2. The Informant has filed the information for Teleclub (Alberta Limited), Canada in the capacity of its CEO. It is submitted by the Informant that Teleclub is one of the international telecom carriers in Canada.

3. As per publically available information, OP-1 is an Indian subsidiary of Britain based Vodafone Group PLC, which started Indian operations in 2007 with the acquisition of controlling interest in Hutch Essar. In 2018, Vodafone acquired Idea Cellular and became the largest telecom service provider in India. Likewise, OP-2 and OP-3 are also major telecom service providers operating in India. Further, as per publicly available information, OP-4 is the largest Information and Communications Technology ("ICT") service provider, systems integrator and all-in-one network solutions company operating in India, which has partnered with major network operators to deliver global network solutions.

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.

2. The Informant, a company incorporated in May, 2015, has been operating under the brand name of Treebo Hotels' and is in the business of providing franchising services to budget hotels in India. In addition to this, Treebo also provides service to numerous independent budget hotels who partner with it under its newly launched 'Hotel Superhero' scheme. Under the said scheme, Treebo only provides services such as hotel management technology services, listing on its platform and other online travel aggregators, credit facilities, support and quality control of the staff and hotel management resources etc. but does not provide its brand name.

3. MMT is an Online Travel Agency (OTA) engaged in the business of providing travel and tourism related services in India. It is a part of MakeMyTrip group of companies (MMT Group). OYO, on the other hand, provides budget accommodation to customers and is in the market for providing franchising services to budget hotels under the brand name 'OYO'.

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:

Case No. 37 of 2019 1

2. The Informant, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of export of stone aggregates/ boulders and has stated that it exports stone aggregates/ boulders through rakes allotted by OP. For allotment of rakes, the Informant places indent itself or through its consignor at respective railway sidings. The Informant also stated that OP follows quota system for dispatch of rakes. Under such a system, the Informant got rakes allotted to it at various sidings in Howrah and Malda Division of the Eastern Railways, which is OP in the present case.

3. The Informant alleges that from July 2019 onwards, OP stopped allotment of rakes to it and instead, the rakes were allotted to Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd. as per the directions of the Indian Railway Board contained in letter No. 2017/TT- III(M)/71/D/10/Quota dated 18.07.2019. The Informant claims that this decision was taken by Indian Railway Board as per the request of the Bangladesh Railway Board. The Informant has stated that non-allotment of rakes has impacted its goodwill amongst its customers as it is not being able to meet its prior commitments.

Case Nos. 36 of 2015, 31 of 2016 and 58 of 2016 33

Koushik Das: Yes, one BCDA N.O.C. is required with the application.

Shri Arajit Das: Yes, that is essential, you prepare your papers I need the orders, otherwise it is problem to me. I have submitted my drug licence number, trade licence number everything.

Koushik Das: Yes, but only those papers are not enough, there are something more, you have deal with Alembic before and done with other parties also.

Shri Arajit Das: that is not required.

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.

2. As stated in the information, the Informant is running a sole proprietorship by the name of M/s Venkateswara Agencies (earlier known as Rohini Agencies) dealing with agricultural machineries, based in West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. The Informant has been the authorised dealer of KAMCO from the year 2006, for which dealership agreement dated 28.09.2006 was entered into between Informant and KAMCO. The scope of the agreement included supplying the products of KAMCO to Case No.38 of 2019 1 the customers in West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna, Srikakulam and Guntur Districts of the state of Andhra Pradesh.

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

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020

Learned counsel for the applicant did not login. The Public Prosecutor was heard through video conferencing. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 06/2020, Police Station Sangaria, District - Hanumangarh for the offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

..

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4048/2020. Sunil Jat S/o Shri Suwa Jat, aged about 29 years, resident of Bholi, Tehsil and District Bhilwara, Police Station Mangrop, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar (through video calling).

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP (through video calling).

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

..

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4047/2020. Mahrilal S/o Mohan B/c Joshi Age 55 Years R/o Uttarvada Police Station Badisadri, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma (through video calling).

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP (through video calling).

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan-State, Through Pp

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present.

For Respondent(s) : None present.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Defect pointed out by the office is overruled. Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19). The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 185/2019, Police Station Siwana, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through Jitsi Meet Application.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through Jitsi Meet Application.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 508/2019 Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur for the offence under Section 307, 353,332 and 333 IPC & Section 3 PDPP Act.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lal Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Mr. D.K. Godara for the complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020 Learned counsel for the parties were heard through video conferencing.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 101/2019, Police Station Jayal, District - Nagaur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 427 & 302 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through Jitsi Meet Application.

The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 283/2019, Police Station Surajpol, District Udaipur for the offence under Section 457, 380 IPC.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through Jitsi Meet Application.

---Petitioner Versus State, Through P.P

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta, through video call For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi-PP, through video call HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, for the complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020 Learned counsel for the parties were heard through video conferencing.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 167/2019, Police Station Khinvsar, District - Nagaur for the offences under Sections 498-A & 304 IPC.

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3665/2020

1. Ganesh Lal Joshi S/o Late Shri Mithu Lal Joshi, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Sadar Bazar, Chikarda, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.

2. Imak Lal Sain S/o Shri Devi Lal Sain, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bus Stand Chikarda, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3666/2020

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary of Home Department Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The District Collector, Udaipur

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abhishek Purohit for Mr.Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 This application is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for extension of period of first parole granted to him pursuant to order dated 24.4.2020 passed by this Court.

(Presently lodged at District Jail, Merta).

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 10/2020, Police Station Mulasar, District Nagour for the offences under Sections 376, 384 & 379 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (1)(I), 3(1)(W)(II) & 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Order dated 30.04.2020 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected. (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:02 PM)

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.R. Choudhary Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020 Learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor were heard through video conferencing.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 336/2019, Police Station Gharsana (Sri Ganganagar) for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Department Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The District Collector, Udaipur

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abhishek Purohit for Mr.Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 This application is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for extension of period of first parole granted to him pursuant to order dated 24.4.2020 passed by this Court.

1. Gurav Chauhan @ Goru S/o Rakesh Chauhan, aged about 20 years, Resident of Ward No. 25, Suratgarh, Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar

2. Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu S/o Umaid Singh, aged about 22 years, Resident of Ward No. 9, Near Baba Ramdev Temple, Suratgarh, Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

(Presently lodged at District Jail, Sri Ganganagar)

----Appellants Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are abstaining from work in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

1. Subash Chandra S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Dhani Ratanpura Bypass, Village Chotala, P.s. Sadar Dabawali, District Sirsa. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh).

2. Manpreet Singh @ Mana S/o Jasveer Singh, Aged About 19 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh).

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

----Petitioner Versus State

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : O;fDr"k% dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA For Respondent(s) : O;fDr"k% dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 fo'o LokLF; laxBu ¼MCY;w- ,p-vks-½] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ,oa dsUnzh; ,oa jkT; ljdkj }kjk uksoy dksjksuk ok;jl ¼dksfoM&19½ds xaHkhj egkekjh ,oa laØe.k dks QSyus ls jksdus ,oa fu;a=.k ds fy;s tkjh ,Mokbtjh ds dkj.k izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku~ vf/koDrk Jh jkds"k eVksfj;k ,oa fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd Jh vfuy tks"kh dks tfj;s fofM;ks dkWy lquk x;kA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k fd vfHk;qDr eqds"k dh tekur gks pqdh gS ftlds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks eqyfte cuk;k x;k gSA blds foijhr fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tkfgj fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ls 118-5 fdyks MksMk iksLr dh cjkenxh gqbZ gS tks fd okf.kfT;d ek=k gSA vfHk;qDr eqds"k dk izFke tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 06-03-2019 dks pkyku izLrqr gksus ds i"pkr~ iqu^% tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh NwV nsrs gq;s uksV izsl djus ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk nwljk tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 24-05-2019 dks lhtj vkWfQlj lquhy dqekj ds c;ku gksus ds i"pkr~ iqu% tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh NwV nsrs gq;s uksV izsl djus ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:14 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3497/2020] lhtj lquhy dqekj ds c;kuksa esa vfHk;qDr eqds"k ds lEcU/k esa vk;s rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij r`rh; tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 22-07-2019 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA xkSjryc gS fd ml le; eqds"k ds fo:) pkyku izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq izkFkhZ&eqyfte ds fo:) /kkjk 173¼8½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr pkyku yafcr j[kk x;k Fkk D;ksafd izdj.k esa vuqla/kku iq'isUnzflag o lqHkk'kpUnz }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk] vr% izkFkhZ dks tekur dk ykHk fn;s tkus ls iwoZ bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk ikfjr vkns"k fnukad 16-04-2020 dh vuqikyuk djok;k tkuk vko";d izrhr gksrk gSA fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh is"kh ls iwoZ mDr vkns"k dh vuqikyuk lqfuf"pr dh tkosA i=koyh fnukad 15-05-2020 dks lwphc) dh tk;sA (DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 2-/AK (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Department Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The District Collector, Jodhpur.

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abhishek Purohit for Mr.Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 This application is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for extension of period of first parole granted to him pursuant to order dated 24.4.2020 passed by this Court.

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.

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

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

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

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

WP(C).8416/19 4

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

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

While PW1 was doing patrol duty on 3.6.1999, he got reliable information that one Rajappan (the petitioner) was CRL.R.P.NO.5/07 3 indulging in sale of arrack from his house. Thereupon, the patrol party proceeded to the petitioner's house and on searching the house found 13 bottles hidden inside the kitchen, of which 11 bottles were of 1.5 ltrs and 2 bottles of 750 ml capacity. The contents of the bottle were examined by smelling and tasting and was identified to be arrack. The petitioner, who was present in the house was arrested and the contraband seized. From among the 13 bottles, sample was drawn from one bottle of 750 ML capacity. Thereafter the sample bottle as well as the 13 bottles containing the contraband were sealed in the presence of the petitioner and two independent witnesses. The requisite formalities like, filing of occurrence report, production of accused and seized articles along with sample before the jurisdictional Magistrate were complied without delay. Further investigation of the case was conducted by PW 5, who after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

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

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

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

On 28-02-2019, Sri. K.P. Mathaikunju and 3 others filed a contempt of court case before this court against the respondents herein, alleging that the respondents have committed civil contempt by publishing a face book post in a face book page to which the respondents are the admins and also published a similar news in the website www.ovsonline.in on 27-02-2019, to the effect that the cases, O.P (C) No.65/2019 & Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, which pertains to the dispute regarding the 'Vadavukod Church' were dismissed by the High Court on 27-02- 2019, which in fact were only reserved for judgment on that day. It is alleged that the act of the respondents in this regard would amount to interference with the administration of justice and therefore they have committed contempt of court punishable under provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Registry of this court expressed doubt with respect to maintainability of CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -4- the above said contempt of court petition. Therefore the case was posted before the learned Single Judge who as dealing with OP (C) No.65/2019 and Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, as unnumbered contempt petition. Initially, the learned Judge appointed an 'amicus curiae' in the matter, through order dated 01-03-2019. But subsequently, on 31-05-2019, the Single Judge directed the Registry of this court to place the petition before Hon'ble Chief justice for appropriate further action on the administrative side, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Rehim P. V. M.V. Jayarajan and others (2010 (4) KLT 286). When the matter was placed for consideration before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 25-06-2019, it was ordered to place the matter as a suo motu criminal contempt case, for preliminary hearing, before the appropriate Bench. When the matter came on the judicial side, this court ordered notice to the respondents. Personal appearance of the respondents were dispensed with for the time being. The respondents appeared and each of them had filed separate affidavits. Now the case is coming up for consideration as to whether there exists prima facie contempt and to decide whether further proceedings need to be pursued in the case by framing charge against the respondents. CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -5-

The above appeal was originally filed as a 'Motor Accident Claim Appeal', ('MACA'). The appeal memorandum reflected that the appeal was filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.), read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When the Registry of this court noted defect, the appeal was sought to be be filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Registry has not yet accepted the same for the reason that the order impugned is not an Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Unnumbered Crl. Appeal 16 of 2020 -:4:- Registry noted that, probably an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alone may lie against the order impugned. However, the matter was posted before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability. On 05.09.2016, learned counsel appearing for the appellants conceded that the Registry is correct in holding that an appeal will not lie under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He sought time for curing the defect, which was allowed. Thereafter the case was re-presented with correction made in the 'Docket Sheet' in the cause title portion, styling it as an 'appeal', instead of "MACA". But the memorandum of appeal in all other respects remained as such. On the request of the counsel for the appellants, the matter was posted before this Bench, for hearing on the question of maintainability. Senior Advocate Sri. P. Vijayabhanu has consented to assist the court as Amicus Curiae. Hence the question of maintainability was heard in detail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Petitioner is the first respondent in M.C. No.11 of 2016. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the wife and son of the petitioner respectively. The respondents instituted the said proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking, among others, an order restraining the petitioner and his parents from committing any act of domestic violence. The respondents have also sought in the proceedings orders for their maintenance and for the return O.P.(Crl) No.727 of 2017 3 of money, gold ornaments, documents etc. In the course of the proceedings, the parties were referred for mediation. After the mediation, the mediator reported to the court that mediation was successful and forwarded Exhibit P2 mediation agreement entered into between the parties and signed by their respective counsel to the court. As per Exhibit P2 mediation agreement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.20,000/- per year to the second respondent. Provision was also made in the mediation agreement for the custody of the second respondent during his minority. In terms of the mediation agreement, the petitioner and the first respondent have also agreed to prefer an application for divorce on mutual consent. The Jurisdictional Magistrate disposed of the proceedings in terms of the mediation agreement. Exhibit R1(a) is the order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in this connection. The case set out by the petitioner in the original petition is that Exhibit P2 mediation agreement is one obtained from him by the mediator under the threat that he would, otherwise, be put behind bars O.P.(Crl) No.727 of 2017 4 along with his parents. It is also the case of the petitioner that Exhibit P2 mediation agreement was the result of a conspiracy between the first respondent, the mediator as also the counsel for both the petitioner and the first respondent. It is pleaded by the petitioner in the original petition that he never wanted to live separately from the respondents.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the crime which is registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(l) and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim involved in the case is a girl aged 16 years. The accused is the husband of the younger sister of the mother of the victim. The accusation in the case is that on 08.08.2016, and on several days thereafter, the accused has raped and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The final report in the case is sought to be quashed on the Crl.M.C.No.463 of 2020 3 ground that the grievance of the victim has been redressed, and she does not intend any more to pursue this matter. An affidavit to that effect by the victim is also part of the records.

2. Pursuant to the decision of the Government of Kerala to apply part of the proceeds of the financial aid received from the World Bank through the Government of India for execution of the work, namely "KSTP-II -Upgrading Punalur to Ponkunnam Road (SH 8) Package 8A: Km 0+000 (Punalur) to KM 29+840 (Konni)"(the Work), the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP), the Consultant Engineer of the Government of Kerala for the World Bank aided projects, invited bids for construction and completion of the Work. Ext.P1 is the procurement notice issued by KSTP in this connection. It is specified in Ext.P1 notice that the bidding will be conducted in accordance with the Wpc nos.26853 & 31556 of 2019 6 procedures prescribed in the Guidelines issued by the World Bank for procurement under IBRD loans and IDA credits (current edition) and it will be open to all eligible bidders as defined in the said Guidelines to participate in the bidding process. In terms of the Invitation to Bid (ITB) published in this regard by KSTP, the prospective bidders could be individuals or joint ventures and they were to submit technical as also financial bids.

2. The petitioner, his elder brother Mohanan and his elder sister Sarasamma were residing in adjoining houses. Mohanan had a daughter named Arya, aged 13 years. She committed suicide on 2.2.2015 by hanging herself in a tree near W.P.(C) No.30976 of 2018 4 her house. The deceased was studying in 8 th standard at the relevant time. It was Sarasamma who first found Arya hanging in the three. The petitioner went to the spot hearing the hue and cry of Sarasamma. The matter was informed to the Police thereupon by the petitioner. In the autopsy, it was revealed that the deceased was subjected to both vaginal as also anal intercourse. The case which was registered earlier under Section 174 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (the Code) was consequently amended as one under Sections 305 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (the POCSO Act). In the investigation conducted thereupon, the Police came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who has abused the deceased sexually and she committed suicide on account of the said reason. Consequently, final report was filed in the case under Sections 305 and 376 (2) (f) of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO W.P.(C) No.30976 of 2018 5 Act. Exhibit P2 is the final report in the case. The accusation in the case is that the petitioner who was residing alone in the neighbourhood of the house of the deceased has raped and committed penetrative sexual assault on the deceased on 10.1.2015 and on several occasions thereafter at her house and thereby abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

2. Crl.M.C.No.1343 of 2020 is one instituted by the State invoking the power of this Court under Sections 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code), seeking orders setting aside Annexure-B order in terms of which the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur granted bail to the respondent who is the sole accused in Crime No.47 of 2020 of Chelakkara Police Station. The crime aforesaid is one registered for offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code(the IPC), Sections 9(f), 9(k) and 9(m) read Crl.M.C.Nos.1237 & 1343 of 2020 4 with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The accused is a teacher and NCC instructor in the school where the victim girl aged 11 years who is intellectually disabled is pursuing her studies. The accusation is that on 23.01.2020, during lunch break, the accused took the victim girl to the NCC room, locked the room from inside and touched her breast and private parts with sexual intent. As stated, Crl.M.C.No.1237 of 2020 is also one instituted for the same relief by the mother of the victim girl.

2. Before venturing to decide on the questions raised, it would be profitable to state the relevant facts.

The 1st respondent is the K.M.J Public School, represented by its Manager. The 2nd respondent is the Principal of the said school. The petitioners 1 and 2 have been working as drivers for the past 14 and 9 years respectively in the said school whereas the petitioners 3 and 4 have been working as sweepers in the same institution for the past 8 years. They contended that they have been receiving wages at less than the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government by various notifications and also as per the directions issued by this Court in State of Kerala vs Mythri Vidya Bhavan English Medium School and another1. They contended that a person junior to them, 1 [2013 (1) K.L.T short note 36] W.P.(C) No.14087/2019 4 who was a Class-IV grade employee, was drawing a much higher wage as compared to the petitioners. According to them, they are entitled to higher amounts toward salary from 1.7.2013 onwards.