, is used as a binding agent in the manufacture of plywoods. The Informant states that formalin is purchased by them from OP, which is the sole unit in North-Eastern India manufacturing the same. The Informant has alleged that the OP is abusing its dominant position by charging a discriminatory price of formalin in State of Assam and State of West Bengal, while it charges Rs. 15,300/- per Metric Tonne ('PMT') in State of Assam, it charges only Rs. 11,000/- PMT in State of West Bengal.

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Tender No. A/59919/Shirt Khakhi/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec, dated 19.06.2017 for procurement of 1,38,251 Shirt Man's Cellular Cotton 1973 Pattern (Modified) Khaki ("Item"). The Informant has stated that out of 14 firms which participated, only 09 qualified for the opening of their commercial bids.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said four firms (Opposite Parties). As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

Table 1: Details of Bidders S. No Firm Name Rate (in Rs) Status

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Request for Proposal ("RFP") No. A/59876/Durries/ Clo-1/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec dated 15.12.2015 for procurement of 8,18,009 Durries IT OG ("Item").

3. The Informant averred that 09 firms participated in the said tender including Standard Gram/OP-2 and out of the said 09 firms, only 06 qualified for opening of commercial bids. As stated by the Informant, Standard Gram/OP-2 could not qualify in technical evaluation as the firm was not registered with Association of Corporations and Apex Societies of Handlooms/Khadi Village Industries Commission ("ACASH/KVIC") which was a pre-requisite. It is further stated that while the contract was under progress, Standard Gram/OP-2 merged with Integrated Defence/OP-3. Subsequently, the L1 firm (HP Handicraft/OP-1) sublet the manufacture of the Item to Integrated Defence/OP-3 vide Letter No. HPSHHC:173/10(EM)/Durries/838081 dated 23.03.2018.

1. The present case pertains to alleged cartelisation amongst certain parties in relation to Requests for Quotations ('RFQs') issued by certain Automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers ('OEMs') for supply of (i) Anti-Vibration Rubber Products ('AVR Products'); and (ii) Automotive Hoses (Water and Fuel) ('Hoses').

Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 1

PUBLIC VERSION

2. The case commenced upon receipt of certain information under the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (the 'LPR') which disclosed that two or more of the following companies had exchanged information and/ or reached agreements amongst themselves, as to who would supply AVR Products and Hoses in response to the RFQs issued by certain Automobile OEMs:

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

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

4. Saransh Biotech Pvt. Ltd Opposite Party No. 4 5. Aarav Pharmaceuticals Opposite Party No. 5 6. Laxmi Pharma Opposite Party No. 6 7. M C Pharma Opposite Party No. 7 8. Maa Ambey Enterprises Opposite Party No. 8 9. Goyal Pharma Opposite Party No. 9 10. MD Medical Store Opposite Party No. 10 CORAM Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court no.7, Mathura in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.239 of 2008 (Virendra Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others) awarding a sum of Rs.62,866/- for the expenses incurred towards medicines and treatment of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident, alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.

3. The claimant aged 45 years filed MAC No.239 of 2008 against the driver & owner of the vehicle and the insurance company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Mathura claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with 12% interest in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident alleged to have occurred on 17.2.2008 around 12.30 p.m.

2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this petition are that in the above dispute raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour court was called upon to adjudicate a reference wherein the issue was "whether the denial of employment of Smt.Ramani Amma, Smt.Geetha.G. and Geetha.R, who were employees of Western India Cashew Company, was justifiable and if it was found otherwise, the relief for which they were entitled to."

3. The case of the Union, which espoused the cause of the workers, was that the delinquent workers were employed by the management in their packing centre at Puthentheruvu, Karunagappally. Since 26.10.2012 was a public holiday owing to Bakrid, the factory was closed. On 27.10.2012, when the workers reached the factory, they were denied employment by the Management. The Union raised an industrial dispute and the matter reached the District Labour Officer, who convened a conference. In the meantime, a WP(C) No.12490/2018 3 show cause notice was issued to the workers and consequently on 2.11.2012, the workers were suspended from service pending enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed who proceeded with the enquiry and submitted a report with the finding that the workers were guilty of all charges. Banking on the said report, the workers were dismissed from service with retrospective effect. According to the Union, the enquiry which was conducted was a farce and is therefore vitiated. The principles of natural justice were violated and the management failed to bring home the charge. They also contended that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the nature of charges levelled against the workers.

2. Alleging non compliance of the award, the 2nd respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, Ernakulam as C.P. No.9 of 2016 WP(C).No.40468/2018 3 claiming a total sum of Rs.12,39,802.02/- which includes interest of Rs.4,84,600/-. The said claim petition was partly allowed by the Labour Court and the 2nd respondent was awarded a sum of Rs.7,55,202.02/- by excluding the interest which was claimed. Being aggrieved by the quantum of amount awarded and the denial of interest, the 2 nd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.33527 of 2017 which is pending before this Court. The petitioner is stated to have remitted a sum of Rs.7,55,202/- as ordered by the Labour Court.

As a new mother, actor Laura Prepon felt scared and unprepared, as parents often do with their first child. But now a mother of two (and a noted meal prep master), Prepon is sharing everything she's learned about pregnancy and parenting in her second book, "You and I, as Mothers: A Raw and Honest Guide to Motherhood."The half-memoir, half-handbook is an intimate look at Prepon's own experiences paired with advice from fellow moms and experts on topics like stress, survival, and reproductive health."I'll tell you my truth, and not in a whisper," Prepon admitted in the book's opening chapter. "I felt blindsided by motherhood. In the early days, I — someone who generally considers herself confident — felt insecure, clueless, and scared."Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.Like Fiona Apple's

संसदीय कार्य मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री तथा भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री अर्जुन राम मेघवाल): सभापति महोदया, हम एग्रीकल्चर के विषय पर नियम 193 की चर्चा दो-तीन दिनों से लगा रहे हैं । मैं आपसे अनुरोध करना चाहूंगा कि उसको पहले ले लिया जाए, क्योंकि वित्त मंत्री जी दूसरे हाउस में टैक्सेशन लॉ में बिजी है, इसलिए इसके बाद उस विषय को ले लिया जाए ।

माननीय सभापति: ठीक है, नियम 193 के अधीन चर्चा शुरू की जाए ।

       श्री कोडिकुन्नील सुरेश जी ।

SHRI KODIKUNNIL SURESH (MAVELIKKARA): Hon. Chairperson, thank you for giving me this opportunity to raise a discussion under Rule 193 on the topic `Crop loss due to various reasons and its impact on farmers’. At the outset I would like to submit that the Government has no intent, desire, and genuine concern towards addressing the issues of farmers in the country. The notice I gave for this discussion read -- `Agrarian crisis and farmers’ distress’. The Government did not accept the language in which I submitted my notice for this discussion, instead have formulated the language for the discussion in another way. The Government chose to ignore the topic that would have exposed the failure of the BJP Government to the public. The Government formulated another language which read -- `Crop loss due to various reasons and its impact on farmers’. They have not chosen the straight path but instead have taken a circuitous route to deviate from the core issue. But this anti-farmer and anti-agriculturist attitude of the BJP Government thus stands exposed in this House as the Modi Government is afraid of facing the truth of deeply disturbing agrarian crisis engulfing the country by refusing to address the real concern. The Congress and other like-minded parties decided to raise this issue in this august House.

SHRI M. SELVARAJ (NAGAPATTINAM): Tiruvarur Sorting has been serving 2 districts of Tiruvarur and Nagapattinam under my constituency. As an all India measure, the Ministry of Telecommunications already implemented PNOP and MNOP systems. in the Department of Posts. According to these new systems, the speed and Parcel articles booked at Tiruvarur and Nagapattinam RMS meant for Tiruvarur and Nagapattinam are sent to Mayiladuthurai RMS for processing and again sent to Tiruvarur for further delivery. It creates unnecessary delay in the delivery process. Because of this my constituency people suffer a lot. Sometimes for a local delivery itself, it takes two days.

On the other hand, it has come to notice that the divisional administration of RMS Trichy, planned to downgrade the Tiruvarur Sorting office by reducing the staff strength and working hours. Now staff is working during nights to deliver the letters, parcels and speed posts to the customers. But the divisional administration planned to make it as a Day Set. This will create unnecessary delay in the delivery of all the letters to the public. Earlier the processed parcels and speed articles from Mayiladuthurai RMS came by midnight. But nowadays they are-sent in the early morning only, this also creates one day delay in the delivery of letters.I urge the Government to take remedial steps in this regard.

श्री रोड़मल नागर (राजगढ़): मेरा संसदीय क्षेत्र राजगढ़ मध्य प्रदेश मुख्यत:कृषि पर आधारित क्षेत्र है और यहां खेती-किसानी ही जीवनयापन का मुख्य आधार है ।…(व्यवधान) देश में पहली बार अन्नदाता किसानों की वास्तविक परिस्थितियों को समझकर मोदी सरकार ने किसानों की आय को दोगुना करने का लक्ष्य तय किया है ।…(व्यवधान) इस क्रम में प्रधान मंत्री जी द्वारा किसान सम्मान निधि के वितरण का एक ऐतिहासिक निर्णय लिया है,किंतु मध्य प्रदेश सरकार द्वारा किसानों को उनके हित से वंचित करते हुए अनावश्यक रूप से लटकाया और भटकाया जा रहा है ।…(व्यवधान) कभी खातों को अपडेट करने या किसानों के वैरिफिकेशन की सूची को अपेडट करने के नाम पर भ्रष्टाचार किया जा रहा है ।…(व्यवधान) विशेषकर मेरे संसदीय क्षेत्र के अधिकांश किसानों को किसान सम्मान निधि की किश्तें नहीं मिली हैं ।…(व्यवधान)

माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री ए.राजा जी ।

राजा जी का दूसरा विषय है ।

SHRI A. RAJA (NILGIRIS): Sir, a tragic incident happened in the early hours of Monday, the 2nd December 2019 at Nadoor Village near Mettupalayam Municipality in my constituency. A compound wall constructed by  a private individual had collapsed,  instantly killing 17 Scheduled Castes people, including children. The fact remains that the villagers had on several occasions complained to the district administration and the State Government with regard to the danger posed by the compound wall. The incident led to scores of people, including relatives of the deceased and the members of the pro-Dalit organisations like Tamil Tigers and other political parties protest against the district administration and pressing for reasonable demand to accommodate them inside the Mettupalayam Government Hospital Campus.

“ कि यह सभा 05 दिसंबर, 2019 को सभा में प्रस्तुत कार्य मंत्रणा समिति के ग्यारहवें प्रतिवेदन से सहमत है ।” माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है :

“ कि सभा 05 दिसंबर, 2019 को सभा में प्रस्तुत कार्य मंत्रणा समिति के ग्यारहवें प्रतिवेदन से सहमत है । ” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।

SHRI BALUBHAU ALIAS SURESH NARAYAN DHANORKAR (CHANDRAPUR): I beg to present the following Reports (Hindi and English versions) of the Standing Committee on Coal and Steel :-

(i)                 Third Report on 'Demands for Grants (2019-20)' pertaining to the Ministry of Coal.

(ii)               Fourth Report on 'Demands for Grants (2019-20)' pertaining to the Ministry of Mines.

(iii)              Fifth Report on 'Demands for Grants (2019-20)' pertaining to the Ministry of Steel.

SHRIMATI ANUPRIYA PATEL (MIRZAPUR): I beg to present the following Reports (Hindi and English versions) of the Standing Committee on Energy (2019-20) :-

(i)                 1st Report on Demands for Grants relating to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy for the year 2019-20.

(ii)               2nd Report on Demands for Grants relating to the Ministry of Power for the year 2019-20.

SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY (BAHARAMPUR): Sir, I beg to present the following Reports (Hindi and English versions) of the Public Accounts Committee (2019-20):-

(1) 1st Report on ‘Revision of ceilings for Exception Reporting in Appropriation Accounts’.

(2) 2nd Report on Action taken by the Government on the Observations/Recommendations of the Committee contained in their 95th Report (16th Lok Sabha) on ‘Health and Family Welfare’.

(3) 3rd Report on Action taken by the Government on the Observations /Recommendations of the Committee contained in their 103rd Report (16th Lok Sabha) on ‘Assessment of Entities Engaged in Health & Allied Sector’.

SECRETARY GENERAL: Sir, I have to report the following message received from the Secretary General of Rajya Sabha:

“In accordance with the provisions of rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Raya Sabha, I am directed to inform the Lok Sabha that the Rajya Sabha at its sitting held on the 4th December, 2019, agreed without any amendment to the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Bill, 2019 which was passed by the Lok Sabha at its sitting held on the 28th November, 2019.”          

माननीय अध्यक्ष: माननीय सदस्यगण,मुझे कुछ विषयों पर माननीय सदस्यों के स्थगन-प्रस्ताव की सूचनाएं प्राप्त हुई हैं । मैंने किसी भी स्थगन-प्रस्ताव की सूचना को अनुमति प्रदान नहीं की है ।

__________  

डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे (गोड्डा): माननीय अध्यक्ष जी, मैं आपके माध्यम से … * भ्रष्टाचार की गंगोत्री है,के बड़े स्कैम की तरफ देश और पार्लियामेंट का ध्यान आकृष्ट करना चाहता हूं ।             महोदय, जब माननीय वाजपेयी जी की सरकार थी,वर्ष 2003 में सरकार ने तय किया था कि हम लोगों को एस बैंड के लिए कंपनी बनानी चाहिए और एन्ट्रिक्स को इसकी मार्केटिंग करनी चाहिए । वर्ष 2003 में एक आदमी के साथ उसकी बातचीत स्टार्ट हुई । हमारी सरकार चली गई । आपको जानकर आश्चर्य होगा कि हमारी सरकार के जाने के बाद 28 जनवरी, 2005 को एन्ट्रिक्स और देवास नाम की कंपनी के साथ एक एग्रीमेंट साइन हुआ । …(व्यवधान) देवास कंपनी 17 दिसम्बर, 2004 को बनी । …(व्यवधान) उसके साथ 60,000 करोड़ का एग्रीमेंट भारत सरकार ने साइन किया । …(व्यवधान)           महोदय, दूसरा सवाल है कि जिन कंपनियों से पैसा आया, मॉरिशस की कंपनी   …(व्यवधान) कंपनी 2006 में बनी, 2009 में बनी, 2010 में बनी ।…(व्यवधान) और … * जी ने एफआईपीबी का क्लियरेंस दिया । …(व्यवधान) माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री संतोष पाण्डेय जी ।

संसदीय कार्य मंत्री; कोयला मंत्री तथा खान मंत्री (श्री प्रहलाद जोशी): सभापति महोदया,जब स्मृति ईरानी जी बोल रही थीं,उस समय श्री टी.एन. प्रथापन और एडवोकेट डीन कुरियाकोस ने दुर्व्यवहार किया है, जो निंदात्मक है । This is most condemnable. महिला संसद सदस्य के सामने थ्रेटनिंग पोजीशन में आना,यह बिलकुल गलत है । She was talking as a lady Member of this House, and at that time, everybody had expressed their opinions. मेरा एक्सप्रेशन करने का स्टाइल अलग है और अधीर रंजन जी का अलग है । But if you become aggressive, ऐसा करना बिल्कुल ठीक नहीं है । It is most uncalled for. मैं अधीर रंजन जी से आग्रह करता हूं कि उन दोनों माननीय सदस्यों को बुलाइए और माफी   मंगवाइए ।  They should ask for the apology unconditionally. …(Interruptions)

SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY (BAHARAMPUR): Sir, I would like to flag the attention of the entire House towards this issue. In spite of volcanic and seething anger coupled with indignation, hate against…. …(Interruptions)

Sir, in spite of volcanic and seething anger coupled with indignation and hate against the gangrape incidents which have been occurring at regular intervals across the nation, there is no respite of this kind of brutal and bestial crime. सर, हम यहां बहुत सारे कानूनों की बात करते हैं, मृत्युदंड की घोषणा करते हैं । बहुत कुछ कर रहे हैं, लेकिन कभी-कभी लगता है कि क्या हम पैसे के बुद्धिमान और पाउंड के मूर्ख हैं?कोई कमी नहीं दिखाई देती । सर,हैदराबाद की घटना हुई, उसके बाद बंगाल में माल्दा, फिर उन्नाव का मामला आ गया । हम लोग कहां जाएं, हिन्दुस्तान के लोग कहां जाएं?सबसे बड़ी बात है कि उन्नाव में चार दिन पहले आरोपी को रिहा किया गया । आरोपी ने पीड़िता को मारने के लिए आग लगा दी । महिला भागती हुई, दौड़ती हुई किसी के पास शरण लेनी गई । उसके बाद हॉस्पिटल में भर्ती हुई,अभी दिल्ली आई । उसकी 95 परसेंट बॉडी जल गई । यह क्या हो रहा है?आज की तारीख 6 दिसम्बर को बाबरी मस्जिद ध्वस्त हुई थी और वहां मंदिर बन रहा है । एक तरफ हिन्दुस्तान में राम जी का मंदिर बन रहा है और दूसरी तरफ सीता को जलाया जा रहा है ।…(व्यवधान)

1.        Consideration of any items of Government Business carried over from today's order paper: - [it contains (i) consideration and passing of the International Financial Services Centres Authority Bill, 2019; and (ii) Consideration and passing of the Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019.]

2. Consideration and passing of the following Bills, after their introduction:-

(i)                 The Anti Maritime Piracy Bill, 2019.

(ii)               The Personal Data Protection Bill; 2019.

(iii)               The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019.

(iv)             The Code on Social Security Bill, 2019.

(v)              The Central Sanskrit University Bill, 2019.

(vi)             The Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens (Amendment) Bill, 2019.

माननीय अध्यक्ष: माननीय सदस्यगण, जैसा कि आप सभी को विदित है, अठारह वर्ष पूर्व 13 दिसम्बर, 2001 को एक दुस्साहसिक हमले में हमारी लोकतांत्रिक राजव्यवस्था की प्रतीक भारतीय संसद आतंकी हमले का निशाना बनी ।

          यह हमला संसद परिसर की सुरक्षा में लगे हुए सतर्क सुरक्षा बलों द्वारा निष्फल कर दिया गया था। दिल्ली पुलिस के पांच सुरक्षाकर्मी, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल की एक महिला कांस्टेबल, संसद सुरक्षा सेवा के दो सुरक्षा सहायक तथा एक अन्य कर्मचारी भी इस आतंकी हमले में शहीद हुए ।

          यह सभा हमारे बहादुर सुरक्षा कर्मियों द्वारा दिए गए सर्वोच्च बलिदान के प्रति अपनी श्रद्धांजलि अर्पित करती है तथा उनके परिवारों के साथ मजबूती से खड़ी है ।

          इस अवसर पर, हम आतंकवाद से लड़ने तथा अपने देश की एकता, अखंडता और सम्प्रभुता की रक्षा करने संबंधी अपने संकल्प को एक बार पुन: दोहराते हैं ।

माननीय अध्यक्ष: माननीय सदस्यगण, अब हम सत्रहवीं लोक सभा के दूसरे सत्र की समाप्ति की ओर आ गए हैं, जो 18 नवम्बर, 2019 को आरंभ हुआ था। अब तक, हम 20 बैठकें कर चुके हैं जो 130 घंटे 45 मिनट तक चलीं। 18 नवम्बर, 2019 को चार नए सदस्यों ने शपथ ली अथवा प्रतिज्ञान किया।

…(व्यवधान)

माननीय अध्यक्ष : इस सत्र में महत्वपूर्ण वित्तीय, विधायी और अन्य कार्यों का भी निपटान हुआ। वर्ष 2019-20 के लिए अनुदानों की अनुपूरक मांगों (सामान्य) पर चर्चा 5 घंटे 5 मिनट तक चली। वर्तमान सत्र के दौरान 18 सरकारी विधेयक पुर:स्थापित हुए। कुल मिलाकर 14 विधेयक पारित हुए। 140 तारांकित प्रश्नों के मौखिक उत्तर दिए गए। औसतन प्रतिदिन लगभग 7.36 प्रश्नों के उत्तर दिए गए। इसके अतिरिक्त औसतन प्रतिदिन 20.42 अनुपूरक प्रश्नों के उत्तर दिये गए। 27 नवम्बर, 2019 को सभी 20 तारांकित प्रश्न लिये गए।

संसदीय कार्य मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री तथा भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री अर्जुन राम मेघवाल): माननीय अध्यक्ष जी, हमारी तरफ से बहुत से लोगों के एजर्नमेंट मोशन हैं। …(व्यवधान) जैसे साध्वी जी ने बाहर बोला था और हाउस में माफी मांगी थी, ऐसे ही राहुल गांधी जी ने बाहर बोला कि ‘मेक इन इंडिया’ की जगह ‘रेप इन इंडिया’ हो गया है। यह बहुत कन्डेम्नेबल एक्टिविटी है। …(व्यवधान) उन्हें हाउस में आकर माफी मांगनी चाहिए।…(व्यवधान) वह हाउस में आकर माफी मांगें।…(व्यवधान) हाउस में ऐसा पहले कर रखा है, साध्वी निर्मला ज्योति जी ने।…(व्यवधान)  वह हाउस में नहीं बोली थीं, पब्लिक में बोली थीं, मीटिंग में, …(व्यवधान) ऐसे ही राहुल गांधी जी पब्लिक में बोले हैं।…(व्यवधान) उनको माफी मांगनी चाहिए।…(व्यवधान) उन्होंने कैसे कह दिया कि यह ‘मेक इन इंडिया’ नहीं ‘रेप इन इंडिया’ है। …(व्यवधान) यह बहुत ही निंदनीय है। …(व्यवधान) घोर आपत्तिजनक है।…(व्यवधान) सदस्य को यहां बुलाया जाए और हाउस में माफी मांगी जाए।…(व्यवधान)

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 30.04.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.04.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.44/2020 was registered at Police Station Khairthal, (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:14 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2343/2020] District Alwar, Police District Bhiwadi for offence under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act.

Appearance:

Mr. Snehashis Sen, Adv.

...for the petitioner.

The Court : At the instance of the petitioner the matter is appearing today under the heading "To Be Mentioned" for correction of a typographical error crept in the order dated March 11, 2020. By the said order this Court disposed of the application, AP No.49 of 2020.

Let the amount of money mentioned in the third line at the fourth page of the said order dated March 11, 2020 be corrected as Rs.9.8 crore in place and stead of Rs.9.2 crore.

Appearance:

Mr. Laxmi Pat Surana, ...petitioner in person The Court: The petitioner is present in Court. He requests for a date on which the matter may be taken up.

List this matter on 1st April, 2020.

(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) Sbghosh

... for the respondent.

The applicant is the respondent in an appeal against a money decree. The applicant apprehends that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant may dispose of its assets or alienate the same.

Since the operation of the decree has not been stayed, it is open to the respondent to levy execution and seek the necessary protection. The injunction sought would not fall within the scope of this appeal.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) (I. P. MUKERJI, J.) SG

(Through Video Conference) Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person) ...plaintiff no.1 Mr. Megnath Datta, Adv.

...for added defendant no.3 The Court : The plaintiff no.1 appears in person on video conferencing. The added defendant no.3 is represented by Mr. Megnath Datta, Advocate via video conferencing.

It is the allegation of the appearing plaintiff that the principal property involved in this partition and administration suit is under serious threat and trespassers are seeking to enter upon the same. Such position is denied on behalf of the appearing defendant. 2

That another co-owner namely Soma Ghosh resides in the 1st floor South East corner of the said premises. It is come off from the said suit premises that there have three tenants residing since long. One namely Prabir Paul (55) S/o- Late Ajay Paul resides in Ground floor North-West side of the premises. Tenant Krishna Dhar (73) W/o- Late Debabrata Dhar residing south portion of the said premises and Shambhu Das & his brother Alok Das are residing at the front portion 2nd floor of the said building as tenants since long.

In course of present enquiry at the scheduled property i.e. 13, Kaliprosad Chakraborty Street, Kol-03 nothing unusual was found in respect of possessions, occupied by the co-owners and the tenants.

(Through Video Conference) Appearance:

Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person).

Mr. Meghnad Dutta , Adv.

Mr. Arindam Paul , Adv.

... for the added defendant no.3 Mr. D. K. Chandra, Adv.

... for defendant nos.3(i) & 3(ii). The Court: It appears that by the order dated April 16, 2020, the parties were directed to file their respective affidavit in the application filed by the plaintiffs. The said order also records that in view of the subsisting interim order, the petitioners' interest in respect of the suit property is already protected. There was no direction that the application would be appearing before this Court today. This is also not disputed by the parties.

Mr. Sudipta Sarkar, Sr. AS Mr. S.N. Bajaria, Acivor .. Faint The Court : This affidavit of arrest has been Med in an admiralty auit fled by the plaintiff praying for, inter alia, arrest af the defendant veasel, M¥ Han Xin, flying the flag of Hong Keng. I am told that the said veese! is presently ying at the Kolkata Port, within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court, After hearing learned Counsel for the phantiff, in view af the urgency mvolved, 1 dispense with the requirement of camplying with Section 124 of the Commercial Courts Act and amit the plaint subject te scrutiny.

Mr. S.K. Bajoma, loarned Advocair-on-Recard for the plaintif is appointed Receiver for the purpose of paying deficit Quurt fees within a week _.