ANNEXURE ‘Y’

ADVOCATE’S CHECK LIST (TO BE CERTIFIED BY

ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD)
Indicate Yes or NA
1. SLP (C) has been filed in Form No.28 with
YES
certificate.

2. The Petition is as per the provision of

YES
Order XV Rule 1.

3. The papers of SLP have been arranged as

YES
per Order XXI, Rule (3)(1)(f).

4. Brief list of dates/events has been filed.

YES
5. Paragraphs and pages of paper books
YES
have been numbered consecutively and
correctly noted in Index.

6. Proper and required number of paper

YES
books (1+1) have been filed.

7. The contents of the petition, applications

YES
and accompanying documents are clear,
legible and typed in double space on one
side of the paper.

8. The particulars of the impugned judgment

YES
passed by the court(s) below are
uniformly written in all the documents.

9. In case of appeal by certificate the appeal

NA
is accompanied by judgment and decree
appealed from and order granting
certificate.

10. If the petition is time barred, application

NA
for condonation of delay mentioning the
no. of days of delay, with affidavit and
court fee has been filed.

11. The Annexures referred to in the petition

YES
are true copies of the documents before
the court(s) below and are filed in
chronological order as per List of Dates.
12. The annexures referred to in the petition
YES
are filed and indexed separately and not
marked collectively.

13. The relevant provisions of the

YES
Constitution, statutes, ordinances, rules,
regulations, bye laws, orders etc. referred
to in the impugned judgment/order has
been filed as Appendix to the SLP
14. In SLP against the order passed in Second
NA
Appeal, copies of the orders passed by the
Trial Court and First Appellate Court have
been filed.
15. The complete listing proforma has been
YES
filled in, signed and included in the paper
books.

16. In a petition (PIL) filed under clause (d) of

NA
Rule 12(1) Order XXXVIII, the petitioner
has disclosed:
(a) his full name, complete postal
address, e-mail address, phone
number, proof regarding personal
identification, occupation and
annual income, PAN number and
National Unique Identity Card
number, if any:
(b) the facts constituting the cause of
action;
(c) the nature of injury caused or likely
to be caused to the public;
(d) the nature and extent of personal
interest, if any, of the petitioner(s);
(e) details regarding any civil, criminal
or revenue litigation, involving the
petitioner or any of the petitioners,
which has or could have a legal
nexus with the issue(s) involved in
the Public Interest Litigation.
17. If any identical matter is
NA
pending/disposed of by the Hon. Supreme
Court, the complete particulars of such
matters have been given.
18. The statement in terms of the Order XIX
YES
Rule 3(1) of Supreme Court Rules 2013
has been given in the Petition of appeal.

19. Whether a Bank Draft of Rs.50,000/- or

NA
50% of the amount, whichever is less, has
been deposited by the person intending to
appeal, if required to be paid as per the
order of the NCDRC, in terms of Section
23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

20. In case of appeal under Armed Forces

NA
Tribunal Act, 2007, the
petitioner/appellant has moved before the
Armed Forces Tribunal for granting
certificate for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court.
21. All the papersbooks to be filed after
YES
curing the defects shall be in order.

I hereby declare that I have personally verified the

petition and its contents and it is in conformity with
the Supreme Court Rules 2013. I certify that the above
requirements of this Check List have been complied
with. I further certify that all the documents necessary
for the purpose of hearing of the matter have been
filed.

Signature

AoR’s Name DR. CHARU MATHUR

AoR Code: 1642
Contact No. 9868009602
New Delhi;
Date: 14.06.2021
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2021
[From the final judgment and order dated 09.06.2021 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No.
17282 of 2021]

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Rangadhar Pradhan …Petitioner

Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. …Respondents

WITH
I.A. NO. OF 2021
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of
impugned order
I.A. NO. OF 2021
Application for exemption from filing Official Translation

PAPER – BOOK

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: DR. CHARU MATHUR

 INDEX
S.No Particulars of document Page no. of part to Remarks
which it belongs
Part I Part II
(Content Contents
s of of file
paper alone
Book)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
Court Fee
1. O/R on Limitation A A

2. Listing Proforma A1-A2 A1-A2

3. Cover page of paper Book A3

4. Index of Record of Proceedings A4

5. Limitation Report prepared by the A5

Registry

6. Defect List A6

7. Note Sheet NS1 to…..

8. Synopsis & List of Dates B–J

9. Impugned final judgment and 1 – 14

order dated 09.06.2021 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa
at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 17282
of 2021.
10. SLP with affidavit 15 - 36
11. Appendix: Relevant rules of the 37 - 40
Orissa Minor Minerals Concession
Rules, 2016
12. ANNEXURE P-1: Copy of 41 - 47
Advertisement dated 22.2.2021
13. ANNEXURE P-2: Copy of Bidder 48 - 49
Particular dated 24.3.2021
14. ANNEXURE P-3: Copy of 50 – 51
Letter/Form-F dated 10.5.2021

15. ANNEXURE P-4: Copy of Letter 52

dated 17.5.2021
16. Annexure P-5: Copy of Writ Petition 53 – 70
(C) No. 17282/2021 dated
2.6.2021
17. Application for exemption from 71 – 72
filing certified copy of impugned
order.
18. Application for exemption from 73 – 74
filing Official Translation
19. F/M 75

20. V/M 76

21. Memo of Parties 77

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

 A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)/(CRL) NO. OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF :

Rangadhar Pradhan …Petitioner

Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. …Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/are within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of

days in filing the same against order dated
and petition for condonation of days delay has
been filed.

3. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of

days in re-filing the same and petition for condonation
of days delay has been filed.

New Delhi BRANCH OFFICER

Dated : 14.06.2021
 A-1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION: XI-A

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

 Central Act: (Title) _______NA______

 Section: _________NA _______
 Central Rule: (Title) ____NA___________
 Rule No(s): ___________NA________
 State Act: (Title) The OMMC Rules, 2016
 Section: ________27__________
 State Rule: (Title) _____NA________________
 Rule No(s): __________NA_______________________
 Impugned Interim order : (Date)____NA____________
 Impugned Final Order/Decree : (Date) 09.06.2021
 High Court: (Name) High Court of Orissa; Cuttack
 Names of Judges Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. Murlidhar & K.R. Mohapatra, JJ
 Tribunal / Authority : (Name) ___________N/A____________________
___________________________________________________________________

1. Nature of Matter:  Civil  Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant No.1: Rangadhar Pradhan
(b) e-mail ID:_________________NA__________________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA_________________
3. (a)Respondent N.1: State of Odisha & Ors.
(b) e-mail ID:_________________NA__________________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA_________________

4. (a) Main category classification: ____018________________

(b) Sub classification: _____________1807______________

5. Not to be listed before: ___________NA_____________

6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any, & case details: No
similar matter
(b) Similar Pending matter with case details: No similar matter pending

7. Criminal Matters:
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered:  Yes  No
(b) FIR No. ________NA________ Date: ______NA____
(c) Police Station: _______________NA__________________
(d) Sentence Awarded: ___________NA___________________
(e) Period of Sentence undergone including period of
Detention/Custody undergone: ________NA__________________
 A-2
8. Land Acquisition Matters:
(a) Date of Section 4 notification: ____NA__________________

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: ____NA__________________

(c) Date of Section 17 notification: ___NA___________________

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: ________NA__________________

10. Special Category (First petitioner/appellant only):
 Senior Citizen > 65 years SC/ST Woman/ Child  Disabled
 Legal Aid case  In custody
11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters):
_________N/A_____

Date: 14.06.2021
[DR. CHARU MATHUR]
AOR for petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Registration No: 1642
charumilind@gmail.com
 B

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

That the petitioner prefers the instant Special Leave Petition

being aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the Writ
Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the illegal and
arbitrary cancellation of the auction in respect of Barada Black
Stone Quarry No. 4 (Sairat Case 31/2021) was dismissed.

That it is most respectfully submitted that the impugned order

has been passed relying on the proceedings of the District Level
Committee meeting held on 13.05.2021. It is humbly submitted
here that such document was never a part of the record and
submitted to the Hon’ble High Court behind the back of the
Petitioner. Such document has not been submitted by way of an
affidavit and is at best a private document handed over to the
Hon’ble High Court, whose authenticity and veracity is doubtful.
Further, the Petitioner was never provided an opportunity to
peruse the document and the Hon’ble High Court has committed
a gross error of law by accepting the contents of such document
as gospel truth and passed the impugned judgement based on
such document. Since the Petitioner was never afforded an
opportunity to rebut the contents of the document submitted on
behalf of the State of Odisha, the impugned judgement passed on
the basis of such document is liable to set aside.

The facts in brief of the present matters are that the Respondent
No. 3 on 22.02.21 issued an advertisement for long term lease of
several sairat sources in the Dharmasala Tahsil. The tender terms
and conditions further provided that the applicant has to
mandatorily provide a property list obtained from the Revenue
 C
Officer. Petitioner’s bid was the only bid which duly complied
with all necessary terms and conditions including the relevant
property list. Therefore, in accordance with the tender terms and
conditions as well as the OMMC Rules, 2016, the bids submitted
by the other bidders were liable to be rejected. Accordingly, on
29.04.21 the Petitioner, being the highest bidder with all
necessary documents, was intimated of his selection and on
10.05.21 Petitioner was declared as the successful bidder.
Although the Petitioner had quoted an Additional Charge of Rs.
85, the Respondents illegally, arbitrarily and unilaterally
enhanced the rate of additional charge to Rs. 85 + 1, without any
authority for such enhancement. The said intimation further
directed the Petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the amount within 15
days, failing which, the earnest money deposit would be
forfeited. Petitioner was directed to execute deed in respect of
the quarry lease for the aforesaid area within the period
specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 43.

That the Petitioner on 13.5.2021 even deposited the amount of

Rs. 10,46,820/-.

That, while the matter stood thus, the Respondents on 17.05.21

have suddenly cancelled the auction entirely vide Letter No.
1896, without due notice or opportunity to the Petitioner, on
blatantly false and concocted ground of insufficient participation
of qualified bidders. It is reiterated here that the Petitioner was
the eligible highest bidder and was declared as such by the
Respondents. The cancellation of the auction after issuance of
“form-F” to the Petitioner is illegal and without authority of law.
 D
It is submitted that Form F is a declaration of a decision in favour
of petitioner that he is the successful bidder and only on
compliance of a formality within the statutory period agreement
is to be executed. This creates a valuable statutory right in his
favour. Impugned order of arbitrary cancellation before the
prescribed period therefore cancels the decision under form-F
taking away the created right without following the process of
Natural Justice.

That once the Form-F is issued to the successful bidder, the price
quoted by him stands disclosed to all his competitors and
thereafter to cancel the bid would cause him serious prejudice. It
is submitted that there could be no deviation from the procedure
mentioned in the OMMC Rules. The Hon’ble High Court
therefore erred in dismissing the writ petition while holding that
“No doubt, the decision would result in the Petitioners having to
once again participate in the fresh auction. But, apart from this,
it cannot be said that there is any serious prejudice caused to any
of them on that score.”

Further once Form-F is issued by the Respondent No.3

announcing the respective Petitioners to be the successful bidder
and calling upon the Petitioners to come forward to complete the
necessary formalities, then the Respondents were estopped from
cancelling the auction at that stage.

It is submitted that, the power of the competent authority under

Section 27 (16) of the OMMC Rules to cancel an auction cannot
be permitted to be exercised arbitrarily on the whims and fancies
of the authorities and especially after all the requirements have
been fulfilled by the successful bidder. It is humbly submitted
 E
here that the Hon’ble High Court has grossly misinterpreted the
discretion granted under the aforesaid rule. Firstly, not one
ground for cancellation as provided under the Rule 27 (16) exists
in the present case. The advertisement was widely publicized in
local dailies. Secondly, the Opp. Parties have misled the Hon’ble
Court by making false justification of insufficient participation.
A perusal of the bid sheets would establish ample participation of
bidders. Merely because, the other participants failed to comply
with the statutory requirements cannot be a valid ground to deny
the legal and statutory rights of the Petitioner.

That several other Writ Petitions were filed before the Hon’ble
High Court by similarly situated aggrieved persons as detailed
hereinbelow. The Hon’ble High Court vide impugned common
order dated 9.6.2021 was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions.

SL. WPC NO. PARTY SAIRAT ADDL. ADDL. WHETHER

NO NAME CASE CHARGE CHARGE MONEY
NO. QUOTED DEMANDED DEPOSITED
1. 17282/21 Rangadhar 31/2021 85 85+1 Yes
(Being Pradhan
challenged)
2. 17289/21 Gangadhar 32/2021 367 No extra No
Ojha demand
3. 17288/21 Niranjan 28/2021 73 121+1 Yes
Rout
4. 17284/21 Narayan 21/2021 83 140+1 Yes
Rout
5. 17278/21 Rangadhar 24/2021 75 426+1 No
Pradhan
6. 17281/21 Rangadhar 29/2021 76 80+1 Yes
Pradhan
7. 17280/21 Narayan 25/2021 105 191+1 No
Rout
8. 17283/21 Sribash 27/2021 65 305+1 No
Jena
9. 17285/21 Sribash 23/2021 65 275+1 No
Jena
10. 17291/21 Deepak 30/2021 365 1189+1 No
Kumar
Pradhan
 F
LIST OF DATES

22.02.21 Respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement for long

term lease of several sairat sources in the
Dharmasala Tahsil. The present Petitioner submitted
his application in terms of the aforesaid
advertisement, with respect to Barada Black Stone
Quarry No. 4, pertaining to Sairat Case No. 31/2021
of the advertisement. Copy of Advertisement dated
22.2.2021 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1
(Pages 41 - 47)

It is pertinent to mention here that the tender terms

and conditions Clause 3 categorically provided that
upon intimation in Form-F, 1/4th of the additional
charge+royalty on the minimum guaranteed quantity
as quoted by the bidder in his application is required
to be deposited. It is pertinent to state here that the
tender terms and conditions further provided that the
applicant has to mandatorily provide a property list
obtained from the Revenue Officer.

23.03.2021 The bids were opened and it was found that the
petitioner was the successful highest bidder who had
duly submitted the property list obtained from the
Revenue Officer and the other bidders, had quoted
much lower price, and had also failed to submit the
relevant property list, which is a mandatory
requirement under the tender conditions. Therefore,
in accordance with the tender terms and conditions
as well as the OMMC Rules, 2016, the bids
 G
submitted by the other bidders were liable to be
rejected. Since the Petitioner was the successful
highest bidder who had duly complied with all
necessary terms and conditions, he was legally
entitled to be selected as the leaseholder under the
OMMC Rules, 2016. Copy of Bidder Particular
dated 24.3.2021 is annexed herewith as Annexure
P-2 (Pages 48 – 49)

28.04.21 Respondent No. 3 informed the Petitioner that in

accordance with Letter No. 5878 dated 28.04.2021
of the Collector-Controlling Authority, Jajpur, since
submission of property list obtained from the
Revenue Officer is a mandatory requirement, hence
the other bids cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the
Petitioner, being the highest bidder with all
necessary documents, was intimated of his selection,
and was directed to come to the office of the
Respondent No. 3 for negotiation of the bid amount,
in excess of jurisdiction provided under the OMMC
Rules, 2016.

That, the Petitioner refused to comply with such call

for negotiations, as such direction was contrary to
the applicable rules and the Respondents did not
have jurisdiction or authority to negotiate the bid
amount, especially in light of the completion of a
successful tender process

10.05.21 Petitioner was issued with an Intimation in Form –

F, vide Letter No. 1871 dated 10.05.2021, whereby
 H
the Respondent No. 3 had declared the Petitioner as
the successful bidder, however, the additional charge
was illegally, arbitrarily and unilaterally enhanced in
complete contravention of the tender terms and
conditions, as well as the OMMC Rules, 2016. It is
stated here that although the Petitioner had quoted
an Additional Charge of Rs. 85, the Respondents
have illegally, arbitrarily and unilaterally enhanced
the rate of additional charge to Rs. 85 + 1, without
any authority for such enhancement. The said
intimation further directed the Petitioner to deposit
1/4th of the amount within 15 days, failing which, the
earnest money deposit would be forfeited. Copy of
Letter/Form-F dated 10.5.2021 is annexed herewith
as Annexure P-3 (Pages 50 – 51)

13.05.21 That the Petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.

10,46,820/-.

17.05.21 That, while the matter stood thus, the Respondents

have suddenly cancelled the auction entirely vide
Letter No. 1897, without due notice or opportunity
to the Petitioner, who was the legitimate highest
bidder, to contest such cancellation, on blatantly
false and concocted ground of insufficient
participation of qualified bidders. It is reiterated here
that the Petitioner was the eligible highest bidder
and was declared as such by the Respondents. The
cancellation of the auction after issuance of “form-
F” to the Petitioner is illegal and without authority of
 I
law. Copy of Letter dated 17.5.2021 is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-4 (Pages 52)

That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted here

that the action of the Respondents is illegal and
arbitrary. The cancellation of the auction was in
complete contravention of the tender terms and
conditions as well as the OMMC Rules, 2016. The
Respondents did not have the power, authority or
jurisdiction to unilaterally cancel the auction,
wherein the Petitioner was highest bidder in
accordance with law, without even providing an
opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Such
action of the Respondents is in complete derogation
of the basic principles of justice, equity and fairplay.

2.6.2021 Petitioner preferred Writ Petition praying for

quashing the cancellation of the auction vide Letter
No. 1897 dated 17.05.2021 and to declare the
Petitioner as the highest successful bidder in respect
of Barada Black Stone Quarry No. 4. Copy of Writ
Petition (C) No. 17282/2021 dated 2.6.2021 is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-5 (Pages 53 – 70)

Several other Writ Petitions were filed by other

persons who were similarly affected by the arbitrary
action of the Respondents in respect of other
quarries.

09.06.21 Hon’ble High Court vide impugned common order

dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.
 J
That it may be mentioned here that during the
hearing, the counsel for the Respondents placed
before the High Court copy of the proceedings of the
District Level Committee meeting held on
13.05.2021. It is humbly submitted here that such
document was never a part of the record and
submitted to the Hon’ble High Court behind the
back of the Petitioner. Such document has not been
submitted by way of an affidavit and is at best a
private document handed over to the Hon’ble High
Court, whose authenticity and veracity is doubtful.
The impugned order has been passed relying on the
proceedings of the District Level Committee
meeting held on 13.05.2021.

14.06.21 Hence the present Special Leave Petition.

 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P. (C) Nos.17282, 17281 & 17282 of 2021

Rangadhar Pradhan …. Petitioner
Mr. Subir Palit, Advocate
-versus
State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite
Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A.

W.P. (C) Nos.17283 & 17285 of 2021

Sribash Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. Subir Palit, Advocate
-versus
State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite
Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A.

W.P. (C) No.17288 of 2021

Niranjan Rout ….
Petitioner
Mr. Abhijit Pal, Advocate
-versus
State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite
Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A.

W.P. (C) No.17289 of 2021

Gangadhar Ojha ….
Petitioner
 2
Mr. Anindya Mishra, Advocate
-versus
State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite
Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A.

W.P. (C) Nos.17280 & 17284 of 2021

Narayan Rout …. Petitioner
Mr. Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus
State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite
Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A.

W.P. (C) No.17291 of 2021

Deepak Pradhan ….
Petitioner
Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, Advocate
-versus
State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite
Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A.

CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE K. R. MOHAPATRA
JUDGMENT
09.06.2021
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ
 3
1. The challenge in all these petitions is to the cancellation of the
auction held in respect of Black Stone Quarries located in the
Dharmasala Tahsil in Jajpur district. The cancellation was
intimated to each of the Petitioners by separate letters dated 17th
May, 2021 by the Tahsildar, Dharmasala (Opposite Party No.3).
In each of the petitions a direction has been sought to the
Opposite Parties to declare the Petitioner as the highest
successful bidder in respect of the concerned stone quarry, accept
the rate quoted by the Petitioner and execute the lease agreement
in the Petitioner’s favour.

2. It is noted at the outset that, although a prayer has been made

in some of the writ petitions to declare Rule 46 of the Orissa
Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (‘OMMC Rules, 2016’)
as ultra vires Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation Amendment) Act, 2015 (‘MMDR
Act’), during the course of argument, the counsels for the
Petitioners stated that they were not pressing that prayer

3. Since the facts in all the cases are almost similar, illustratively
the facts in W.P. (C) No.17285 of 2021 are discussed first. Here,
an advertisement was issued on 22nd February, 2021 for a
longterm 5 year lease of several Sairat Sources in Dharmasala
Tahsil. As far as the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.17285 of 2021 is
concerned, he had submitted an application for allotment of the
mining lease in respect of Rahadpur Black Stone Quarry No.1
pertaining to Sairat Case No.23 of 2021 at Serial No.14 of the
Advertisement.
 4
4. According to the Petitioner, subsequent to the opening of the
bids on 23rd March, 2021, it was found that the Petitioner was
the only successful bidder. Although other bidders had quoted a
higher price, they had failed to submit the relevant property list
which was a mandatory requirement for consideration of the Bid.

5. While the letter dated 29th April, 2021 of Opposite Party No.3
informed the Petitioner that he was the highest bidder, and that
he should come to the office of Opposite Party No.3 for
negotiation of the bid amount, since, according to the Petitioner,
this was contrary to the applicable OMMC Rules, he did not
proceed for negotiation. It is stated that the Petitioner was issued
intimation in Form-F vide letter dated 10th May, 2021 by
Opposite Party No.1 declaring him to be the successful bidder.
However, the additional charge was unilaterally and arbitrarily
enhanced from Rs.65/- quoted by the Petitioner to Rs.275/- + 1.
The Petitioner was asked to deposit 1/4th of the amount so
calculated within 15 days, failing which the Earnest Money
Deposit (EMD) would be forfeited

6. While the matter stood thus, the auction was totally cancelled
by the Opposite Parties by the impugned letter dated 17th May,
2021. The said letter reads as under:
“Sir/Madam,
This is to inform you that the Collector-cum-Controlling
Authority under OMMC Rules 2016 and vide decision taken
on Dt-13.05.2021, in the District Level Committee for
Settlement of Sairat Sources Through Tender Process, it has
been decided to cancel the minor mineral long term lease
proceeding due to insufficient participation of qualified
 5
bidders, i.e. participation of only one or no valid bidder. The
bid knocked in your favour stands cancelled vide District
Office (Res) memo no.109 Dt.15.05.2021.
Hence, you are hereby informed to receive the EMD and
security deposit from this office within seven days from the
date of issue of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Tahasildar, Dharmasala.”

7. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has

been filed. The facts of the other connected writ petitions are
more or less similar. Although in some cases there may have
been more than one bidder, it stood confirmed during hearing of
all the writ petitions that, with reference to each of the respective
Stone Sairats for which the Petitioners had bid, there was only
one valid bid.

8. This Court heard the submissions of Mr. Subir Palit, learned

counsel for the Petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 17282, 17281,
17282, 17283 & 17285 of 2021, Mr. Abhijit Pal, learned counsel
for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17288 of 2021, Mr. Anindya
Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.17289
of 2021, Mr. Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
Petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.17280 and 17284 of 2021, Mr. Aditya
Narayan Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. (C)
No.17291 of 2021, and Mr. Debakant Mohanty, learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate who appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties
in all the writ petitions.
 6
9. On behalf of the Petitioners, it is submitted that, once Form-F
is issued by the Opposite Party No.3 announcing the respective
Petitioners to be the successful bidder and calling upon the
Petitioners to come forward to complete the necessary
formalities, then the Opposite Parties were estopped from
cancelling the auction at that stage. It is submitted that, the power
of the competent authority under Section 27 (16) of the OMMC
Rules to cancel an auction cannot be permitted to be exercised
after all the requirements have been fulfilled by the successful
bidder and the only step remaining was the execution of the
agreement.

10. A reference is made to Rule 27(4)(iv) of the OMMC Rules to

point out that each of the successful bidders had complied with
all the mandatory requirements spelt out therein, including
production of the solvency certificate/Bank Guarantee and
royalty for the minimum guarantee quantity once a year along
with additional immovable property obtained from the revenue
authority. It is submitted that, under Rules 27 (5) and (7) of the
OMMC Rules, the procedure for declaring each of the Petitioners
as the successful bidder was duly complied with. It is submitted
under Rule 27(9) that it is only in the event of default by the
selected bidder that the competent authority may issue intimation
to the next highest bidder to be required to convey its acceptance
and make security deposit in the manner mentioned in Rule 27(7)
of the OMMC Rules.

11. It is pointed out that, in the letter dated 17th May, 2021 by
Opposite Party No.3 to each of the petitioners informing that the
auction has been cancelled, a reference was made to Rule 27 (10)
 7
of the OMMC Rules, which, in fact, talks of a contingency where
the second highest bidder quotes “an unusually low price in
comparison to the highest bidder of the same source or other
sources”, which alone could then justify the cancellation of the
bid and inviting tenders afresh. It is pointed out that, on the
admitted facts of the present cases, since the ostensible reason
was that there was only one valid bid, Rule 27 (10) of the
OMMC Rules has no application. This is put forth as an
additional ground to challenge the impugned decision to cancel
the auction on account of nonapplication of mind.

12. All of the learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that the
power under Rules 27 (16) of the OMMC Rules, whereby the
Collector could cancel a bid by recording the reasons thereof “if
he is not satisfied on the publicity, participation of the bidders
and amount of additional charge” cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
Importantly, it is submitted that such a power can be exercised
only after due notice to the Petitioners and after providing them
an opportunity of being heard.

13. Further it is submitted that, once the Form-F is issued to the

successful bidder, the price quoted by him stands disclosed to all
his competitors and thereafter to cancel the bid would cause him
serious prejudice. It is submitted that there could be no deviation
from the procedure mentioned in the OMMC Rules. A thing has
to be done in the manner prescribed or not at all.

14. In support of the above submission reliance is paced on the

decision in State of U. P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358.
Reliance is placed on the decisions in Nagendra Rai v. Om
 8
Prakash Singh (2014) 15 SCC 463, to urge that, once the offer is
accepted, such acceptance would bind the authority inviting the
tender and the tender cannot be cancelled at that stage. The
decision in Union of India v. International Trading Co. (2003) 5
SCC 437, is referred in support of the submission that all the
statutory powers are to be exercised in the public interest and in
good faith. In support of the plea that the impugned decision is
violative of the principle of natural justice, reliance is placed on
the decision in M/s. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central [decision dated 11th
April, 2008 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2783 of
2008]. Lastly, reference is made to the decision of this Court in
M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited
[decision dated 23rd August, 2017 in W.P. (C) No.5272 of 2017].
15. Appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties, Mr. D.K.
Mohanty, learned A.G.A. placed before this Court a copy of the
Proceeding of the District Level Committee Meeting dated 13th
May, 2021 in respect of the settlement of Sairat Sources through
Tender Process under Dharmasala Tahasil. This explains the
reasons for the decision to cancel the auction in respect of the
Sairat sources for which the Petitioners had applied. Mr.
Mohanty assures the Court that within two days’ time the money
which was collected from each of the Petitioners would be
returned to them and within a week from today the notice for a
fresh auction would be issued so that no prejudice is caused to
anyone.

16. The above submissions have been considered. In the present

case, the source of power of the Collector to cancel the auction
can be traced in Rule 27(16) of the OMMC Rules. The Court
 9
notes that there has been no challenge by any of the Petitioners to
the validity of the said Rule 27(16) of the OMMC Rules, which
expressly confers on the Collector the power to cancel any bid by
recording the reasons therefor “if he is not satisfied with the
publicity, participation of bidders, and amount of additional
charges quoted”. It is obvious that such power is to be exercised
in a just fair and reasonable manner. That in fact is the scope of
judicial review of the impugned letter dated 17th May 2021.

17. In the present case, from the proceedings of the District Level
Committee Meeting, it is apparent that the reason for cancellation
of the auction is traceable to the factor of “participation of
bidders”. The proceeding reveals that there were 27 Sairat
Sources that had been offered for auction in Dharmasala Tahsil.
This was for settlement on long-term lease for a period of five
years under the OMMC Rules. The bids received in respect of 9
of the Sairat Sources in Bichhakhandi Hillock area were not
opened in view of the interim order passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.8378 of 2021. Further, no bidder participated in
respect of 3 of the Sairat Sources of Aruha Hillock area.

18. This left 15 Sairat Sources, in which the bids received were
opened. Only in case of 2 out of these 15 sources, viz., the Anjira
Black Stone Quarry No.10 and the Baraman Black Stone Quarry
No.02, there was more than one valid bid. In these two cases,
therefore, the Committee decided to grant the bid in favour of the
highest bidder.

19. As regards the balance 13 Sairat Sources, it was found that

there was either only one valid bid or no valid bid at all. The
 10
cases where the petitioners had participated and were successful
were admittedly cases of a valid single bid. It was unanimously
decided by the Committee, which comprised of the Collector &
District Magistrate, Jajpur, A.D.M., Revenue, Jajpur, Sub-
Collector & S.D.M., Jajpur and the Deputy Collector, Revenue
Collectorate, Jajpur, to go into a fresh Tender. It was further
decided that the intimation in Form-F sent to the successful
bidders should be cancelled forthwith and the amount deposited
should be refunded.

20. The Court is unable to accept the plea of the Petitioners that
in the present case there has been any violation of the principle of
natural justice in cancelling the auction. No doubt, the decision
would result in the Petitioners having to once again participate in
the fresh auction. But, apart from this, it cannot be said that there
is any serious prejudice caused to any of them on that score. The
fact remains that, in as many as 13 Sairat Sources, out of a total
of 27, there was either only one valid bid or no valid bid at all. In
the circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision of the
opposite parties to cancel the auction in respect of these sairat
sources and go in for a fresh Tender notice was arbitrary or
unreasonable. Any Tender inviting authority would be justified,
in expecting that the price quoted is the most competitive one in
the circumstances.

21. On a careful perusal of Rule 27 of the OMMC Rules, which

lists in detail the steps to be taken for the grant of lease in favour
of the successful bidder in respect of the Sairat Sources, it is seen
that the declaration of a bidder as a successful one and sending
him an intimation in Form-F is but one of the steps in the
 11
process. It is followed by the important stage of execution of the
agreement. Till such time an agreement is executed, it cannot be
said that there is any vested right in the successful bidder to have
the lease allotted in its favour. In other words, as long as the
agreement is not signed, it cannot be said that the Collector, in
terms of Rule 27(16) of the OMMC Rules, is precluded from
taking a decision, for valid reasons, to cancel the auction.

22. In the present case, the sequence of events shows that the
bids were received and were opened sometime in the third week
of March, 2021. The intimation to the successful bidder was sent
some time in April, 2021 and the decision to cancel the auction
was taken on 15th May, 2021. This decision applied not just to
one or two the sources but to all the 13 sources where only one
valid bid or no valid bid at all was received. This, therefore,
cannot be termed to be either belated or barred by estoppel.
23. The Court finds that the decision in Nagendra Ray v. Om
Prakash Singh (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the present
case the matters have not reached the stage which could be said
to attract the doctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory
estoppel. Likewise, the decision in Union of India v.
International Trading Co. (supra) also is not helpful to the present
Petitioner. In fact, in the said decision the Supreme Court
explained in para-20 as under:
“20. As was observed in Punjab Communications Ltd. v.
Union of India, the change in policy can defeat a substantive
legitimate expectation if it can be justified on “Wednesbury
reasonableness”. The decision-maker has the choice in the
balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy.
It is, therefore, clear that the choice of policy is for the
 12
decision-maker and not the court. The legitimate substantive
expectation merely permits the court to find out if the change
of policy which is the cause for defeating the legitimate
expectation is irrational or perverse or one which no
reasonable person could have made. A claim based on merely
legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto
give a right. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it covers the
entire span of time: present, past and future. How significant is
the statement that today is tomorrow’s yesterday. The present
is as we experience it, the past is a present memory and future
is a present expectation. For legal purposes, expectation is not
same anticipation. Legitimacy of an expectation can be
inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law.”

24. Also, since the decision applied across the board, and the
basic fact that there was either only one valid bid or no valid bid
at all in respect of each of the 13 sources is not even disputed by
any of the Petitioners, the question of issuing notice to each of
them prior to the cancellation of the auction would have been an
empty formality. It would have served no useful purpose other
than further delaying the fresh auction process. Since the bidders
whose successful bids in the first round would in any event be
able to participate in the second one as well, it cannot be said that
any serious prejudice is caused to any of them as a result of
cancellation of the first auction. Also, the money deposited by
each of them has been agreed to be refunded by the Opposite
Parties. The decisions in M/s. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central (supra) and State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Singhara Singh (supra) also have no application to the
facts of the present case.
 13

25. The mere fact that the price quoted by the individual
Petitioners would be known to their competitors cannot be said to
prejudice them since they have one more opportunity to
participate in the fresh auction where they would still be able to
anticipate the price now to be quoted by other bidders and
improve their own respective bid accordingly. That is how
perhaps in a competitive bidding process, the best or rather the
most competitive price can possibly be obtained. This again
cannot be said to be unfair, unreasonable or prejudicial to the
Petitioners. Consequently, the decision in M/s. Sical Logistics
Ltd v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (supra) is also not helpful to the
case of the Petitioners.

26. For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no merit
in any of the writ petitions and they are dismissed as such.
Taking into consideration the statement made by the learned
A.G.A. on behalf of the Opposite Parties, it is directed that the
money if any received from the Petitioners, will be refunded to
each of them by the Opposite Parties/State within two days from
today. Further, the Opposite Parties/State shall issue notice for
the fresh auction of the aforesaid Sairat sources not later than
seven days from today.

27. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation

are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a
printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par
with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned
advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587,
 14
dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798,
dated 15th April, 2021.

(S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice

(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

TRUE COPY
 15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[S.C.R. Order XXI Rule 3(1) (a)]
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2021

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

BETWEEN POSITION OF PARTIES

In the High In this Hon’ble
Court Court
Rangadhar Pradhan
S/O Binod Bihari Pradhan,
R/o Ragadipasi
PS – Jenapur,
District –Jajpur
Odisha Petitioner Petitioner

Versus
1. State of Odisha
Through Secretary,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Secretariat
Bhubaneswar, Respondent Respondent
Odisha. No.1 No.1

2. Collector, Jajpur
AT/PO: Jajpur
Distt Jajpur, Respondent Respondent
Odisha. No.2 No.2

3. Tahasildar
Dharmasala,
AT/PO Dharmasala, Respondent Respondent
Distt Jajpur, Odisha. No.3 No.3

(All are Contesting Respondents)

 16
TO,
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA;

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE-NAMED

PETITIONER;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The petitioner herein is filing the present special leave
petition against the impugned judgment and final order
dated 09.06.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 17282 of 2021 whereby
the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ
Petition.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the

Hon’ble High Court erred in relying on the proceedings of
the District Level Committee meeting held on 13.05.2021
which were submitted to the Hon’ble High Court behind
the back of the Petitioner and was never a part of the
record?

B. Whether once Form-F is issued by the Respondent No.3

announcing the Petitioner to be the successful highest
bidder and calling upon the Petitioner to come forward to
complete the necessary formalities, the Respondents were
estopped from cancelling the auction at that stage?
 17
C. Whether the power of the competent authority under Rule
27 (16) of the OMMC Rules to cancel an auction can be
permitted to be exercised after all the requirements have
been fulfilled by the successful highest bidder and the
Hon’ble High Court has grossly misinterpreted the
discretion granted under the aforesaid rule?

D. Whether the Respondents could have been allowed to take

the shelter of Rule 27 (16) when no ground for
cancellation as provided under the Rule 27 (16) exists in
the present case?

E. Whether the fact that the order of cancellation was issued

under Rule 27 (10) which is inapplicable to the facts of the
case, establishes the non-application of mind on the part of
the Respondents?

F. Whether once the Form-F is issued to the successful

highest bidder, the price quoted by him stands disclosed to
all his competitors and thereafter to cancel the bid would
cause him serious prejudice?

G. Whether Petitioner being the highest bidder who had duly

complied with all necessary terms and conditions was
legally entitled to be selected as the leaseholder under the
OMMC Rules, 2016?

H. Whether once the Petitioner was declared as the highest

bidder, and intimation was issued to him in accordance with
law, the auction could not have been cancelled without due
 18
and proper notice to the Petitioner and providing him with
an opportunity of hearing?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):

The Petitioners state that no other petition seeking Leave to
appeal has been filed by him against the impugned judgment and
final order dated 09.06.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 17282 of 2021.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

The Annexures P-1 to P- 5 produced along with the Special
Leave Petition are the copies of the pleading/documents, which
formed part of the records in the High Court against whose order
the leave is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS:
The leave to appeal is sought on following grounds:

I. Because the Hon’ble High Court has committed gross

injustice by relying on the proceedings of the District
Level Committee meeting held on 13.05.2021. It is
humbly submitted here that such document was submitted
to the Hon’ble High Court behind the back of the
Petitioner and was never a part of the record. Such
document has not been submitted by way of an affidavit
and is at best a private document handed over to the
Hon’ble High Court, whose authenticity and veracity is
doubtful. Further, the Petitioner was never provided an
opportunity to peruse the document and the Hon’ble High
Court has committed a gross error of law by accepting the
 19
contents of such document as gospel truth and passed the
impugned judgement based on such documents. Since the
Petitioner was never afforded an opportunity to rebut the
contents of the document submitted on behalf of the State
of Odisha, the impugned judgement passed on the basis
of such document is liable to set aside.

II. Because there were never any pleadings on behalf of the

State of Odisha by way of a counter affidavit or
otherwise. However, the Hon’ble High Court, relying on
a document passed on behind the back of the Petitioner,
filled the lacuna in the case for the State of Odisha. The
impugned judgment traverses into pleadings regarding
prices, without there being a single pleading in that regard
on behalf of the State. Therefore, the impugned judgment
has been delivered based solely on one document
submitted without following due procedure, and is
therefore illegal and contrary to law, and thus liable to be
set aside.

III. Because the Hon’ble High Court erred in dismissing the

writ petition while holding that “No doubt, the decision
would result in the Petitioners having to once again
participate in the fresh auction. But, apart from this, it
cannot be said that there is any serious prejudice caused
to any of them on that score.” It is submitted that once the
Form-F is issued to the successful highest bidder, the
price quoted by him stands disclosed to all his
competitors and thereafter to cancel the bid would cause
him serious prejudice. It is submitted that there could be
 20
no deviation from the procedure mentioned in the OMMC
Rules. A thing has to be done in the manner prescribed or
not at all. Such has been categorically held by this
Hon’ble Court in Nagendra Rai v. Om Prakash Singh
(2014) 15 SCC 463 and followed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Orissa in M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd. v. Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited [decision dated 23rd August, 2017 in
W.P. (C) No.5272 of 2017.

IV. Because once Form-F is issued by the Respondent No.3

announcing the Petitioner to be the successful highest
bidder and calling upon the Petitioner to come forward to
complete the necessary formalities, then the Respondents
were estopped from cancelling the auction at that stage. It
is submitted that, the power of the competent authority
under Rule 27 (16) of the OMMC Rules to cancel an
auction cannot be permitted to be exercised after all the
requirements have been fulfilled by the successful highest
bidder. It is humbly submitted here that the Hon’ble High
Court has grossly misinterpreted the discretion granted
under the aforesaid rule. Firstly, not one ground for
cancellation as provided under the Rule 27 (16) exists in
the present case. The advertisement was widely
publicized in local dailies. Secondly, the Opp. Parties
have misled the Hon’ble Court by making false
justification of insufficient participation. A perusal of the
bid sheets would establish ample participation of bidders.
Merely because, the other participants failed to comply
with the statutory requirements cannot be a valid ground
to deny the legal and statutory rights of the Petitioner.
 21
Lastly, the amount of additional charge quoted by the
Petitioner, was always much higher than the minimum
additional charge stated by the authorities, which has
been set at a base value of Rs. 60/- after thorough
compliance with the provisions under the OMMC Rules,
2016, for the fixation of the price. Even if the statute
provides a discretionary power to the authorities, however
it does not permit them to use such power arbitrarily and
without valid reasons. In the instant case, since none of
the conditions prescribed under Rule 27 (16) were met,
the authorities do not have the jurisdiction or power to
cancel the tender on such grounds. In any case, it is
reiterated here that the order of cancellation was issued
under Rule 27 (10) which is inapplicable here. Such
action of the authorities clearly highlights the callous
attitude of the authorities to the sanctity of a public
tender, and establishes the non-application of mind.

V. Because power under Rules 27 (16) of the OMMC Rules,

whereby the Collector could cancel a bid by recording the
reasons thereof “if he is not satisfied on the publicity,
participation of the bidders and amount of additional
charge” cannot be exercised arbitrarily. No notice was
given to the Petitioners and no opportunity was provided
of being heard. Even otherwise the Respondents did not
invoke the provisions of Rule 27 (16) but Rule 27 (10)
which provides that:

“(10) If the second highest bidder has quoted unusually

low price in comparison to the highest bidder of the same
 22
source or other sources in the vicinity, the competent
authority may bring it to the notice of the Controlling
Authority, who after proper verification and with due
justification may cancel the bid and direct for fresh
auction.”

In the instant case, although the order of cancellation has

been issued under Rule 27 (10), however, the reason for
cancellation has been stated as “insufficient participation
of qualified bidders” and the impugned judgement has
been passed without considering that such order has been
passed on an error of law and being evident of non-
application of mind, thus the impugned judgment is liable
to be set aside.

VI. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate

the fact the order of cancellation dated 17.05.2021 has
been passed under the direction of the Collector-Jajpur-
Controlling Authority. To be precise, the same authority
who directed the issuance of the statutory intimation
dated 10.05.2021, suddenly directed the cancellation of
the tender on false and concocted grounds, without
application of mind. It is humbly submitted here that if
there was in fact insufficient participation of qualified
bidders, the Collector should have cancelled the auction
on the date of opening of the bids itself. The cancellation
of the auction after statutory intimation under Form-F
was duly issued, clearly shows that the Collector-Jajpur-
Controlling authority is playing fast and loose.
 23
VII. Because the Petitioner, being the highest bidder, who had
duly complied with all statutory requirement, was
lawfully entitled to be declared as the successful bidder in
accordance with Rule 27 (5) of the OMMC Rules, 2016.
However, the Respondents opted for an unprecedented
and illegal approach by directing the Petitioner to come
for negotiations and then unilaterally declared the
Petitioner as successful highest bidder, with an enhanced
rate of additional charge, in excess of the jurisdiction and
authority granted under the OMMC Rules, 2016.
Thereafter, suddenly, the entire auction was cancelled on
the ground of insufficient participation, when clearly, the
Petitioner was a valid highest bidder and entitled to be
granted the lease in accordance with law.

Petitioner was the highest bidder who had duly complied

with all statutory requirement. None of the other
participants/bidders had provided a valid list of properties
as per the law. Hence, the bids submitted by such
participants/bidders are invalid and cannot be considered
for the purpose of determining the highest bid.

Rule 27 (4) (iv) provides that a list of immovable

properties obtained from the Revenue Authority is a
mandatory statutory requirement, to be considered as a
valid and eligible bidder in the tender process. The
relevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:
“(4) Subject to other provisions of these rules for
settlement of quarry lease, the intending applicant may
apply to the Competent Authority in a sealed cover for
 24
grant of quarry lease for such area or areas in Form-M
in triplicate accompanied by the following documents and
particulars, namely:-
(i) Treasury challan showing deposit of one thousand
rupees (non-refundable) towards the application fee;
(ii) An affidavit stating that no mining due payable
under the Act and the rules made thereunder, is
outstanding against the applicant;
(iii) Proof of payment of earnest money equivalent to five
percentum of the minimum amount of additional charges
specified in the notice and the amount of royalty, both
calculated on the basis of minimum guaranteed quantity
for one whole year for the minimum guaranteed quantity
of minor mineral to be extracted in one full year; and

(iv) a solvency Certificate or Bank guarantee valid for a

period of eighteen months for an amount not less than the
amount of additional charge offered and the royalty
payable for the minimum guaranteed quantity for one
whole year and a list of immovable properties from the
Revenue Authority.”

VIII. Because the cancellation of the auction was in complete

contravention of the tender terms and conditions as well
as the OMMC Rules, 2016. The Respondents did not
have the power, authority or jurisdiction to unilaterally
cancel the auction, wherein the Petitioner was successful
highest bidder in accordance with law, without even
providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party.
Such action of the Respondents is in complete derogation
of the basic principles of justice, equity and fairplay.

IX. Because Rule 27 (7) and (9) of the OMMC Rules, 2016,
under which Letter dated 10.05.2021 was issued are
inapplicable in the present case since as per the OMMC
 25
Rules, 2016, and the tender conditions, and as has been
clearly established above, the Petitioner is the successful
highest bidder, being the sole valid and eligible bidder,
who had duly complied with all statutory requirements
and there has been no default on the part of the Petitioner
who is the highest qualified bidder. The Petitioner has not
defaulted in his obligations, instead he is the only bidder
who has duly complied with all statutory requirements.
The Respondents unilaterally enhanced the rate of
additional charge to suit their own purpose, and then upon
to failure to coerce the Petitioner to pay such excessive
amount, proceeded to illegally cancel the auction, after
declaration and grant of lease in favor of the Petitioner.

X. Because as per clause 3 of the tender terms and

conditions, as published in the advertisement dated
22.02.2021, the successful bidder is required to submit
1/4th of the additional charge and royalty quoted in his
application. The tender terms and conditions nowhere
provide the authority to the Respondents to invite the
successful bidder for further negotiation of the bid
amount after successful completion of the tender process.
The tender conditions nowhere provide the authority to
the Respondents to arbitrarily and unilaterally impose a
higher amount of additional charge, completely ignoring
the bid amount quoted by the Petitioner. Therefore, such
action of the Respondents was in complete contravention
of the tender terms and conditions. The Petitioner is
therefore legally entitled to be declared as the successful
bidder and liable to pay only such additional charge as
 26
quoted in his tender application, as he is the valid highest
bidder who has duly complied with all statutory
requirements. The cancellation of the auction after
declaring the Petitioner under Rule-27(7), merely because
the numerous other bidders failed to comply with
statutory requirements amounts to penalizing the
Petitioner for complying with the law.

XI. Because the OMMC Rules, 2016 do not grant authority to

the Respondents to arbitrarily cancel the auction. The
power of cancellation can be exercised only under
specific circumstances of default of selected bidders. It is
humbly reiterated here that as per the applicable law and
rules, the Petitioner, being the sole bidder who complied
with all statutory requirements and tender conditions, is
entitled to declared as the successful bidder in the tender
process. Petitioner has even deposited the amount of Rs.
10,46,820/-.

XII. Because it is a well settled salutary principle that if a

statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular
manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no
other manner. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara
Singh & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 358 it was held that –

“8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well

recognized and is founded on sound principle. Its result is
that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and
has laid down the method in which that power is to be
exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in
any other manner than that which has been prescribed.
 27
The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so,
the statutory provision might as well not have been
enacted.”

The above decision has been followed in Chandra

Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. reported in (1999)
8 SCC 266.

XIII. Because it is most humbly and respectfully submitted

here that the illegal, arbitrary, and unilateral action of the
Respondents sets an extremely dangerous precedence and
opens the gates of arbitrariness for the competent
authorities, without any checks and balances. Such action
shall lead to further such arbitrary orders by the
competent authorities on their own whims and fancies,
which shall seriously denude the larger public interest,
leading to corruption and vested interest in the tender
process.

XIV. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate

the fact that, once the Petitioner was declared as the
highest bidder, and intimation was issued to him in
accordance with law, the auction could not have been
cancelled without due and proper notice to the Petitioner
and providing him with an opportunity of hearing,
especially when such cancellation was being made
completely outside of the jurisdiction and authority
granted under the OMMC Rules, 2016. Such cancellation
is in violation of the principles of natural justice and on
that ground alone, the order of cancellation is liable to set
aside. That, this Hon’ble Court has categorically held that
 28
providing an opportunity of hearing is mandatory when
any administrative order leads to civil consequences in its
judgement in the case of M/s. Sahara India (Firm),
Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central,
(2008) 14 SCC 151. The impugned judgment has failed to
take into account such judicial precedence and is
therefore based on an erroneous interpretation of the law
and facts, and is liable to be set aside.

XV. Because it is humbly submitted here that spectrum of

events leading to the cancellation of the auction clearly
establishes and ulterior motive and interest of the
Respondents. There was participation by several bidders,
who submitted different bids. However, the Petitioner
was the sole participant who had complied with all
statutory and tender requirements. The Respondents
having declared the Petitioner as the successful highest
bidder, adopted an arbitrary process of enhancement of
the rate of additional charge outside of the jurisdiction
and authority granted under the OMMC Rules, 2016.
Thereafter, after refusal of the Petitioner to comply with
such direction for negotiation, the Respondents declared
the Petitioner as the successful bidder, however, in a most
illegal manner, unilaterally increased the rate of
additional charge, completely ignoring the rate quoted by
the Petitioner. However, when such coercive methods
failed, the Respondents illegally cancelled the auction on
false grounds without due notice to the Petitioner. The
above facts and circumstances clearly establish the
 29
ulterior motive and interest of the Respondents and
warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court.

XVI. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate

the fact that the order of cancellation dated 17.05.2021
has been issued within 7 days from the date of intimation
to the Petitioner. Rule 27 (7) of the OMMC Rules, 2016
categorically provide 15 days time to the selected bidder
to submit his acceptance and comply with the statutory
conditions. In the instant case, the Hon’ble High Court
has failed to consider the fact that, while the intimation
under Rule 27 (6) was issued on 10.05.2021, the auction
was cancelled merely seven days later, without even
affording the Petitioner the statutory time limit to comply
with the intimation. Such action of the Respondents is
gross violation of the applicable law and the impugned
judgement having failed to appreciate such fact, is liable
to be set aside.

XVII. Because further, it is humbly submitted here that the

arbitrary and illegal action of the Respondents fails to
satisfy the test of reasonableness and therefore, directly
violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As has
been held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Union of
India Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr., reported
in AIR 2003 SC 3983, a change in policy must be made
fair and should not give the impression that it was so
done arbitrarily or by any ulterior motive.
“14. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution
applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the
 30
policy or any action of the Government, even in
contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of, it would be
unconstitutional.

15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise

of the executive power, when not trammelled by any
statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and
implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy
must be made fairly and should not give impression that it
was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The
wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every
State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone
irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an
accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is
fairness in action by the state, and non-arbitrariness in
essence and substance is the heart beat of fair play.
Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review
only to the extent that the State must act validly for a
discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior
purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of
arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely
defined. A question whether the impugned action is
arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts
and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious
test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any
discernible principle emerging from the impugned action
and if so, does it really satisfy the test of
reasonableness.”
 31
In the instant case, the illegal, arbitrary and unilateral
action of the Respondents is clear indication of
arbitrariness, with complete disregard to rule of law and
the larger public interest. When tenders are invited, the
terms and conditions must indicate with legal certainty,
norms and benchmarks. This legal certainty is an
important aspect of the rule of law. If there is vagueness
or subjectivity in the said norms it may result in unequal
and discriminatory treatment. The absence of legal
certainty in the present case, vitiates the very foundation
of the tender process the Hon’ble High Court has failed
appreciate such arbitrariness in the order of cancellation
dated 17.05.2021. Hence the impugned judgment is liable
to be set aside.

XVIII. Because the action of the Respondents is an

unprecedented and arbitrary move, in complete
contravention of the applicable law and legal principles,
and is in far excess of the jurisdiction granted under the
statute. Such scenario has not been envisaged under the
OMMC Rules, 2016.

6. GROUND FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

A. That the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble High
Court, is erroneous in law for the reasons stated in the
Grounds as aforesaid. The petitioner most respectfully
submits that the petitioner has a prima facie case in his
favour and as such the petitioner hopes to succeed before
this Hon'ble Court. The balance of convenience is also in
favour of the petitioner and irreparable loss will be caused
 32
to the Petitioner in case the stay of the impugned order is
not granted to the petitioner.

B. That the Hon’ble High Court while dismissing the Writ

Petition of the Petitioner has directed that the money if any
received from the Petitioner, will be refunded within two
days from the date of the impugned order. Further, the
Opposite Parties/State shall issue notice for the fresh
auction of the Sairat sources not later than seven days from
the date of the impugned order.

7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to: -
a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the order dated
09.06.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at
Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 17282 of 2021; and

b) pass any such further orders, as it may deem fit and proper
in the peculiar facts and the circumstances hereof.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to: -

a) Grant ad-interim ex-parte stay of the operation of

impugned order dated 09.06.2021 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 17282 of
2021; and
 33
b) pass any such further orders, as it may deem fit and proper
in the peculiar facts and the circumstances hereof.

Drawn & Filed by:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the petitioner
Drawn on: 14.06.2021
Filed on: 14.06.2021
 34
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO (CIVIL) _____ OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rangadhar Pradhan …Petitioner

Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. …Respondents

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged
and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No
additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or
relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified
that the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the
Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of
law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the
Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court.
This Certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by
the Petitioner/Persons authorized by the Petitioner whose
affidavit is filed in support of the S.L.P.
FILED BY:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
FILED ON: 14.06.2021
 35

J
15 36
1 8
36
 APPENDIX
37

EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No.2280, CUTTACK,THURSDAY,DECEMBER 15,2016/M ARGASIRA 24, 1938

STEEL & MINES DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION
The 14th December, 2016
ODISHA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 2016

S.R.O. No. 601/2016— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15
of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957) and in
supersession of the provisions contained in the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004,
except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the State
Government hereby makes the following rules for regulating the grant of mineral concessions in
respect of minor minerals and for the purposes connected therewith, namely:—
CHAPTER-I
PRELIMINARY
1. Short title and commencement:— (1) These rules may be called the Odisha Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2016.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Odisha Gazette.
2. Definitions:— (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) “Act” means the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957;
(b) “Additional charge” means the amount payable by a successful bidder on unit
quantity of minerals towards auction money in addition to other charges leviable
under these rules;
(c) “Authorized Officer” means the Director of Mines or Director of Geology or any
officer of the Directorate of Mines or Directorate of Geology duly authorized by the
Government in writing for the purpose;
(d) “Captive use” means use of the entire quantity of mineral(s) extracted from the
mining lease in a mineral processing unit or mineral beneficiation unit owned by the
lessee excluding the mineral of substandard quality or mineral rejects;
(e) “Collector” means the Chief Officer-in-Charge of the revenue administration of a
district and also includes the Additional District Magistrate;
 32
38
CHAPTER – IV
GRANT OF QUARRY LEASES

27. Grant of quarry lease:— (1) The area of the quarry lease shall be delineated and
notification inviting application(s)for grant of quarry lease(s) through auction shall be published in
two daily newspapers, at least one of which shall be a State level and other having wide publicity in
the area, where the lease is located and such notification shall be published at least fifteen days
before the intended date of inviting applications and shall contain the date and time within which
applications shall be received.
(2) The notice inviting applications for grant of quarry lease shall be issued by the
Competent Authority and shall specify the minimum guaranteed quantity of the minor mineral to be
extracted in a year by the applicant and the minimum amount of additional charge payable for the
same as determined under sub-rule (14).
(3) In case the mining plan or Environment Clearance for the proposed lease has been
obtained by the Competent Authority, this fact, along with the cost of obtaining thereof shall be
recoverable from the selected bidder which shall also be mentioned in the notice.
(4) Subject to other provisions of these rules for settlement of quarry lease, the intending
applicant may apply to the Competent Authority in a sealed cover for grant of quarry lease for such
area or areas in Form-M in triplicate accompanied by the following documents and particulars,
namely:—
(i) Treasury challan showing deposit of one thousand rupees (non-refundable) towards
the application fee;
(ii) An affidavit stating that no mining due payable under the Act and the rules made
thereunder, is outstanding against the applicant;
(iii) Proof of payment of earnest money equivalent to five percentum of the minimum
amount of additional charges specified in the notice and the amount of royalty, both
calculated on the basis of minimum guaranteed quantity for one whole year for the
minimum guaranteed quantity of minor mineral to be extracted in one full year; and
(iv) a solvency Certificate or Bank guarantee valid for a period of eighteen months for
an amount not less than the amount of additional charge offered and the royalty
payable for the minimum guaranteed quantity for one whole year and a list of
immovable properties from the Revenue Authority.
(5) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the quarry lease shall be granted in favour of the
applicant who has quoted the highest rate of additional charge:
 33 39
Provided that, if more than one applicant have quoted the highest rate of additional charge,
then the applicant shall be selected by draw of lots.
(6) The selected bidder shall be intimated by the Competent Authority within seven days in
Form-F about the selection and terms and conditions of the lease.
(7) Within fifteen days of such intimation, the selected bidder shall be required to convey his
acceptance of the terms and conditions and to deposit an amount which shall be calculated in such a
way that it shall be equivalent to one-fourth of the total amount of royalty and additional charge and
the amount of contribution payable to the District Mineral Foundation on the annual minimum
guaranteed quantity, taken together, reduced by the amount of earnest money, which, along with the
earnest money, shall be held as interest-free security deposit.
(8) The selected bidder shall also deposit the costs of obtaining the mining plan and
environmental clearance approvals, in case those have been obtained by the Competent Authority
(non-refundable) before executing the lease deed.
(9) In the event of default by the selected bidder, the Competent Authority may issue
intimation as specified in sub-rule (6) to the next highest bidder who shall then be required to
convey his acceptance and to make the security deposit calculated in the manner mentioned in sub-
rule (7).
(10) If the second highest bidder has quoted unusually low price in comparison to the
highest bidder of the same source or other sources in the vicinity, the competent authority may
bring it to the notice of the Controlling Authority, who after proper verification and with due
justification may cancel the bid and direct for fresh auction.
(11) If the second highest bidder does not convey the acceptance within the time stipulated
for such acceptance, or if the Controlling Authority has cancelled the bid under sub-rule (10), fresh
notice inviting application for grant of quarry lease shall be issued with the approval of the next
higher authority.
(12) Immediately after compliance of the foregoing provisions by the selected bidder, the
earnest money of the unsuccessful bidders shall be refunded and the bank guarantees, if any,
furnished by them, shall stand discharged.
(13) The selected bidder shall be required to execute quarry lease in Form-N within three
weeks from the date of intimation of his selection, if the approval of the mining plan and
environment clearance has been obtained before auction, and in other cases, three months from the
date of intimation, failing which, the intimation shall stand cancelled and the security deposit shall
stand forfeited:
 34 40
Provided that the Controlling Authority may, for genuine and sufficient reasons, extend the
said period, if it is satisfied that the delay in execution of lease deed is not due to reasons
attributable to the selected bidder.
(14) Security deposit shall be refunded after expiry of the lease period if the lessee has
fulfilled all conditions of lease and in case of violation of any of the conditions of lease, the security
deposit shall be forfeited in whole or in part by the Competent Authority.
(15) The minimum amount of additional charge to be quoted shall be such as the Competent
Authority, in consultation with the Controlling Authority, decide and specify in the notice inviting
applications for grant of quarry lease:
Provided that the minimum amount of additional charge so fixed should not be less than 5%
of the rate of royalty.
(16) The Collector or the Conservator of Forest, as the case may be, shall have power to
cancel the bid duly recording the reasons thereof, if he is not satisfied with the publicity,
participation of bidders and amount of additional charge quoted.
(17) Where the lessee, who has quoted the highest rate of additional charge, dies after
deposit of the amount specified under rule 42 or after execution of lease deed by him, such deposit
or deed shall be deemed to have been made or executed by the legal heir or legal representative, if
they so like.
28. Mining plan as a pre-requisite to the grant of quarry lease:— (1) No quarry lease shall
be granted by the Competent Authority unless there is a mining plan prepared by the recognized
person and duly approved by the authorized officer for the development of the mineral deposits in
the area concerned.
Provided that the recognized person shall not charge any amount in excess of the ceiling on
fees specified by the Director.
(2) The Competent Authority may cause the mining plan to be prepared and approved.
(3) In case the approval under sub-rule (2) has not been obtained by the Competent
Authority, the selected bidder shall cause a mining plan to be prepared from a recognized person
and approved by the authorized officer having jurisdiction.
(4) The recognized person shall prepare the mining plan in Form-O within thirty days from
the date of receipt of communication from the selected bidder or Competent Authority and submit
the same to the authorized officer for approval.
(5) The authorized officer shall, after receipt of the mining plan from the recognized
person, approve the same within thirty days from the date of receipt of the mining plan or its
modification (s), if any, desired by him.
 41
ANNEXURE P-1

OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, DHARMASALA

Advertisement No.881 Date-22.02.2021

Advertisement for long term lease of minor minerals

It is hereby informed to the general public that,

applications are invited from interested persons, for long term
lease of the following listed Minor Minerals Sairat Sources
under the Revenue & Disaster Department of Government of
Odisha in the Tahasil, Dharmasala, for a minimum period
of 5 (Five) years.
Interested applicants are requested to submit their
applications in triplicate in Form-M of the Odisha Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 and the Odisha Minor
Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and 2018
along with the following necessary documents, in a sealed
envelope,which can be submitted by way of registered post
or speed post within 5:00 P.M. on 23.03.2021 (except
holiday). Applications received after expiry of the said
period shall be rejected. All the sealed envelopes shall be
opened in the presence of the applicants or their
representatives on 24.03.2021 at 11:00 A.M, and the highest
bidder shall be selected. Incomplete or without necessary
documents applications shall be rejected.
If the lease cannot be executed within the date and time
due to any reason, the next lease execution date will be
informed on the notice board of the Office of the Tahasildar,
after determination by the competent authority. If there
would not be received any application for certain sairat
 42
source in the first circular or the lease will not be finalised
due to any reason, then second circular will be received
within 5 pm of 30.03.2021, and the lease will be finalized at
11.00 am on 31.03.2020 and the same way the third circular
will be received within 5 pm of 08.04.2021 and the lease will
be finalized at 11.00 am on 09.04.2021.
All the terms and conditions in this regard can be
obtained from the website of the Dhenkanal Jajpur district
i.e. www.jajpur.nic.in or the Notice Board of the Tahasil
Office on working days.

Documents to be submitted along with the Application

1. Treasury Challan of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand) (Head of
Account- 0853-Non-Ferrous Mining and Metallurgical
Industries-102-Mineral concession Fess, Rents and
Royalties) in lieu of application fees which is non-
refundable.

2. An affidavit in the name of applicant showing that there is no

arrear in any other mine, according to the above mentioned Rules
or any other statutory payments.
3. A demand draft in favour of the Tahasildar, Darpan at the rate
of 5% of the Minimum Royalty and the Minimum Additional
Charges on the Annual Minimum Guaranteed Quantity as
Earnest Money Deposit (EMD=5% of annual MGQ X (Royalty
+ Minimum Additional Charges)
4. An original Bank Guarantee of 18 month validity or original
solvency certificate with a value of not less than Annual
Minimum Guaranteed Quantity X (Offered Additional Charge
+ Rate of Royalty) alongwith a list of immovable properties
obtained from the Revenue Authority and Income Tax Returns
are to be submitted.
 43
5. A detailed map and description of the mine for which the lease
is applied for.
6. Self attested photo copy of PAN/Aadhar/Voter ID is to be
submitted.
7. Any other details including experience, abilities, financial
conditions, and description of equipment available.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAIRAT SOURCES

SI. Name of the Mouza Kh Plot Area Kisam Add Minim

No. Quarries ata No. (in ition um
No. acre) al Guara
Cha nteed
rge Quantit
v
I Bicchakhandi Bicchak 822 2338 5.00 Pathar 60 31225
Black Stone handi (P) ahoda
Quarry No. I
2 Bicchakhandi Bicchak 822 2338 5.00 Pathar 60 13543
Black handi (P) ahoda
Stone Quarry
No.2
3 Bicchakhandi Bicchak 822 2338 6.25 Pathar 60 35330
Black handi (P) ahoda
Stone Quarry
No.4
4 Bicchakhandi Bicchak 822 2338 5.00 Pathar 60 21674
Black handi (P) ahoda
Stone Quarry
No.5
5 Bicchakhandi Bicchak 389 l 11.50 Purun 60 54872
Black handi 826( apatita
Stone Quarry P)
No.17
6 Bicchakhandi Bicchak 389 1815 5.00 Pahad 60 24276
Black handi (P) a
Stone Quarry
No.18
7 Bicchakhandi Bicchak 389 1826 4.00 Purun 60 12426
Black handi (P) apatita
Stone Quarry
No.19
8 Bicchakhandi Bicchak 389 1826 6.50 Puruna 60 30327
Black handi (P) patita
Stone Quarry
No.22
9 Bicchakhandi Bicchak 389 1815 5.00 Pahad 60 23720
Black handi (P) a
Stone Quarry
No.24
 44
10 Anjira Black Anjira 1729 673( 3.80 Parbat 60 89662
Stone P) 2.20 a-1
Quarry No.4 1343
(P)
11 Anjira Anjira 1729 1343 12.00 Parbat 60 33887
(P) a-1
Black Stone
Quarry No.
I0
12 Anjira Anjira 1729 1343 6.00 Parbat 60 34020
(P) a-1
Black
Stone
Quarry
No.17
13 Baraman Barama 247 1261 7.30 Pahad 60 23305
n a
Black
Stone
Quarry
No.2
14 Rahadpur Rahadp 235 l(P) 7.50 Parbat 60 62146
ur a
Black Stone
Quarrv No.
I
15 Rahadpur Rahadp 235 l(P) 5.00 Parbat 60 37607
ur a
Black Stone
Quarry
No.4
16 Rahadpur Rahadp 235 l(P) 5.00 Parbat 60 40757
ur a
Black
Stone
Quarry
No.5
17 Rahadpur Rahadp 235 l(P) 5.00 Parbat 60 23289
ur a
Black
Stone
Quarry
No.7
18 Rahadpur Rahadp 235 l(P) 7.00 Parbat 60 87199
ur a
Black
Stone
Quarry
No.8
19 Rahadpur Rahadp 235 l(P) 10.00 Parbat 60 82743
ur a
Black Stone
Quarry
20 Rahadpur Rahadp 235 l(P) 6.00 Parbat 60 57757
ur a
Black Stone
Quarry
21 Barada Barada 362 193( 4.60 Pahad 60 8736
0.40 a
Black Stone P)
QuarryNo. 4l(P
3 )
 45
22 Barada Barada 362 4l(P 6.00 Pahad 60 16857
a
Black Stone )
Quarry
No.4
23 Barada Barada 362 4l(P 5.00 Pahad 60 15585
a
Black Stone )
Quarry
24 Bajabati Bajabati 215 1050 5.00 Pathar 60 14560
a
Black (P) Chatan
Stone a
Quarry
No.2
25 Aruha Aruha 779 2694( 10.98 Pahad 60 510600
a
Black Stone P) 9.02
Quarry 2807
(P)
26 Aruha Aruba 779 2808( 15.91 Pahad 60 425764
a
Black Stone P) 3.07
Quarry 2807(
P)
27 Aruha Aruha 779 2808( 9.78 Pahad 60 643604
a
Black Stone P) 9.10
Quarry 2807
(?)

Terms and Conditions

1. The Applicants shall be governed under the Orissa

Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 and OMMC
(Amendment) Rules 2017-18.
2. The Applicant who has complied with all terms and
conditions of the lease and has quoted the highest amount of
Additional Charge shall be granted the lease. If there are more
than one participants who have quoted the same bid the highest
bidder shall be determined on the basis of lottery.

3. The selected bidders shall be intimated by the competent

authority in the prescribed form within 7 days. Within 15 days of
the receipt of the intimation, the highest shall communicate his
acceptance. that upon intimation in Form-F, I /4th of the (additional
 46
charge+ royalty) on the minimum guaranteed quantity as quoted
by the bidder in his application is required to be deposited
alongwith such left over amount after deducting the earnest money
from the amount payable to the District Mineral Fund, which will
be deposited without interest. If the selected bidder does not
submit his acceptance within 15 days or defaults in the payment of
the statutory amount, the second highest bidder shall be granted an
opportunity or the earnest money deposit will be forfeited.
4. The selected bidder shall obtain a mining plan and
Environment Clearance at his own cost from the competent
authority in accordance with the OMMC Rules 2016 and the
OMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2017 & 2018. The selected bidder
shall deposit Royalty, Additional Charge, Surface Rent, Dead
Rent, DMF (10% of Royalty+Additional Charge), EMF (5% of
Royalty+Additional Charge), TDS (2% of Royalty+Additional
Charge) and fees for Compensatory Afforestation etc. in terms of
the quantity as mentioned in the mining plan or the Minimum
Guaranteed Quantity whichever is higher. After payment of the
aforesaid amount The lease holders after payment of all statutory
deposits shall obtain registration (according to the Registration
Act-1908 and the Stamp Act-1899) by bearing their own expenses
and obtain Consent to Operate and Consent to Establish from the
Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board, failing which the
lease will be cancelled and the security deposit will be forfeited.
5. The highest bidder shall deposit the fees for the prior
mining plan prepared for the sairat and shall bear the expenses for
the environmental clearance to be obtained from the competent
authority out of his own pocket.
6. The leaseholder shall bear the expenses for the
Advertisement.
 47
7. Interested applicants should apply, after visiting the
Quarries and examining the stock of Minor Minerals and the
relevant communications facilities available for management.
8. The authorities will not be liable for the natural disaster
during the lease period.

9. The Leaseholder shall demarcate the sairat source as

per the map with cement poles and shall put up a display board
describing all details regarding the sairat source.
10. All applicants must follow the Covid-19 guidelines
during the auction process.

11. The competent authorities have the power to rectify

any errors in the aforesaid advertisement.

12. The competent authorities have the power to

cancel/modify the auction without assigning any reason.
Sd/

Tahasildar, Dharmasala

TRUE COPY
 48
ANNEXURE P- 2

BIDDER PARTICULAR

1 Name of the source Barada Black Stone

2 Quarry Lease Case No. 31/20-21
3 Date of Auction 24.03.2021
4 Name and Designation of Tehsildar, Dharmasala
Presiding Officer

To,
S Name of Add Details Details of Details of Prope Rate Rem
N the ress of applicatio B.G./Solve rty of arks
Bidder earnest n fee ncy addl.
present money Char
Amount Amount/C ges
/BD hallan quot
No./Dat No./Date ed
e
1 Ajit 710061 30F1B60 Illegible Nil Rs.
Sahoo 19.03.2 6DE 8,56,30,0 61.0
at 1 12.02.21 00.00 0
Nihalpr 1,61,00 Rs.
asad, 0.00 1000.00
Gandia,
illegibl
e
2 PRPL, 030639 56 Illegible Nil Rs.
Dankari 20.03.2 18.03.21 3,00,00,0 75.0
, Jaipur 1 Rs. 00.00 0
1,60,20 1000.00
0.00
3 Rangad 501768 39 Illegible Lette Rs.
. har 19.03.2 17.03.21 2,55,05,0 r No. 85.0
Pradha 1 Rs, 00.00 – 0
n 1,65,00 1000.00 1316
 49
Ragadi 0.00 Date
pari, –
GMPR, 22.0
Jaipur 3.21
4

//TRUE TYPED COPY//

 50
ANNEXURE P-3
FORM-F
Intimation to Successful Bidder [See rule 10(11), 16(9), 27(6)]
Letter No. Illegible Dated 10.5.21
From :- Tahasildar, Dharmasala
To Rangadhar Pradhan of Ragadipasi PS Jenapur District Jajpur
Sub: Intimation to successful bidder
Sir/Madam,

This is to intimate that, you have been selected as the

successful bidder for quarry lease described below, namely:
-
Barada BSQ No.4 vide Sairat Case No 31/2021, Area
Ac.6.00 for a period of five years based on your application
for the said lease. The amount of additional charge bid by
you and accepted is Rs (85+ 1) per cubic meter. The
Cluster mining plan has been approved and the environment
clearance for the said lease has not been obtained. The
tentative selection is subject to the provisions of the
OMMC Rules, 2016 and to the terms and conditions
annexed with this letter. You are directed to convey your
acceptance to the terms and conditions and to deposit an
amount of Rs 881820.00 ((Rupees Eight Lakh Eighty One
Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty) as 1/4 t h of the bid
amount of the year as prescribed under rule 27(7), & (9).
Proof of deposit of the aforesaid amount should reach the
undersigned within fifteen days of the date of issue of this
letter failing which this intimation shall stand
automatically revoked without any further notice and the
earnest money shall stand forfeited. You are also directed
 51
to execute deed in respect of the quarry lease for the aforesaid
area within the period specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 43 of
the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Tahasildar , Dharmasala
(Name/Designation)
(Competent Authority)

TRUE COPY
 52
ANNEXURE P-4
OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, DHARMASALA
Letter No.1897 Dated 17.5.21
From: - Tahasildar, Dharmasala
To: Rangadhar Pradhan of Ragadipasi PS Jenapur
District Jajpur.

Sub:- Cancellation of bid proceeding as per rule -27 sub

sec (10) of OMMC rule 2016.
Ref:- Barada BSQ 04 Vide lease case no: - 31/2021

Sir/Madam,
This is to inform you that the Collector-cum Controlling
Authority under OMMC rule- 2016 and vide decision taken
on Dt-13.05.2021, in the District Level Committee for
Settlement of Sairat Sources Through Tender Process; it
has been decided to cancel the minor mineral long term
lease proceeding due to insufficient participation of
qualified bidders i.e.; participation of only one or no valid
bidder. The bid knocked in your favour stands cancelled vide
District Office (Res) memo no 109 Dt 15.05.2021.

Hence you are hereby informed to receive the EMD and

security deposit from this office within seven days from the date
of issue of this letter.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Tahasildar , Dharmasala
(Name/Designation)
(Competent Authority)

TRUE COPY
 53
ANNEXURE P-5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA; CUTTACK
(ORIGINAL JUSRISDICTION CASE)
W.P.(C) No. 17282 of 2021

In the matter of:

An application under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
In the matter of:
An application under the provisions of the Orissa Minor
Minerals Concession Rules, 2016.
In the matter of:
An application challenging the illegal, and arbitrary
cancellation of the auction, in respect of Barada Black
Stone Quarry No.4 pertaining to Sairat Case No.
31/2021.
In the matter of:
Shri Rangadhar Pradhan, aged about 32 years, S/o-
Binod Bihari Pradhan, At- Ragadipasi, PS-Jenapur,
District –Jajpur.
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through its Secretary, Revenue and
Disaster Management Department, Secretariat Building,
Bhubaneswar.
2. Collector, Jajpur, AT/PO: Jajpur,
Dist.- Jajpur.
3. Tahasildar, Dharmasala, AT/PO-Dharmasala, Dist.
Jajpur.
To,
 54
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His Lordship’s Companion Judges,
of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER
NAMED ABOVE.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the Petitioner by way of this writ application seeks to
challenge the illegal and arbitrary cancellation of the auction, in
respect of Barada Black Stone Quarry No. 4, pertaining to Sairat
Case No. 31/2021 by the Opp. Parties, in complete violation of the
tender terms and conditions, the Orissa Minor Minerals
Concession Rules, 2016 (OMMC Rules, 2016) as well as in
violation of principles of justice and equity.

2. That, the present Petitioner is the citizen of India and the

cause of action giving rise to the present writ petition arises well
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and is
amenable under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. That, the brief factual matrix of the present writ application

is that the Opp. Party No.3 issued an advertisement dated
22.02.2021 for long term lease of several sairat sources in the
Dharmasala Tahsil. The present Petitioner submitted his
application in terms of the aforesaid advertisement, with respect to
Barada Black Stone Quarry No.4, pertaining to Sairat Case
No.31/2021, at Sl. No.22 of the advertisement. It is pertinent to
mention here that the tender terms and conditions categorically
provided that upon intimation in Form-F, 1/4th of the (additional
charge + royalty) on the minimum guaranteed quantity as quoted
by the bidder in his application is required to be deposited. It is of
sublimal importance to state here that the tender terms and
 55
conditions further provided that the applicant has to mandatorily
provide a property list obtained from the Revenue Officer.

(Copy of the advertisement dated 22.02.2021, is annexed herewith

as Annexure – 1)

4. That, subsequent to the opening of the bids on 23.03.2021,

it was found that the petitioner was the only successful highest
bidder who had duly submitted the property list obtained from the
Revenue Officer and the other bidders, had quoted much lower
price than the present Petitioner and had also failed to submit the
relevant property list, which is a mandatory requirement under the
tender conditions. Therefore, in accordance with the tender terms
and conditions as well as the OMMC Rules, 2016, the bids
submitted by the other bidders were liable to be rejected. Since the
Petitioner was the only successful highest bidder who had duly
complied with all necessary terms and conditions, he was legally
entitled to be selected as the leaseholder under the OMMC Rules,
2016.

5. That, the Opp. Party No.3 informed the Petitioner that in

accordance with Letter No.5878 dated 28.04.2021 of the
Collector-Controlling Authority, Jajpur, since submission of
property list obtained from the Revenue Officer is a mandatory
requirement, hence the other bids cannot be accepted.
Accordingly, the Petitioner, being the highest bidder as well as
having submitted all necessary documents, was intimated of his
selection, and for reasons best known to the Opp. Parties, he was
directed to come to the office of the Opp. Party No.3 for
negotiation of the bid amount, even though he had quoted the
 56
highest bid, in excess of jurisdiction provided under the OMMC
Rules, 2016.

6. That, the Petitioner refused to comply with such call for

negotiations, as such direction was contrary to the applicable rules
and the Opp. Parties did not have jurisdiction or authority to
negotiate the bid amount, especially in light of the fact that the
Petitioner was the highest bidder. Accordingly, he was issued with
an Intimation in Form-F, vide Letter No.1871, dated 10.05.2021,
whereby the Opp. Party No.3 had declared the Petitioner as the
successful highest bidder. It is stated here that although the
Petitioner had quoted an Additional Charge of Rs.85, the Opp.
Parties have illegally, arbitrarily and unilaterally enhanced the rate
of additional charge to Rs.85 + 1, without any authority for such
enhancement. The said intimation further directed the Petitioner to
deposit 1/4th of the amount within 15 days, failing which, the
Earnest Money Deposit would be forfeited.

(Copy of the Bid Sheet and Letter No.1871, dated 10.05.2021, are
annexed herewith as Annexure – 2 Series)

7. That, while the matter stood thus, the Opp. Parties have
suddenly cancelled the auction entirely vide Letter No.1897, dated
17.05.2021, without due notice or opportunity to the Petitioner,
who was the legitimate highest bidder, to contest such
cancellation, on blatantly false and concocted ground of
insufficient participation of qualified bidders. It is reiterated here
that the Petitioner was the eligible highest bidder and was declared
as such by the Opp. Parties. The cancellation of the auction after
 57
issuance of “form-F” to the Petitioner is illegal and without
authority of law.
(Copy of the Letter No.1897, dated 17.05.2021, is annexed
herewith as Annexure – 3)

8. That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted here that as

per Rule 27 of the OMMC Rules, 2016, the Petitioner is entitled
to be declared as the successful bidder in respect of the Sairat Case
No.31/2021 pertaining to Barada Black Stone Quarry No.4. The
Rule 27 (4) (iv) provides that, a list of immovable properties
obtained from the Revenue Authority, is a mandatory statutory
requirement, to be considered as a valid and eligible bidder in the
tender process. The relevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow
for ready reference:
“(4) Subject to other provisions of these rules for settlement of
quarry lease, the intending applicant may apply to the Competent
Authority in a sealed cover for grant of quarry lease for such area
or areas in Form-M in triplicate accompanied by the following
documents and particulars, namely:-
(i) Treasury challan showing deposit of one thousand
rupees (non-refundable) towards the application fee;
(ii) An affidavit stating that no mining due payable under the
Act and the rules made thereunder, is outstanding
against the applicant;
(iii) Proof of payment of earnest money equivalent to five
percentum of the minimum amount of additional charges
specified in the notice and the amount of royalty, both
calculated on the basis of minimum guaranteed quantity
for one whole year for the minimum guaranteed quantity
of minor mineral to be extracted in one full year; and
 58
(iv) a solvency Certificate or Bank guarantee valid for a
period of eighteen months for an amount not less than
the amount of additional charge offered and the royalty
payable for the minimum guaranteed quantity for one
whole year and a list of immovable properties from the
Revenue Authority.”

It is humbly submitted here that in the instant case, the

Petitioner was the only successful highest bidder who had duly
complied with the aforesaid statutory requirement. None of the
other participants/bidders had provided a valid list of properties as
per the law. Hence, the bids submitted by such participants/bidders
were invalid and could not be considered for the purpose of
determining the highest bid. In any case, the Petitioner, being the
only valid and eligible bidder, who had duly complied with all
statutory requirements, and who has also quoted the highest bid,
was lawfully entitled and rightly declared as the successful bidder
in accordance with Rule 27(5) & (7) of the OMMC Rules, 2016.
However, suddenly, the entire auction was cancelled on the ground
of insufficient participation, when clearly, the Petitioner was a
valid highest bidder, being intimated duly, and entitled to be
granted the lease in accordance with law.

9. That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted here that the

action of the Opp. Parties is illegal and arbitrary. The cancellation
of the auction was in complete contravention of the tender terms
and conditions as well as the OMMC Rules, 2016.The Opp. Parties
did not have the power, authority or jurisdiction to unilaterally
cancel the auction, wherein the Petitioner was successful bidder in
accordance with law, without even providing an opportunity of
 59
hearing to the affected parties. Such action of the Opp. Parties is
in complete derogation of the basic principles of justice, equity and
fairplay.

10. That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted here that, the

intimation under Annexure – 2 has been issued under Rule 27 (7)
and (9) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, which are inapplicable in the
present case. The relevant rules are reproduced hereinbelow:
“(7) Within fifteen days of such intimation, the selected
bidder shall be required to convey his acceptance of the terms and
conditions and to deposit an amount which shall be calculated in
such a way that it shall be equivalent to one-fourth of the total
amount of royalty and additional charge and the amount of
contribution payable to the District Mineral Foundation on the
annual minimum guaranteed quantity, taken together, reduced by
the amount of earnest money, which, along with the earnest
money, shall be held as interest-free security deposit.
xxxxxxx
(9) In the event of default by the selected bidder, the Competent
Authority may issue intimation as specified in sub-rule (6) to the
next highest bidder who shall then be required to convey his
acceptance and to make the security deposit calculated in the
manner mentioned in sub-rule (7).”
In the instant case, the abovementioned rules are
inapplicable, since as per the OMMC Rules, 2016, and the tender
conditions, and as has been clearly established above, the
Petitioner is the successful highest bidder, being the only
successful, valid and eligible bidder, who had duly complied with
all statutory requirements and there has been no default on the part
of the Petitioner who is the highest qualified bidder. Hence, the
 60
Petitioner is legally entitled to be declared as the successful bidder
and liable to pay only such additional charge as was quoted in his
tender application. The Rule 27(7) and (9) of the OMMC Rules,
2016 are in applicable in the present case, as the Petitioner has not
defaulted in his obligations, instead he is the highest bidder who
has duly complied with all statutory requirements. The Opp.
Parties illegally and arbitrarily proceeded to cancel the auction,
after declaration and grant of lease in favor of the Petitioner.

11. That, it is most humbly submitted here that as per clause-3

of the tender terms and conditions, as published in the
advertisement dated 22.02.2021, the successful bidder is required
to submit 1/4th of the additional charge and royalty quoted in his
application. The tender terms and conditions nowhere provide the
authority to the Opp. Parties to invite the successful bidder for
further negotiation of the bid amount after successful completion
of the tender process. The tender conditions nowhere provide the
authority to the Opp. Parties to arbitrarily and unilaterally impose
a higher amount of additional charge, completely ignoring the bid
amount quoted by the Petitioner. Therefore, such action of the
Opp. Parties was in complete contravention of the tender terms and
conditions. The Petitioner is therefore legally entitled to be
declared as the successful bidder and liable to pay only such
additional charge as quoted in his tender application, as he is the
valid bidder who has duly complied with all statutory
requirements. The cancellation of the auction after declaring the
Petitioner under Rule-27(7), merely because the numerous other
bidders failed to comply with statutory requirements amounts to
penalizing the Petitioner for complying with the law.
 61
12. That, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted here that
the action of the Opp. Parties is an unprecedented move, which is
completely illegal and has never been envisaged under the law.
There is no authority or power granted to the competent authorities
for negotiation of the bid amount, after successful completion of
the tender process. The OMMC Rules, 2016 do not grant authority
to the Opp. Parties to arbitrarily cancel the auction. The power of
cancellation can be exercised only under specific circumstances of
default of selected bidders. It is humbly reiterated here that as per
the applicable law and rules, the Petitioner, being the only
successful bidder who complied with all statutory requirements
and tender conditions, is entitled to declare as the successful bidder
in the tender process. Therefore, the action of the Opp. Parties is
in excess of the jurisdiction granted under the OMMC Rules, 2016
and is therefore liable to be set aside.

13. That, it is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute

provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has
to be done in that manner and in no other manner. The relevant
part of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
“8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well recognized and is
founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has
conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in
which that power is to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the
doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been
prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so,
the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted.” –
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh &Ors. AIR 1964 SC
358
 62

The above decision has been followed in Chandra Kishore Jha

vs. Mahavir Prasad &Ors. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 266.
In the instant case, the OMMC Rules, 2016 nowhere
provide any jurisdiction or power for negotiation on the rate of
additional charge by the Opp. Parties, nowhere provides the power
to the Opp. Parties to unilaterally enhance the rate of additional
charge quoted by the successful bidder on their own whims and
fancies, and nowhere grants a blanket power of cancellation to the
Opp. Parties. Such action of the Opp. Parties is therefore most
illegal and arbitrary and is therefore liable to be set aside.

14. That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted here that in

accordance with Rule 27 of the OMMC Rules, 2016, the Petitioner
has a legal and statutory right to be granted the lease in respect of
Barada Black Stone Quarry No.4 pertaining to Sairat Case
No.31/2021 as he was the highest bidder, who had duly complied
with all statutory requirements and tender conditions. The Opp.
Parties have acted in a most illegal and arbitrary manner by
cancelling the bid on the false ground of insufficient participation.
There were a total of 3 participants, who submitted their bids for
the auction. However, the Petitioner was the only successful
participant who duly complied with all statutory requirements.
Therefore, in accordance with law, the Petitioner was entitled to
be declared the highest bidder in the present case. The ground of
insufficiency of participation is thus false, misleading, and
arbitrary, devised to suit the interest of the Opp. Parties. The
whimsical process of negotiation of additional charge, unilateral
enhancement of additional charge and thereafter cancellation of
the tender on false grounds, adopted by the Opp. Parties showcases
 63
an attitude of negligence and callousness in application of the law.
The Petitioner cannot be penalized for complying with the law,
merely because the rate of additional charge does not meet the
arbitrary and unfair expectations of the Opp. Parties.

15. That, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted here that

the illegal, arbitrary, and unilateral action of the Opp. Parties sets
an extremely dangerous precedence and opens the gates of
arbitrariness for the competent authorities, without any checks and
balances. Such action shall lead to further such arbitrary orders by
the competent authorities on their own whims and fancies, which
shall seriously denude the larger public interest, leading to
corruption and vested interest in the tender process.

16. That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted here that, once

the Petitioner was declared as the highest bidder, and intimation
was issued to him in accordance with law, the auction could not
have been cancelled without due and proper notice to the Petitioner
and providing him with an opportunity of hearing, especially when
such cancellation was being made completely outside of the
jurisdiction and authority granted under the OMMC Rules, 2016.
Such cancellation is in violation of the principles of natural justice
and on that ground alone, the order of cancellation is liable to set
aside.

17. That, it is humbly submitted here that spectrum of events

leading to the cancellation of the auction clearly establishes and
ulterior motive and interest of the Opp. Parties. There was
participation by several bidders, who submitted different bids.
However, the Petitioner was the only successful participant who
 64
had complied with all statutory and tender requirements. The Opp.
Parties having declared the Petitioner as the successful bidder,
adopted an arbitrary process of enhancement of the rate of
additional charge outside of the jurisdiction and authority granted
under the OMMC Rules, 2016. Thereafter, after refusal of the
Petitioner to comply with such direction for negotiation, the Opp.
Parties declared the Petitioner as the successful bidder, however,
in a most illegal manner, unilaterally increased the rate of
additional charge, completely ignoring the rate quoted by the
Petitioner. However, when such coercive methods failed, the Opp.
Parties illegally cancelled the auction on false grounds without due
notice to the Petitioner. The above facts and circumstances clearly
establish the ulterior motive and interest of the Opp. Parties and
warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court.

18. That, further, it is humbly submitted here that the arbitrary

and illegal action of the Opp. Parties fails to satisfy the test of
reasonableness and therefore, directly violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India Anr. v. International Trading
Co. and Anr., reported in AIR 2003 SC 3983, a change in policy
must be made fair and should not give the impression that it was
so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior motive. The relevant para is
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference of this Hon’ble Court:
“14. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution applies also
to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action
of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy
the test of, it would be unconstitutional.
15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the
executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is
 65
wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article
14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not
give impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior
criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of
every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone
irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted
tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action
by the state, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is
the heart beat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the
panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State
must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for
any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept
of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined.
A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to
be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a
given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to
see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from
the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of
reasonableness.”
In the instant case, the illegal, arbitrary and unilateral action
of the Opp. Parties is clear indication of arbitrariness, with
complete disregard to rule of law and the larger public interest.
When tenders are invited, the terms and conditions must indicate
with legal certainty, norms and benchmarks. This legal certainty is
an important aspect of the rule of law. If there is vagueness or
subjectivity in the said norms it may result in unequal and
discriminatory treatment. The absence of legal certainty in the
present case, vitiates the very foundation of the tender process and
thus the unilateral enhancement of the rate of additional charge by
 66
the Opp. Parties is liable to be quashed.

19. That, the aforesaid action of the Opp. Parties is an

unprecedented and arbitrary move, in complete contravention of
the applicable law and legal principles, and is in far excess of the
jurisdiction granted under the statute. Such scenario has not been
envisaged under the OMMC Rules, 2016. Furthermore, the
cancellation order issued by the Opp. Party No.3 has been taken
under the directions of the Opp. Party No.2 - Collector –
Controlling Authority, and hence an appeal under Rule 46 of the
OMMC Rules, 2016 would lie to the Sub-Collector, who is lower
in rank to the Opp. Party No.2 – Collector, under whose directions
the aforesaid illegal and arbitrary action has been taken clearly
establishing the futility of such appeal. Such appeal would be akin
to an appeal from Caesar to Caesar’s wife, and in Ram and Shyam
Co. vs. State of Haryana reported in (1985) 3 SCC 267, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has noticed that if an appeal is from
"Caesar to Caesar's wife" the existence of alternative remedy
would be a mirage and an exercise in futility.

20. That, it is further humbly and respectfully submitted here

that the Rules 46 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 provides an appeal
from the order of the Competent Authority only and there is no
provision for appeal from the order of the Controlling Authority.
In the instant case, the Opp. Party No.3, who is the Competent
Authority, has passed the order of cancellation, pursuant to the
decision / order of the Opp. Party No.2, who is the Controlling
Authority. In such a scenario, the law does not provide for any
remedy against the order of the Opp. Party No.2-Controlling
Authority and a challenge to the order of the Opp. Party No.3-
 67
Controlling Authority is akin to an appeal from Caesar to Caesar’s
wife, as has been established above. Therefore, there is no
alternative remedy available to the Petitioner in the present case.

21. That, when the scheduled is alluded to, it will be seen that
for “specified minor minerals”, the Deputy Director of Mines is
the Competent Authority, but for minor minerals “other than
specified minor minerals” for quarry lease of non forest land, the
Collector is the Competent Authority. So far as, the Scheduled III
is concerned, the minor minerals other than the specified minor
minerals occurring for any non forest land, the Controlling
Authority is the Collector of the District. The impugned order
being passed by the Controlling Authority i.e. the Collector, the
same is not appealable under Rule 46 of the OMMC Rules, 2016,
thus, leaving the Petitioner without any remedy under the Statute.
That, the communication of the impugned letter by the Tahasildar
is not the order of the Competent Authority.

22. That, the Petitioner also takes the liberty to challenge at this
point, the Rule 46 of the OMMC Rules, for being also ultra vires
the Central Act i.e. the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 on the ground that the Rule of the OMMC
Rules, 2016 have been framed in excess of delegation in exercise
of powers conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. In
which context, it is specifically submitted before this Hon’ble
Court that the power for providing for procedure of appeal has not
been delegated under Rule 15(1).
 68
23. That, Section 15 A(n) categorically provides that the State
Government while framing the Rules has to provide for a
Revisional Authority akin to the Central Act i.e. the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which would
adjudicate any order passed by any authority under these rules.
Therefore, Clause (n) is a wholesome and all encompassing
provision to deal with potential adjudication arising out of the
order passed by the authority under the Act. By specifying
‘Revision’, the Delegating Authority i.e. the Central Act has
consciously laid down the Forum for adjudication of disputes
under the Act. If the Central Act i.e. the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is referred to as guidance
the Revisional Authority is always a different authority other than
the authority where the Mines /Minerals/ Quarries are located i.e.
the State(s) / Union Territory(s). Therefore, the provision of an
appeal by way of Rule 46, by its own officers, is an abrogation in
excess of delegation conferred by the Central Act. And hence the
same is to be struck down.

24. That, furthermore, it is well settled that availability of an

alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from
entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court
may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of
an alternative remedy, particularly
(1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental
right;
(2) (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice
or
(3) (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction or
 69
(4) (iv) the vires of an Act is under challenge (Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1) and Pimpri Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation v. Gayatri Construction
Company, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172).

25. That the cancellation of the auction process would not be an

“order” as understood under Rule 46 of the OMMC 2016 rules.
Further the cancellation being wholly without jurisdiction, the
remedy of Appeal cannot be a bar for entertaining the writ petition.

26. That the cancellation under Annexure-3 is dehors the

doctrine of legitimate expectations and as such falls under the
scrutiny of judicial review. Therefore, the Petitioner is constrained
to approach this Hon’ble Court for appropriate relief.
27. That,there being no other speedy, alternative, and
efficacious, the Petitioner seeks to approach this Hon’ble court by
invoking its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India for complete and appropriate relief
/ reliefs under the facts and in the circumstances of the present
case.
PRAYER

It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

graciously be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and such other
writs, thereby quashing the cancellation of the auction vide Letter
No. 1897, dated 17.05.2021, under Annexure – 3;
And further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and such other
writs, thereby directing the Opp. Parties to declare the Petitioner
as the highest successful bidder in respect of Barada Black Stone
Quarry No. 4 pertaining to Sairat Case No. 31/2021 and execute
 70
the lease in favour of the Petitioner;
And further be pleased to declare that the Rule 46 of the OMMC
Rules, 2016 is ultra vires of Section-15 of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

And further be pleased to pass such other order as may be deemed

necessary by this Hon’ble Court;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound
ever pray.

By the Petitioner Through

Cuttack
Date: 02.06.2021 Subir Palit, Advocate,
Enrl. No.- D-68/1993,
Mob. No. 9937068659.

TRUE COPY
 71
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. OF 2021
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rangadhar Pradhan …Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER.
To,
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
and His Companion Judges of the
Supreme Court of India.
The humble Petition of the
Petitioner abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the instant special leave petition has been preferred

against the impugned judgment and final order dated 09.06.2021
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C)
No. 17282 of 2021.
2. That the matter is being urgent, therefore the petitioner is
filing the present special leave petition with the ordinary copy of
the impugned order.

3. That it is in the interest of justice that the petitioner be

exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order.
 72
PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to :

a) exempt the petitioner from filing certified copy of the

impugned order dated 09.06.2021 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 17282 of
2021 and;
b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Filed By:
Filed on: 14.06.2021

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
 73
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. OF 2021
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rangadhar Pradhan …Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION.

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the
Supreme Court of India.
The humble Petition of the
Petitioner abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Special

Leave Petition against the final order dated 09.06.2021
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in
W.P. (C) No. 17282 of 2021.

2. That the Annexure P-1 filed herewith was originally in

vernacular language i.e. Oriya and the Counsel for the
petitioner have got the same translated into English by an
competent person.
 74
3. That it is in the interest of justice that the petitioner may be
exempted from getting Annexure P-1 translated by an
Official Translator.
PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to :
a) Allow this application and accept the English translation of
Annexure P-1 and exempt the Petitioner from filing Official
Translation of the same;
b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Filed By:

Filed on: 14.06.2021

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
 75
SECTION XI-A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL/ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP/W.P/TP/RP/APPEAL/CIVIL/CRIMINAL/ NO……….……..OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF

Rangadhar Pradhan …Petitioner

Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. …Respondents
INDEX
S. Particulars Copies Court Fee
No.
1. List of Dates 1+3
2. Impugned order 1+3
3. Special Leave Petition with affidavit 1+3 1720.00

4. Annexure P-1 to P- 1+3

5. Application for exemption from filing 1+3 100.00
certified copy of impugned order.
6. Application for exemption from filing 1+3 100.00
official translation
6. Vakalatnama 1 10.00

1930.00

Filed on: 14.06.2021

Filed by

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Applicant(s)
29, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi 110001
Code No.1642
Mob.: 9868009602
E-mail: charumilind@gmail.com
 76

Rangadhar Pradhan

State of Odisha & Ors.

Rangadhar Pradhan

14 th JUNE 21

Identified & Verified

Rangadhar Pradhan

9868009602

CHARU MATHUR (Advocate)

 77
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA; CUTTACK
(ORIGINAL JUSRISDICTION CASE)
W.P.(C) No. 17282 of 2021

Shri Rangadhar Pradhan, aged about 32 years, S/o-Binod Bihari

Pradhan, At- Ragadipasi, PS-Jenapur, District –Jajpur.

-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through its Secretary,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar.
2. Collector, Jajpur, AT/PO: Jajpur,
Dist.- Jajpur.
3. Tahasildar, Dharmasala,
AT/PO-Dharmasala, Dist. Jajpur.

Filed By:

Filed on: 14.06.2021

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
 ANNEXURE ‘Y’
ADVOCATE’S CHECK LIST (TO BE CERTIFIED BY
ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD)
Indicate Yes or NA
1. SLP (C) has been filed in Form No.28 with
certificate. YES

2. The Petition is as per the provision of

Order XV Rule 1. YES

3. The papers of SLP have been arranged as

per Order XXI, Rule (3)(1)(f). YES

4. Brief list of dates/events has been filed.

YES
5. Paragraphs and pages of paper books
have been numbered consecutively and YES
correctly noted in Index.

6. Proper and required number of paper

books (1+1) have been filed. YES

7. The contents of the petition, applications

and accompanying documents are clear, YES
legible and typed in double space on one
side of the paper.

8. The particulars of the impugned judgment

passed by the court(s) below are YES
uniformly written in all the documents.

9. In case of appeal by certificate the appeal

is accompanied by judgment and decree NA
appealed from and order granting
certificate.

10. If the petition is time barred, application

for condonation of delay mentioning the NA
no. of days of delay, with affidavit and
court fee has been filed.

11. The Annexures referred to in the petition

are true copies of the documents before YES
the court(s) below and are filed in
chronological order as per List of Dates.
12. The annexures referred to in the petition YES
are filed and indexed separately and not
marked collectively.
13. The relevant provisions of the
Constitution, statutes, ordinances, rules, NA
regulations, bye laws, orders etc. referred
to in the impugned judgment/order has
been filed as Appendix to the SLP
14. In SLP against the order passed in Second NA
Appeal, copies of the orders passed by the
Trial Court and First Appellate Court have
been filed.
15. The complete listing proforma has been
filled in, signed and included in the paper YES
books.

16. In a petition (PIL) filed under clause (d) of

Rule 12(1) Order XXXVIII, the petitioner NA
has disclosed:
(a) his full name, complete postal
address, e-mail address, phone
number, proof regarding personal
identification, occupation and
annual income, PAN number and
National Unique Identity Card
number, if any:
(b) the facts constituting the cause of
action;
(c) the nature of injury caused or likely
to be caused to the public;
(d) the nature and extent of personal
interest, if any, of the petitioner(s);
(e) details regarding any civil, criminal
or revenue litigation, involving the
petitioner or any of the petitioners,
which has or could have a legal
nexus with the issue(s) involved in
the Public Interest Litigation.
17. If any identical matter is
pending/disposed of by the Hon. Supreme NA
Court, the complete particulars of such
matters have been given.

18. The statement in terms of the Order XIX

Rule 3(1) of Supreme Court Rules 2013 YES
has been given in the Petition of appeal.

19. Whether a Bank Draft of Rs.50,000/- or

50% of the amount, whichever is less, has NA
been deposited by the person intending to
appeal, if required to be paid as per the
 order of the NCDRC, in terms of Section
23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

20. In case of appeal under Armed Forces

Tribunal Act, 2007, the NA
petitioner/appellant has moved before the
Armed Forces Tribunal for granting
certificate for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court.
21. All the papersbooks to be filed after
curing the defects shall be in order. YES

I hereby declare that I have personally verified the

petition and its contents and it is in conformity with
the Supreme Court Rules 2013. I certify that the above
requirements of this Check List have been complied
with. I further certify that all the documents necessary
for the purpose of hearing of the matter have been
filed.
Signature

AoR’s Name DR. CHARU MATHUR

AOR Code 1642
Contact No. 9868009602
New Delhi;
Date: 06.07.2022
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No. OF 2022
[From the final judgment and order dated 11.05.2022 passed by
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No.2562/2022]

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ashish …Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan …Respondent

WITH

Crl.M.P. No. of 2022

Application for exemption from filing official translation

PAPER – BOOK

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: DR. CHARU MATHUR

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

 INDEX

S.No Particulars of document Page no. of part to Remarks

which it belongs
Part I Part II
(Contents Contents
of paper of file
Book) alone
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
Court Fee
1. O/R on Limitation A A

2. Listing Proforma A1-A2 A1-A2

3. Cover page of paper Book A3

4. Index of Record of Proceedings A4

5. Limitation Report prepared by the A5

Registry

6. Defect List A6

7. Note Sheet NS1

to…..
8. Synopsis & List of Dates B-P

9. Impugned final judgment and order 1 -3

dated 11.05.2022 passed by the
High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Third Bail
Application No.2562/2022

10. SLP with affidavit 4 - 15

11. APPENDIX: 16 - 22
U/s 323, 363, 366-A, 368(4), 376-D &
120-B of IPC & Sections 3, 4 & 16/17 of
POCSO Act, 2012
12. ANNEXURE P-1: 23 - 27
True translated copy of FIR
No.110/2014 dated 11.10.2014 at
P.S. Pilauda, District Sawai
Madhopur, Rajasthan
13. ANNEXURE P-2: 28
Copy of order dated 15.01.2015
passed in S.B Criminal Misc
Petition No.5024/2014
14. ANNEXURE P- 3: 29 - 35
True translated copy of order dated
20.03.2015 passed in Criminal Bail
Application No.84/2015
15. ANNEXURE P-4: 36 -37
Copy of order dated 01.04.2015
passed in S.B Criminal Misc
Petition No.5024/2014.
16. ANNEXURE P-5: 38 - 63
True translated copy of final
report/charge sheet dated
21.12.2015.

17. ANNEXURE P-6: 64 - 68

True translated copy of order dated
19.11.2016 passed in First Session
Case No.44/2016.

18. ANNEXURE P-7: 69 - 71

Copy of order dated 28.04.17
passed in S.B Crl. Revision
Petition No.447/2017.

19. ANNEXURE P-8: 72

True translated copy of order dated
30.05.17 passed by the Special
Court (POSCO) Sawaimadhopur.

20. ANNEXURE P-9: 73 - 80

Copy of order dated 14.12.17
passed in Criminal Appeal
No.2178 of 2017.
21. ANNEXURE P-10: 81 - 86
Copy of order dated 26.08.19
passed in Criminal Bail
Cancellation Application
No.41/2019.
22. ANNEXURE P-11: 87 - 88
Copy of order dated 01.10.2019 in
Special Leave Petition (Crl)
No.8768/2019 passed by this
Hon’ble Court.

23. ANNEXURE P-12: 89 - 95

True translated copy of order dated
23.12.2019 passed in Original
Sessions Trial No.75/2018
24. ANNEXURE P-13: 96 - 97
Copy of order dated 14.12.2020
passed in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.264/2020.

25. ANNEXURE P-14: 97 -100

True translated copy of charge
sheet dated 26.03.2021 against
petitioner in Sessions Trial
No.50/2017
26. ANNEXURE P-15: 101 - 102
Copy of order dated 23.09.21
passed in S. B. Criminal Misc. IInd
Bail Application No.10385/2021.

27. ANNEXURE P-16: 103 - 112

True translated copy of statement
of PW-1 dated 21.10.2021.

28. ANNEXURE P-17: 113 - 124

True translated copy of statement
of PW-2 dated 21.10.2021/
26.11.2021.

29. ANNEXURE P-18: 125 - 130

True translated copy of statement
of PW-3 dated 26.04.2022.

30. ANNEXURE P-19: 131 - 133

True translated copy of statement
of PW-4 dated 26.04.2022.

31. ANNEXURE P-20: 134 - 137

True translated copy of statement
 of PW-5 dated 30.04.2022.

32. ANNEXURE P-21: 138 - 142

True translated copy of statement
of PW-6 dated 30.04.2022.

33. ANNEXURE P-22: 143 - 151

True translated copy of order dated
14.12.2021 passed in Bail
Application No.135/2021 by the
Special Court.

34. Application for exemption from filing 152 - 153

official translation.

35. Custody Certificate. 154

36. FIR Format 155

37. F/M 156

38. Vakalatnama 157

 A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ashish …Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan …Respondent

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/are within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of ….

days in filing the same against order dated 11.05.2022 and
petition for condonation of ……. days delay has been
filed.
3. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of …
days in re-filing the same and petition for condonation of
……. days delay has been filed.

New Delhi BRANCH OFFICER

Dated : 06.07.2022
 A-1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION:II

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

 Central Act: (Title) IPC & POCSO Act, 2012

 Section: 323, 363, 366-A, 368(4), 376-D & 120-B of IPC & 3,4 &
16/17 of POCSO Act, 2012
 Central Rule: (Title) __________NA________
 Rule No(s): ___________NA________
 State Act: (Title) __________NA__________
 Section: _____________NA____________
 State Rule: (Title) _____NA________________
 Rule No(s): __________NA_______________________
 Impugned Interim order : (Date)____NA____________
 Impugned Final Order/Decree : (Date) 11.05.2022
 High Court: (Name) High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
 Names of Judges Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhandari, J.
 Tribunal / Authority : (Name) ___________N/A____________________
___________________________________________________________________
1. Nature of Matter:  Civil  Criminal
2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant No.1: Ashish
(b) e-mail ID:_________________NA__________________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA_________________
3. (a)Respondent N.1: State of Rajasthan
(b) e-mail ID:_________________NA__________________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA_________________

4. (a) Main category classification: ____014________________

(b) Sub classification: _____________1407______________

5. Not to be listed before: ___________NA_____________

6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any, & case details:
No similar matter
(b) Similar Pending matter with case details: No similar matter
pending

7. Criminal Matters:
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: Yes No
(b) FIR No. 110/2014 Date: 11.10.2014
(c) Police Station: Pilauda, Dist. Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan
(d) Sentence Awarded: Under Trial
(e) Period of Sentence undergone including period of
Detention/Custody undergone: 3 years 5 months
 A-2
8. Land Acquisition Matters:
(a) Date of Section 4 notification: ____NA__________________

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: ____NA__________________

(c) Date of Section 17 notification: ___NA___________________

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: ________NA__________________

10. Special Category (First petitioner/appellant only):
 Senior Citizen > 65 years SC/ST Woman/ Child  Disabled

 Legal Aid case  In custody

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters):
_________N/A_____

Date: 06.07.2022

[DR. CHARU MATHUR]

AOR for Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Registration No:1642
charumilind@gmail.com
 B
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

Petitioner prefers the instant Special Leave Petition being

aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the third bail
application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been continuously in

detention since 20.12.2019. The petitioner while in Jail continued
with his studies. Petitioner is MA in History and also has B.Ed.
qualification. Petitioner appeared on 26.09.21 for Rajasthan
Eligibility Examination for Teacher which is a state level
competitive exam for recruitment of primary and upper primary
teachers.
P-1 delayed FIR
That in the FIR bearing no. 110/2014 filed on 11.10.14 the
complainant alleged that the accused petitioner and another
person namely Vimal Meena, and two others one of whom was a
women had kidnapped his daughter on 06.10.2014 and that she
was raped by the petitioner and co accused Vimal Meena.

The complainant had preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.

5024/2014 before Hon’ble High Court for fair, proper and
impartial investigation. The Hon’ble High court started
monitoring the investigation by calling the investigating officer
and senior police officials at various dates of hearing and on
15.01.2015Inspector General of Police was present in the Court,
who stated that he would personally look into the matter from all
the angels and that the case would be transferred to some other
I.O. On 01.04.15 the Criminal Misc. Petition No.5024/2014
was disposed by transferring the investigation to CID (CB) for
fair and transparent investigation. The Hon’ble High Court noted
the stand of the public prosecutor that fair investigation was
 C
conducted by the then Investigating Officer who had found that
two others were involved in said crime namely Janak & Vimlesh
Meena and that the location of the prosecutrix was also not found
at the place disclosed by her.

That the CID (CB) after thorough investigation arrived at

conclusion that one Vimlesh Meena and Janak Singh were
involved. The charges and allegations against the present accused
petitioner and other co-accused person namely Vimal Meena
were found to be false. CID(CB)filed charge sheet against
Vimlesh Kumar Meena and Janak Singh under sections 323, 363,
366-A, 368, 370(4), 376-D & 120-B of IPC and sections 3,4 &
16/17 of POCSO ACT. Both Vimlesh Kumar Meena and Janak
Singh were subsequently granted bail.

The basis of the conclusion by the CID(CB) that petitioner was

not involved was due to the following facts-
1. On the basis of the call details of mobile belonging to the
prosecutrix, the mobile location on 07.10.14 and 08.10.14
was Gangapur City and not Sawai Madhopur as alleged by
the prosecutrix.
2. As per call details of mobile number of petitioner it was
found that accused petitioner was at Jaipur City between
06.10.14 to 10.10.14 and thereafter he went to Delhi on
10.10.14. The aforesaid fact was affirmed from the persons
living in Jaipur.
3. The prosecutrix told her brother in law Sh. Santosh when
he went to Jaipur Railway Station on09.10.14 to bring her
back that she had come to Jaipur due to some fight in the
house. She did not tell anything about petitioner to her
brother-in-law.
 D
4. Co- accused Vimlesh Meena was going by the car along
with his two children to Sawai Madhopur and on the way
prosecutrix had asked for lift and he gave lift to her.

5. There were contradictions in the FIR and in the 164

statement of the prosecutrix.
6. The prosecutrix was not traceable since 06.10.14 and the
complaint was registered on 11.10.14 which creates doubt
about the whole incident.
7. There was old enmity between the villagers.

Complainant thereafter preferred a protest petition being First

Session Case No.44/2016 under Section 193 Cr.P.C. due to
deletion of the present petitioner and one Vimal Meena from the
charge sheet. The same was allowed by the Trial Court and
cognizance was taken against petitioner and Vimal Meena and
they were directed to be summoned through arrest warrant. S.B.
Crl. Revision Petition No.447/2017 preferred by the petitioner
was disposed vide order dated 28.04.2017 by holding that
summoning of the present petitioner and Vimal Meena through
non bailable warrant did not appear to be justified and the same
was liable to be quashed and set aside. Petitioner and Vimal
Meena were directed to surrender before the trial court and to
move application for regular bail. In compliance present
petitioner and Vimal Meena surrendered before the trial court
and moved bail application and after hearing on bail application,
they were released on bail by the leaned trial court, vide order
dated30.05.2017.

Complainant preferred SLP (Crl) bearing No.8030/2017

[Criminal Appeal No.2178 of 2017] against the order
dated28.04.2017 wherein this Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to
 E
session Judge to decide the application for bail, if made, on its
merits and, in accordance with law, if not so far decided.

That, thereafter, complainant again approached Hon’ble High

court and filed Criminal Bail Cancellation Application no.
41/2019 which was allowed by order dated 26.08.19 and the bail
granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.05.2017 was
quashed and set- aside. Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.
8768/2019 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on
01.10.19.That in compliance petitioner surrendered himself
before the learned Trial Court.

Petitioner approached Hon’ble High Court by way of S. B.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 264/2020 and same was
“dismissed as withdrawn”

On 26.03.21 Learned trial court framed charges against petitioner

along with co-accused person namely Vimal Meena. After
framing charges, Petitioner again moved, a second bail
application No.10385/2021 before the Hon’ble Court and the
same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh bail
application after recording the statements of the prosecutrix.

That after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix the

Petitioner again moved bail application which was dismissed.

It is submitted that looking to whole case, it is clearly proved that

accused petitioner has been falsely implicated by the
Complainant and Prosecutrix in a conspiracy or old enmity.
Different investigating officers investigated the FIR with
monitoring of the higher police officials and finally matter was
handed over to CID (CB) which after investigation, came to the
conclusion that the FIR and allegation made in the statements of
 F
the prosecutrix over the present petitioner and other co-accused
namely Vimal Meena was completely false and fabricated and
both persons are innocent. In such circumstances, the petitioner
deserves to be released on bail by this Hon’ble Court.

PW-3 Dr. Dinesh Chand Gupta and PW -4 Dr. Ramkesh Meena

who conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix stated
in his cross examination that medical board in its medical opinion
has not confirmed rape and that final opinion was kept reserved.

It is submitted that it is a settled legal proposition that once the

statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted
by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be
required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate
the court for corroboration of her statement. However, Where
evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious
infirmities and inconsistencies with other material no reliance can
be placed upon her evidence. (Suresh N. Bhusare v. State of
Maharashtra (1999) 1 SCC 220, Narender Kumar v. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171)

In Raju v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133 it was held that

“11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest
distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false
allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and
damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be
protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly
where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further,
be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured
witness was present at the time when the incident happened and
 G
that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual
assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming
that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without
any embellishment or exaggeration.”

In Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI, (2012)1 SCC 40 wherein explaining

the law of bail this Hon’ble Court held:
‘21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from
the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused
person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment
begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great
hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-
convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to
secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity'
is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary
to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution
that any person should be punished in respect of any matter,
upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only
the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at
liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
 H
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a
refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any
imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive
content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail
as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the
accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson.’

Because in the case of Dipak Shubhash Chandra Mehta v. CBI,

(2012) 4 SCC 134 Para 33 it has been held: - "This Court has
repeatedly held that when the under trial prisoners are detained in
jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution
is violated.”

11.10.14 That, the brief facts given rise to the matter are that
on 11.10.2014 complainant Madan Mohan Meena
submitted a written report before police station
Pilauda, at about 2.45 P.M. in which various
allegations were leveled against the accused
petitioner and other co-accused person namely
Vimal, and two strangers, one of whom was a
women. The complainant alleged that on 06.10.2014
his daughter was kidnapped by the accused and put
in a car driven by accused Bablesh and that she was
raped by the petitioner and co accused Vimal
Meena. On this report FIR bearing no. 110/2014 for
the offence under sections 323, 363, 366-A, 368,
370(4), 376-D & 120-B OF I.P.C. and section 3,4,
16/17 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual
 I
Offences Act, 2012 was registered against the
accused.

Copy of FIR No. 110/2014 dated 11.10.14 is

annexed herewith as Annexure P-1 pages (23 to 27)

It is submitted that during investigation five different

Investigating officers investigated the incident.
During the course of investigation police got
important evidence in which, it found that actual
incident is something else and it was done by some
other accused persons, while the accused petitioner
has been falsely implicated due to old enmity.

2014 Complainant filed a S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.5024/2014 before Hon’ble High Court for fair,
proper and impartial investigation and in the said
petition, it was alleged that investigating officer was
trying to implicate others not involved and ignoring
the statements of the prosecutrix under section 164
Cr.P.C.

15.01.15 That, the Hon’ble High court started monitoring the

investigation by calling the investigating officer and
senior police officials at various dates of hearing and
on 15.01.2015Inspector General of Police was
present in the Court, who stated that he would
personally look into the matter from all the angels
and that the case would be transferred to some other
I.O. Copy of order dated 15.01.2015 passed in S.B
Criminal Misc Petition No. 5024/2014 is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-2pages ( 28 )
 J
20.03.15 Accused Janak Singh was granted bail by the Trial
Court. Copy of order dated 20.03.2015 passed in
Criminal Bail Application No. 84/2015 is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-3 pages ( 29 to 35)

01.04.15 That the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the

Criminal Misc. Petition No.5024/2014 filed by the
complainant by transferring the investigation to CID
(CB) for fair and transparent investigation of such
FIR and Hon’ble High Court noted the stand of the
public prosecutor that fair investigation was
conducted by the present 1.O., who found that two
others were involved in said crime namely Janak &
Vimlesh Meena and that the location of the
prosecutrix was also not found at the place disclosed
by her. Copy of order dated 01.04.2015 passed in
S.B Criminal Misc Petition No.5024/2014 is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-4 pages (36 to 37)

21.12.15 That, as per direction given by the Hon’ble High

Court, The CID(CB) investigated such incident and
after thorough investigation, agency CID (CB)
arrived at conclusion against Vimlesh Meena and
Janak Singh. The charges and allegations against the
present accused petitioner and other co-accused
person namely Vimal Meena were found to be
false.CID(CB)filed charge sheet against Vimlesh
Kumar Meena and Janak Singh under sections 323,
363, 366-A, 368, 370(4), 376-D& 120-B of IPC and
sections 3,4& 16/17 of POCSO ACT. Copy of final
 K
report/ charge sheet dated 21.12.2015 is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-5 pages (38 to 63)

08.06.16 Complainant preferred a protest petition being First

Session Case No.44/2016 under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
due to deletion of the present petitioner and one
Vimal Meena from the charge sheet

19.11.16 The protest petition First Session Case No.44/2016

was allowed by the learned Trial Court. Cognizance
was taken against petitioner and Vimal Meena under
Section 363 and 366 of IPC and Section 5/6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
and in alternative under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC
of Indian Penal Code. Accused persons were
directed to be summoned through arrest warrant.
Copy of order dated 19.11.16 passed in First Session
Case No.44/2016 is annexed herewith as Annexure
P-6 pages (64 to 68)

2017 That, thereafter, present Petitioner and Vimal Meena

approached to Hon’ble High Court and submitted
S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No.447/2017

28.04.17 S.B. Crl. Revision Petition no. 447/2017 was

disposed vide order dated 28.04.2017 by holding
that summoning of the present petitioner and Vimal
Meena through non bailable warrant did not appear
to be justified and the same was liable to be quashed
and set aside. Petitioner and Vimal Meena were
directed to surrender before the trial court and to
move application for regular bail. Copy of order
 L
dated 28.04.17 passed in S.B Crl. Revision Petition
No.447/2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-7
pages (69 to 71)

30.05.17 That in compliance of the order dated28.04.2017

passed by the Hon’ble High Court present petitioner
and Vimal Meena surrendered before the trial court
and moved bail application and after hearing on bail
application, they were released on bail by the
learned trial court, vide order dated 30.05 2017.
Copy of order dated 30.05.17 passed by the Special
Court (POSCO) Sawaimadhopur is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-8 pages (72 )

14.12.17 That, the complainant preferred SLP (Crl) bearing

No.8030/2017 [Criminal Appeal No.2178 of 2017]
against the order dated 28.04.2017 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to Session Judge to
decide the application for bail, if made, on its merits
and, in accordance with law, if not so far decided.
Copy of order dated 14.12.17 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 2178 of 2017 is annexed herewith as
Annexure P-9 pages (73 to 80)

2019 That, thereafter, complainant again approached

Hon’ble High court and filed Criminal Bail
Cancellation Application No.41/2019, before
Hon’ble Court by concealed the most important fact
that she had earlier submitted a criminal misc.
petition no 5024/2014 with prayer of fair and
impartial investigation and on which direction was
 M
given by the Hon’ble High Court to the CID (CB) to
investigate the incident and after thorough
investigation done by the CID (CB) it was found that
petitioner and other co-accused Person namely
Vimal Meena were innocent and that the allegations
leveled against them in the FIR as well as statements
of the prosecutrix were completely false and
fabricated and in fact the incident was committed by
some other accused persons namely Vimlesh Meena
and Janak Singh and both were already released on
bail.

26.08.19 Hon’ble Court allowed Criminal Bail Cancellation

Application No.41/2019 and cancelled the bail
application of the present accused petitioner and
other co-accused person namely Vimal Meena and
directed to the trial court to take custody of the
accused petitioner and other co-accused Vimal
Meena. Copy of order dated 26.08.19 passed in
Criminal Bail Cancellation Application no. 41/2019
is annexed herewith as Annexure P-10 pages (81 to
86 )

01.10.19 Petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (Crl)

No.8768/2019. This Hon’ble Court while dismissing
the SLP observed that “The bail application of the
petitioners is now required to be considered in
accordance with the directions in order dated 14th
December, 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.2178 of
2017.” Copy of order dated 01.10.19 passed in
Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.8768/2019 is
 N
annexed herewith as Annexure P-11 pages (87 to
88)

23.12.19 That in compliance petitioner surrendered himself

before the learned Trial Court on dated 21.12.2019
and moved an application for his regular bail, but the
learned trial court rejected the same vide its order
dated 23.12.2019 without any cogent reason in
mechanical manner. Copy of order dated 23.12.19
passed in Original Sessions Trial No.75/2018is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-12 pages (89 to
95)

14.12.20 Petitioner approached Hon’ble High Court by way

of S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
264/2020 and same was “dismissed as withdrawn”
Copy of order dated 14.12.20 passed in S. B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 264/2020 is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-13 pages (96)

26.03.21 Learned trial court framed charges against petitioner

along with co-accused person namely Vimal Meena.
Copy of charge sheet dated 26.03.2021 against
petitioner in Sessions Trial No.50/2017 is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-14 pages (97 to 100)

23.09.21 That, after framing charges, Petitioner again moved,

a second bail application No.10385/2021 before the
Hon’ble Court and the same was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh bail application
after recording the statements of the prosecutrix.
Copy of order dated 23.09.21 passed in S. B.
 O
Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application
No.10385/2021is annexed herewith as Annexure P-
15 pages (101 to 102)

21.10.21 That, the learned trial court recorded the statements

of the complainant namely Madan Mohan Meena as
PW-1 and also recorded the statement of the
prosecutrix PW-2 on 21.10.21
Copy of statement of PW-1 dated 21.10.21 is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-16 pages (103 to
112)
Copy of statement of PW-2 dated 21.10.21
/26.11.21 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-17
pages (113 to 124)
Copy of statement of PW-3 dated 26.04.22 is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-18 pages (125 to
130)
Copy of statement of PW-4 dated 26.04.22 is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-19 pages (131 to
133)
Copy of statement of PW-5 dated 30.04.22 is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-20 pages (134 to
137)
Copy of statement of PW-6 dated 30.04.22 is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-21 pages (138 to
142)
14.12.21 Bail Application No.135/21 was dismissed by the
Special Court.
True translated copy of order dated 14.12.2021
passed in Bail Application No.135/2021 by the
 P
Special Court is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-22 pages (143 to 151)

11.05.22 Hon’ble High Court vide impugned order dismissed

the Third Bail Application preferred by the
petitioner.

06.07.22 Hence the present Special Leave Petition

 1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH
AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No.
2562/2022

Ashish S/o Sh. Ram Gilas @ Bumbi, R/o Mohachakapura PS

Pilauda Distt. Sawaimadhopur Raj. (Presently Confined In
Distt.Jail Sawaimadhopur)
----Petitioner
Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No.

2563/2022

Vimal S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, R/o Kadi Ki Jhopadi Presently

Living At Mohachakapura Ps Pilauda Distt. Sawaimadhopur Raj.
(Presently Confined In Dist. Jail Sawaimadhopur)
----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Joshi

For State :Mr. Sher Singh Mahala, PP
For Complainant(s): Mr. Mohit Balwada

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

 2
Order
11/05/2022

1. Petitioners have filed these third bail applications under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No. 110/2014 was registered at Police Station

Pilauda, District Sawaimadhopur, for offence under Sections 323,
363, 366-A, 368, 370(4), 376-D & 120-B of IPC and Sections 3,
4 and16/17 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that

petitioners have remained in custody for a period of two and a
half years. There is no evidence namesake that petitioners are
involved in this case. The other co-accused who were actually the
culprit have been enlarged on bail by the Court. It is further
contended that entire investigation was monitored by the High
Court.

4. Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor

have opposed these bail applications.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. This court vide order dated 26.08.2019 by passing a

detailed order allowed the bail cancellation application and the
bail of the present petitioners was cancelled, thereafter,
statement of prosecutrix has been recorded. Prosecutrix is a
young girl aged 14 years who in her Court statement has
specifically stated that the present petitioners-Ashish and Vimal
had committed rape with her, hence, I am not inclined to
entertain these third bail applications.
 3
7. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Applications are
accordingly, dismissed.

8. However, taking note of the custody period, trial Court is

directed to expedite the disposal of the case.

9. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

HEENA/15-16

TRUE COPY
 4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[S.C.R. Order XXII Rule 2(1) SCR, 2013]
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2022

BETWEEN POSITION OF PARTIES
In the In the In this
Trial Court High Court Court

Ashish S/o Shri Ram Gilas @ Bumbi,

R/o Mohachakapura,
Police Station - Pilauda,
District Sawaimadhopur,
Rajasthan
Accused Petitioner Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan
Through Home Secretary,
Department of Home,
Govt. of Rajasthan,
State Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
Prosecution Respondent Respondent

TO,
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND
HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA;
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE-NAMED
PETITIONER;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The petitioners herein are filing the present special leave
petition against the final impugned judgment and order dated
 5
11.05.2022 passed by the High Court Judicature for Rajasthan
Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application
No.2562/2022 whereby the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to
dismiss the same.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

A. Whether the case of the present Petitioner calls for

interference by this Hon’ble Court in the light of
parameters indicated by this Hon’ble Court in various
pronouncements with respect to grant of bail?

B. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not appreciating

that different investigating officers investigated the FIR
with monitoring of the higher police officials and finally
matter was handed over to CID (CB) which after
investigation, came to the conclusion that the FIR and
allegation made in the statements of the prosecutrix over
the present petitioner and other co-accused namely Vimal
Meena was completely false and fabricated and both
persons are innocent?

C. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not appreciating

that accused petitioner has been falsely implicated by the
Complainant and Prosecutrix in a conspiracy or old
enmity?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(2):

The Petitioners state that no other petition seeking Leave to
appeal has been filed by him against the impugned judgment and
final order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the High Court Judicature
 6
for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail
Application No.2562/2022.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3:

The Annexures P-1 to P- 22 produced along with the Special
Leave Petition are the copies of the pleading/documents, which
formed part of the records in the High Court against whose order
the leave is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUND:
The leave to appeal is sought on following grounds:
I. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the
Hon’ble High Court erred in dismissing the bail application
preferred by the Petitioners. The accused petitioner is
innocent. No case is made out against the Petitioner.

II. Because the Hon’ble High Court erred in not appreciating

thatthere is no evidence name sake that petitioner was
involved in this case. The other co-accused who were
actually the culprit have been enlarged on bail.

III. Because looking to whole case, it is clearly proved that

accused petitioner has been falsely implicated by the
Complainant and Prosecutrix in a conspiracy or old enmity.
Different investigating officers investigated the FIR with
monitoring of the higher police officials and finally matter
was handed over to CID (CB) which after investigation,
came to the conclusion that the FIR and allegation made in
the statements of the prosecutrix over the present petitioner
and other co-accused namely Vimal Meena was completely
 7
false and fabricated and both persons are innocent. In such
circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail
by this Hon’ble Court.

IV. Because, according to the material and evidence on record a

false and fabricated story was narrated by the complainant.
The basis of the conclusion by the CID(CB) that petitioner
was not involved was due to the following facts-
1. On the basis of the call details of mobile belonging to
the prosecutrix, the mobile location on 07.10.14 and
08.10.14 was Gangapur City and not Sawai Madhopur
as alleged by the prosecutrix.
2. As per call details of mobile number of petitioner it
was found that accused petitioner was at Jaipur City
between 06.10.14 to 10.10.14 and thereafter he went to
Delhi on 10.10.14. The aforesaid fact was affirmed
from the persons living in Jaipur.
3. The prosecutrix told her brother in law Sh. Santosh
when he went to Jaipur Railway Station on09.10.14 to
bring her back that she had come to Jaipur due to some
fight in the house. She did not tell anything about
petitioner to her brother-in-law.
4. Co-accused Vimlesh Meena was going by the car along
with his two children to Sawai Madhopur and on the
way prosecutrix had asked for lift and he gave lift to
her.

5. There were contradictions in the FIR and in the 164

statement of the prosecutrix.
 8
6. The prosecutrix was not traceable since 06.10.14 and
the complaint was registered on 11.10.14 which creates
doubt about the whole incident.
7. There was old enmity between the villagers.

V. Because allegation against petitioner is false, frivolous and

baseless. There is not a single iota of evidence against the
petitioner

VI. Because PW-3 Dr. Dinesh Chand Gupta and PW -4 Dr.

Ramkesh Meena who conducted the medical examination of
the prosecutrix stated in his cross examination that medical
board in its medical opinion has not confirmed rape and that
final opinion was kept reserved.

VII. It is submitted that it is a settled legal proposition that once

the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is
accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only
on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no
corroboration would be required unless there are compelling
reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her
statement. However, where evidence of the prosecutrix is
found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies
with other material no reliance can be placed upon her
evidence. (Suresh N. Bhusare v. State of
Maharashtra (1999) 1 SCC 220, Narender Kumar v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171)

VIII. That in Raju v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133 it was held
that
 9
“11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the
greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at
the same time a false allegation of rape can cause
equal distress, humiliation and damage to the
accused as well. The accused must also be protected
against the possibility of false implication,
particularly where a large number of accused are
involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the
broad principle is that an injured witness was
present at the time when the incident happened and
that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as
to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption
or any basis for assuming that the statement of such
a witness is always correct or without any
embellishment or exaggeration.”

IX. Because in Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI, (2012)1 SCC 40

wherein explaining the law of bail this Hon’ble Court held:
‘21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down
from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure
the appearance of the accused person at his trial by
reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it can be required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when
called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to
the principle that punishment begins after conviction,
and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly
tried and duly found guilty.
 10
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that
detention in custody pending completion of trial could
be a cause of great hardship. From time to time,
necessity demands that some un-convicted persons
should be held in custody pending trial to secure their
attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the
operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary
to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the
Constitution that any person should be punished in
respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been
convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be
deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will
tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the
most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the
object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the
fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a
substantial punitive content and it would be improper for
any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of
former conduct whether the accused has been convicted
for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person
for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as
a lesson.’

X. Because in the case of Dipak Shubhash Chandra Mehta v.

CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 134 Para 33 it has been held: - "This
Court has repeatedly held that when the under trial prisoners
are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article
21 of the Constitution is violated.”
 11
XI. Because the petitioner is a permanent resident of Distt.
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. His movable and immovable
property and assets are situated there, so there is no
likelihood of his fleeing from justice.

XII. Because the petitioner is ready & willing to abide by all

such conditions to be imposed by this Hon’ble Court

6. GROUND FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

The accused petitioner is innocent. No case is made out
against the Petitioner.
The petitioner is a permanent resident of Distt.
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. His movable and immovable
property and assets are situated there, so there is no
likelihood of his fleeing from justice. The petitioner is
ready & willing to abide by all such conditions to be
imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to: -

a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the impugned

judgment and final order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the
High Court Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No.2562/2022;
and

b) pass any such further orders, as it may deem fit and proper
in the peculiar facts and the circumstances hereof.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

 12
a) Grant bail to the petitioner in FIR No.110/2014 dated
11.10.2014 registered at Police Station – Pilauda, District
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan; and
b) pass any such further orders, as it may deem fit and proper
in the peculiar facts and the circumstances hereof.

Filed by:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the petitioner
Drawn on: 01.07.2022
Filed on: .07.2022
 13
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO (CRL) _____ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ashish …Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan …Respondent

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged
and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No
additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or
relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified
that the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the
Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of
law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the
Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court.
This Certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by
the Petitioner/Persons authorized by the Petitioner whose
affidavit is filed in support of the S.L.P.
FILED BY:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner

Filed on: .07.2022

 14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ashish Petitioner
VERSUS

No fRajasthan Respondent
SawaiGhanMashydhaomp Jat
Regd.No. 1 4
Exp. 25-073
HAN
AFFIDAVIT

OFFRAJRA NS

about 45
I,MukeshKumar MeenaS/o ShriRam kirodi lal Meena , aged

years, R/o Mohacha ka pura-District Sawai madhopur,

Rajasthan, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as here under:-

1. That I am the friend/ relative and pairokar of the petitioner in

the above-mentioned Special Leave Petition and am fully conversant

with the facts of the case and cormpetent to sign and swear this

affidavit.

2 That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying

Special Leave Petition (Paras 1 to 8 and Pages 4 to 15 and List of

Dates (Pages B to P and the accompanying Applications, which

A ESEDeen drafted by my counsel as per my instructions. I have read and

Ghanshyaaniatstood the contents of the same, which are true and correct to my

Notary Public
Sawai Madhopur
 15
Knowledge and belief. No part of it is false
and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

That the Annexures annexedd

therewith is/are the true

y/copies of its respective originals.

M
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
NO
aeny OTA
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents

OOFT. RA yam Jof

at the above affidavit from paras I
dhopur kaeyledge and belief. Nothing false has been stated therein and
to 3 are true and correct to my

VAST
hothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at 10.30AM on this Friday day of

_01.07.2022.

M
DEPONENT

IDENTIFIED BY

A T T E S T E D

Chanshyam Jat
Notary PubNc

S a w a i M a d h o p u r
 16
APPENDIX

Indian Penal Code

Section 363 - Punishment for kidnapping.

Whoever kidnaps any person from 1 [India] or from lawful
guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine

Section 366 Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to

compel her marriage, etc.

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may
be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be
compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that
she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it
to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit
intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine; 1 [and whoever, by means of criminal
intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or
any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from
any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely
that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with
another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid].

Section 368- Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement,

kidnapped or abducted person.

Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has

been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person,
 17
shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or
abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or
for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or
detains such person in confinement

Section 370 (4) Trafficking of person.

(4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall
be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 376Punishment for rape.

(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2),

commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of
either description for a term which 1 [shall not be less than ten
years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine].

(2) Whoever,—

(a) being a police officer, commits rape—

(i) within the limits of the police station to which such police
officer is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house; or

(iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody

of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or

(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such

public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant
subordinate to such public servant; or
 18
(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by
the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or

(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand

home or other place of custody established by or under any law
for the time being in force or of a women's or children's
institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand
home, place or institution; or

(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital,

commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or

(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a

position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape
on such woman; or

(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or

(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or

(j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or

(k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman,

commits rape on such woman; or

(l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical

disability; or

(m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or

maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or

(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman,

shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which

shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to
fine.
 19
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,—

(a) "armed forces" means the naval, military and air forces and
includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any
law for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces
and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central
Government or the State Government;

(b) "hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the
precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of
persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical
attention or rehabilitation;

(c) "police officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to

the expression "police" under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);

(d) "women's or children's institution" means an institution,

whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or
children or a widow's home or an institution called by any other
name, which is established and maintained for the reception and
care of women or children.
3
[(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of
age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend
to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to
fine:

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the
medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section

shall be paid to the victim.]
 20
Section 120-B
Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
1
[120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--(1) Whoever is a
party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for
a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision
is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a

criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]

POSCO Act

Section 3 - Penetrative sexual assault.

A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if--

(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth,
urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or
any other person; or

(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not
being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child
or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause

penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of
the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other
person; or
 21
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the
child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other
person.

Section 4 –Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.

[(1)] Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than 2[ten years] but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

[(2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child

below sixteen years of age shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which
may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and
shall also be liable to fine.

(3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and
reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses
and rehabilitation of such victim.]

Section 16 – Abetment of an offence.

A person abets an offence, who--

First.-- Instigates any person to do that offence; or

Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in

any conspiracy for the doing of that offence, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that offence; or

Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the

doing of that offence.
 22
Explanation I.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by
wilful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
offence.

Explanation II.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of

commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Explanation III.--Whoever employ, harbours, receives or

transports a child, by means of threat or use of force or other
forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or
of a position, vulnerability or the giving or receiving of payments
or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over
another person, for the purpose of any offence under this Act, is
said to aid the doing of that act.

Section 17 -Punishment for abetment.

Whoever abets any offence under this Act, if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the abetment, shall be punished
with punishment provided for that offence.

Explanation.-- An act or offence is said to be committed in

consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence
of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy or with the
aid, which constitutes the abetment.

True Copy
 23
ANNEXURE P-1

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.)

1. District : Sawai Madhopur P.S.: Piloda Year 2014

FIR No. 110 Date : 11/10/14
2.

S. No. Acts Sections

1. IPC 1860 323, 363, 376 (d),

366-A, 368, 370 (4),
120B

2. Protection of Children 3, 4, 16/17

from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012

3. (a) Occurrence of offence

1. Day – Date from – 06.10.14
Date to –
Time period–Morning from 9-10 Time From Time to
(b) Information received at PS – Date 11.10.2014 Time
2:45PM
(c ) General Diary Reference – Entry No. 261
Date & Time 02:45PM
4. Type of Information – Written
5. Place of occurrence
1 (a) Direction and distance from PS – approx. north, 13
km
Beat No.7/10
 24
(b) Address – Village Nayagaon P.S. Pilodi
(c ) In case, outside the limit of this PS – Name of P.S.
District
6. Complainant / Informant
(a) Name – Madan Mohan Meena
(b) Fathers name – Ram Sahai Meena
(c) Date/ year of Birth 35 years
(d) Nationality – Indian
(e) UID No.
(f) Passport No. Date of Issue Place of Issue
(g) ID details (Ration card, Voter ID card, Passport, UID
No, Driving License, PAN)
Sno. Id Type Id number
(h) Occupation – Agriculturist
(i) Address
Sno. Address Type Address
1. Present address – Nayagaon, P.S. Pilodi
2. Permanent address – Gokal Bera, Pipar city, Jodhpur
Rural, Rajasthan, India
(j) Phone No. Mobile – 91-8003174884
7. Details of known / suspected unknown accused with full
particulars-
Sno. Name Alias Relatives Name Present Address
1. Ashish Meena s/o Ram Gilas alias Bambi Meena

2. Vimal Meena Driver c/o Ghamandi meena r/o Mohcha

ka Pura
3. Driver and
4. One another woman
 25
8. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant /
informant – on behalf of complainant
9. Particulars of properties of interest
Sno. Property Category Property Type Description Value
10.Total Value of Property (In Rs.)
11.Inquest Report / UD Case No, if any. Sno. UIDB number
12.First Information Contents:

To, The Police Station In-charge,PoliceStation Piloda Subject –

In respect of registering FIR. Sir, with regard to the aforesaid
subject it is hereby statedthat my daughter Suman Meena went
on06.10.2014 to collect the grass from the field. On way Ashish
Meena son of Ram Vilas aliasBambi Meena Resident of Mohcha
Ka Pura and VimalMeena driver care of Ghamandi Meena
presently residingat Mohcha Ka Pura kidnapped pointing country
made pistol.Ahead of them Bablesh driver was standing along
withcar in which she was put and both of them did wrong acts
with my daughter. From Shri Mahavir Ji Station, putting my
daughter on train, took her toSawaimadhopur. At
Sawaimadhopur one lady met atStation she took my daughter to
one house making hersit in tempo. Thereafter Ashish Meena and
VimalMeena came and gave something to my daughter mixed in
the milk. After that both of them raped mydaughter. On the next
day again that lady brought and second person took her to
another house, the vehicle number was RJ 20 - 2184. In that
house mydaughter was taken inside and raped by both of them
there also. On 08.10.2014 in the evening took herto Jaipur from
Sawaimadhopur in the evening bytrain. On 09.10.14 on phone
from Jaipur station myrelative was informed on phone whose
phone no. is9661082432. He gave information at my in
 26
lawsplace at Kheri. I received the informationfrom Kheri.
Aforesaid all the facts are told to me bymy daughter. Prior to the
same I and my relatives inquired at all the places, searched
inrelatives. Now have came to register the report. Sir, it
isrequested that on registering the report strict legal action be
taken. On 11.10.14. brought my daughter from Kheri. Sd/-
Suman Kumari Meena Sd/- MadanMohan Applicant Madan
Mohan son of Ram SahayMeena Resident of Nayagaon Police
Station Pilauda, Tehsil Wazirpur District S.M. Raj.Phone No.
988798343

Proceedings by the Police

It is hereby verified that the written report withregard to the

aforesaid subject is recorded by ShriMadan Mohan Son of Shri
Ram Sahay Meena age35 Years resident of Nayagaon on being
presentalong with his daughter Suman Kumari daughter ofMadan
Mohan caste Meena age around 14 Yearsresident of Nayagaon
and whose copy is registeredword to word in register of FIR and
signed after being read over understood and admitted to be
correct. Along with the report themark sheet of class 8th of
prosecutrix KumariSuman is presented and according to mark
sheetthe date of birth of prosecutrix Suman is05.06.2000.
Considering the respect in the societyof prosecutrix Kumari
Suman in respect of the visual examination of the injuries which
were receivedon the body and on the right shoulder there was
scratch mark.Medical examination will be conducted with regard
to the injuries and with regard to the rape. From thereport and
from the facts and circumstances of thecase the offence is
registered under Section 3, 4.16/17 of POCSO Act 2012 and
 27
323,363, 376,366A(D), 370(4)/368, 120B IPC. Therefore case
no.110/14 is registered in the aforesaid case and theenquiry is
handed over to Shri Rajender SinghShekhawat RPS CO Circle
Gangapur City. Copies ofFIR and SR are issued in accordance
with rules.One copy is given to the complainant free of cost.This
incident is stated to have been taken place on06.10.14 in the
morning at around 9 - 10 AM.

13.Action taken: Since the above information reveals

commission of offence(s) u/s as mentioned at item No. 2
(1) Registered the case and took up the investigation

(2) Directed (Name of IO) Rajender Singh RPS No.

Rank – CO
To take up the Investigation
(3) Refused Investigation due to: or
(4) Transferred to P.S. District On point of jurisdiction
FIR read over to the complainant / informant, admitted to be
correctly recorded and a copy given to the complainant /
informant free of cost
14.Signature / Thumb impression of the Complainant /
Informant – Sd/-
15.Date and time of dispatch to the Court
Sd/-
Signature of Officer in Charge, Police Station
Name – Rajendra Singh Chauhan
Rank –SHO, P.S. Piloda

TRUE TRANSLATED COPY

 28
ANNEXURE P-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH
"C:
\Users\charu\OneDrive\Do S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5024/2014
cuments\WORK\SC\SLP
Ashish\Orders\203900050
242014_2.pdf" DATE OF ORDER: 15.01.2015

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

Mr. N.C. Sharma, for petitioner

Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P. for the State
Mr. Beeju Jeorge Joseph, IG, Bharatpur with Mr. Harimohan,
IO/CO, Gangapurcity, present in person

Pursuant to the direction of this Court, Inspector Generalof

Police of Bharatpur Range is present in the court. He statedthat
he would personally look into the matter from all theangles and
take immediate action against the defaulting officer,who had
conducted the investigation. The case would betransferred to
other IO. To make a report, he prays for and isgranted two week's
time.

List this case on 3 February, 2015.

Sd/-

[M.N. BHANDARI], J.

TRUE COPY
 29

ANNEXURE P-3

COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, SAWAI MADHOPUR

PRESIDING OFFICER: AJAY KUMAR OJHA

Criminal Bail Application No. : 84/2015

Janak Singh S/o Sh. Khilli Ram, age 20 years, by caste Meena,

R/o Kachera, P.S. Bayana, District Bharatpur (presently at

Makhuj, District Sawai Madhopur)

…Accused applicant

Versus

State Government through Public Prosecutor, Sawai Madhopur

...Non-applicant

Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

F.I.R. No. 110/2014 P.S. Piloda

Offence U/s 363, 366 (A), 370 (4), 368, 376(D), 120B IPC and

Sec. 3, 4, 16, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012

Present:-

1. Sh. Mohd. Saif Kalav, Ld. Counsel for applicant

 30
2. Ld. Public Prosecutor, for State Government

:ORDER:
Date: 20.03.2015

1. This bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. by the accused-applicant on 17.03.2015.

2. Heard arguments and perused the entire record on ease

diary made available to this court during the course of

arguments.

3. Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the

accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely

implicated in this case. The accused applicant has not

played any role the in alleged incident which is clearly

evident from the statements of the prosecutrix recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant was not even

named in the report. The applicant was arrested on

01.03.2015 and since then he is in custody. The applicant

is a student and he is preparing for exams. The conclusion

of the investigation/trial is to take time. Therefore the

accused applicant may be released on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail

application and contended that the allegations made

 31
against the accused applicant are of serious in nature.

Hence he may not be enlarged on bail.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Madan

Mohan S/o Sh. Ramsahay Meena R/o Nayagaon, District

Sawai Madhopur lodged a report on 11.10.2014 at Police

Station stating therein that “on 06.10.14 my daughter

Suman Meena had gone to the field to fetch grass where on

the way Ashish Meena S/o Ramgilas @ Bambi Meena R/o

Mohcha Ka Pura & Vimal Meena Driver C/o Ghamandi

Meena `illegible` Mohcha Ka Pura had abducted her on the

point of kata (illegal country made pistol) whereas the

driver was ready ahead with the car who abducted her

inside the said car. Both of them committed wrong act with

my daughter inside the car thereafter boarding with her in

the train from Shri Mahavir Ji Station took my daughter

with them to Sawai Madhopur where a woman met at the

Sawai Madhopur Station who took my daughter in a tempo

to some house where Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena also

reached after them. They gave intoxicated milk to my

daughter thereafter both of them raped my daughter. On

the next day again that woman brought her and the other

person took her to some other house. His car was bearing
 32
Registration No.RJ20-2184. Where again both of them

raped my daughter after taking her inside the said house. In

the evening of dated 8.10.14 took her to Jaipur through

train from Sawai Madhopur. On 9.10.14 phone called my

relative from Jaipur Station and informed him whose

Mobile No. is 9660182432 and who informed my in-laws

house situated in Kheri and from Kheri I received the

information. All the above facts were narrated to me by my

daughter. Prior to which me and my family inquired

everywhere and searched for her everywhere in our

relation but now I am lodging the report. On 11.10.2014 I

went and brought my daughter back from Kheri.”

On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police have

registered a case (FIR No. 110/2014) under Section 323,

363, 366A, 368, 370(4), 376(D), 120B I PC and Section 3,

4, 16, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, which is under investigated.

6. During investigation, the statement of prosecutrix was

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated

as under:-
 33
I am studying in 10th standard in village Mohcha. On

06.10.2014 at 9:00AM in the morning I had left from the

house to fetch grass from the field. On the way Ashish and

Vimal held me. Ashish was having a gun and threatened

me to kill if I raised an alarm and pointed gun on me. They

abducted by forcibly dragging me inside a big four wheeler

car. I do not know the make of the car. From there took me

to Mahavir Ji Station. They kept molesting me on the way.

They gave me a tablet and I felt dizziness. From Mahavir

Ji they both took me through train to Gangapur and from

Gangapur boarded me in the train to Sawai Madhopur,

where took me to a room but do not know whose room

was it but both of them throughout the night had raped me.

I was raped by Ashish and Vimal both and they took turns

while forcibly raping me; even though I had resisted. I was

wearing Salwar Kameez. Both of them individually taking

turns had raped me by inserting their penis inside my

vagina. Vimal returned back in the morning but Ashish

stayed back. The owner of the car was also there alongwith

him but do not know about him. On the second day also

Ashish had forcibly raped me in the room. We stayed in

the room throughout the day and in the night took me to

 34
Jaipur through train. Soon on reaching Jaipur Ashish fell

asleep and in the meantime I escaped among the crowd. I

had phone called my sister Saroj on her Mobile

No.966182432 from Jaipur but the call was received by

my brother in-law and I had narrated him the entire

incident who advised me saying you stay there I am

reaching. Then he came to receive me. The said incident

pertains to around 9:00-10:00AM in the morning. We

came to Dausa where my brother in-law`s maternal uncle

lives. My parents reached at his house in Village Kheri and

from where we returned back to our village and later

lodged a case. An incident of forcibly rape has been

committed on me by Vimal and Ashish.”

After taking into consideration the overall facts and

circumstances of the case as revealed from the material on

record as well as the statement of the prosecutrix under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. and without expressing any opinion

about the merits of the case, I deem it proper to enlarge the

accused applicant on bail.

Consequently, this bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the accused

 35
applicant Janak Singh S/o Khillira Meena, R/o Kachera, P

S Havana Distnet Bharatpur (presently at Makhur, Sawai

Madhoppur, be released on bain in FIR No. 110/2014 P.S.

Piloda, District Sawai Madhopur provided he furnishes

Personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50.000, together with two

sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

concerned court for his appearance in the court on all dates

of hearing until conclusion of the trial.

Order dictated pronounced, and signed by me in the

open court, this 20th day of March, 2015.

Sd/- illegible

20.3.15

Sessions Judge
Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATED COPY

 36
ANNEXURE P-4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5024/2014

Madan Mohan Meena

Versus
State of Rajasthan &Ors.

DATE OF ORDER: 01.04.2015

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

Mr. N.C. Sharma, for petitioner

Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, P.P., for the State
Mr. Bhawani Shankar, IO/Addl. S.P., HQ Bharatpur

This petition has been filed seeking fair, proper

andimpartial investigation in FIR No.110/2014, registered
withPolice Station Piloda, District Sawaimadhopur.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ignoring

thestatement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C.,the IO is trying to implicate others who have not been
namedor may not be involved. In view of the above, the
investigationbe transferred as fair investigation would not be
conducted by the present IO.

Learned Public Prosecutor in the presence of IO

submitsthat fair investigation has been conducted. It is after
taking statement of the landlord and call details usedrelevant
period when occurrence took place. Two accused namely
Vimlesh&Janak Singh are found involved. They were available
 37
at the place of occurrence. It is further stated that the location of
the girl was not found at the place disclosed by her but was at
Gangapurcity. It is based on the mobile phone used byher. It was
given by accused-Vimlesh to her. The IO, however,admits that
identification parade of Vimlesh and Janak Singhwas not made.
No explanation to it could be given. Looking tothe aforesaid, I
find it to be appropriate case to transfer the investigation to the
CID(CB) as proper investigation has not been made. The
Inspector general of Police of concerned range is directed to send
the record to the CID (CB) which would conduct fair and
transparent investigation in the matter and that too expeditiously.

With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.

[M.N.BHANDARI], J.

TRUE COPY
 38
ANNEXURE P-5

FINAL REPORT

(Under Section 173Cr.P.C.)

In the Court of District and Sessions Judge (City) Sawai

Madhopur

1.District : Sawai Madhopur P.S.: Piloda Year 2014 Date

11.10.2014

2. Final Report/ Charge Sheet No – 20150092/20150066

3.Date 21.12.2015

4. Statues Sections

Indian penal Code - 363/376(D)/323/366A/368/370(4)/120B

The protection of children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012-

4/16/17

5.Final Form/Type of Final Report- challan / charge sheet

6. If Final Report is not prepared

7. if the Charge Sheet is main / supplementary – Original

8.Name of IO-.- At the time of charge sheet Harimohan sharma

Post DSP No. 00469900

9.(a) Name of Complainant / Informant- Madan Mohan Meena

(b)Fathers name – Ramsahay Meena

10.Details of Properties / articles / Documents recovered/ seized

duringinvestigation and relied upon

Sno. Property Estimated P.S.PropertyFrom/whereDisposal

Description Value Register No. recovered/ seized

 39
1. Mobile Phone 2 9 CO Office GGC

2. Car 2 9 Sawaimadhopur Transferred to

Owner via bond

11. Particulars of accused persons against whom chargesheeted

has been filed

S.No. 1

(i) Name – Vimlesh Kumar Meena

(ii) Fathers name- s/o Ramsahay

(iii) Date/ Year of birth – 1979

(iv) Sex- Male

(v) Nationality – India

(vi) Passport No. Date of Issue Place of issue

(vii) Religion

(viii) Whether SC/ST/OBC – Unknown caste

(ix) Occupation

(x) Address Nagla Meena P.S. Sh Mahaveer Ji c/o Meethalal

Meena

Whether verified

Temporary offender no – 56702140110A1

(xi) Regular Criminal No (if known)

(xii) Date of arrest- 11.11.2014

(xiii) Date of release on bail

(xiv) Date on which forwarded to court – 21.12.15

 40
(xv) Under acts and section

S.No. Acts Sections

Indian penal Code - 363/376(D)/323/366A/368/370(4)/120B

The protection of children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012-

4/16/17

Description of the person giving bail

i) Name –

(ii) Occupation

(iii) Address

(iv) Identity

Prior proved charges with respect to case

Status of the accused (suspect) – On bail by Court

Produced /on police bail/on bail by court/in Judicial Custody/

Absconding/ Proclaimed offender (tick appropriate)

S.No. 2

(i) Name – Janak singh Meena

(ii) Fathers name- s/o Khilliram

(iii) Date/ Year of birth – 1993

(iv) Sex- Male

(v) Nationality – India

(vi) Passport No. Date of Issue Place of issue

(vii) Religion - Hindu

(viii) Whether SC/ST/OBC – unknown caste

 41
(ix) Occupation

(x) Address Kachera PS Bayana

Whether verified

Temporary offender no – 56702140110A2

(xi) Regular Criminal No (if known)

(xii) Date of arrest- 01.03.2015

(xiii) Date of release on bail

(xiv) Date on which forwarded to court – 21.12.15

(xv) Under acts and section

S.No. Acts Sections

Indian penal Code - 363/376(D)/323/366A/368/370(4)/120B

The protection of children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012-

4/16/17

Description of the person giving bail

i) Name –

(ii) Occupation

(iii) Address

(iv) Identity

Prior proved charges with respect to case

Status of the accused (suspect) – On bail by Court

Produced /on police bail/on bail by court/in Judicial Custody/

Absconding/ Proclaimed offender (tick appropriate)
 42
12. Description of accused persons against whom chargesheet
has not been filed

13.Particulars of witnesses
Sr. No. 1
Name- Rajendra Singh Shekhawat
Name of Father/ husband
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year
Type of evidences produced – investigating officer
Address

Sr. No. 2
Name- Rajendra Singh
Name of Father/ husband s/o Nahar Singh
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year
Type of evidences produced – duty officer
Address Pahal PS Mundawar Distt Alwar

Sr. No. 3
Name Madan Mohan Meena
Name of Father/ husband- s/o Ramsahay meena
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year- 1979
Type of evidences produced – complainant
Address- Naya gaon PS Piloda

Sr. No. 4
Name Premsingh Meena
 43
Name of Father/ husband- so Ramsahay
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year
Type of evidences produced – formal witness
Address- Naya gaon PS Piloda

Sr. No. 5
Name- Hari Mohan sharma
Name of Father/ husband
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year- 1958
Type of evidences produced – investigating officer
Address

Sr. No. 6
Name- Om Prakash meena
Name of Father/ husband- s/o Battilal
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year- 1969
Type of evidences produced – formal witness
Address- Naya gaon PS Piloda

Sr. No. 7
Name Jagram Meena
Name of Father/ husband s/o kaluram
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year 1969
Type of evidences produced – formal witness
Address Naya gaon PS Piloda
 44
Sr. No. 8
Name Kartar Singh Gurjar
Name of Father/ husband – s/o Dharam Singh
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year
Type of evidences produced – formal witness
Address

Sr. No. 9
Name- mahendra Singh rajput
Name of Father/ husband s/o Devi singh
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year
Type of evidences produced – formal witness
Address- Bada Pichanot PS Nadoti hall FC 597 PS GGC

Sr. No. 10
Name- Rakesh Kumar Jat
Name of Father/ husband s/o Bhagwan Singh
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year- 1978
Type of evidences produced – formal witness
Address- Habipur PS Sewar Hall FC 699 ADD Sp HQ Bharatpur

Sr. No. 11
Name- Jitendra Singh Jat
Name of Father/ husband s/o Atar Singh
Occupation
Date of Birth/ Year -1983
Type of evidences produced – formal witness
 45
Address- Gunsara PS Udyog Nagar Bharatpur Hall FC 33 Add.
SP Hq. Office Bharatpur

14.If FR is false, indicate action taken or proposed to be taken u/s

182/211 IPC

15.Result of Laboratory Analysis

16.Brief facts of the case (Add separate sheet if necessary)

Dear Sir,

The complaint caseis that on 11.10.2014, Sh. MadanMohan, S/o

Sh. Ram Sahai, caste-Meena, R/o Naya Gaon, Pilauda had
appeared in the police stationand made a report with respect to
his 14 year old daughter Kumari Suman that my daughter
SumanMeena was kidnapped on 06.10.14 by Ashish MeenaS/o
Ram Vilas @ Bambi Meena R/o Mocha Kapura andVimal
Meena driver son of Ghamandi Meena presentlyresiding at
Mocha Kapura on the point of country madepistol while she was
on the way to collect the grass from the godown fields. Bablesh
driver was standingahead of them along with car in which she
was put andboth of them did wrong acts with my daughter. They
took my daughter to SawaiMadhopur by train from Mahaveer ji
Station. One ladymet at Sawai Madhopur Station and took my
daughterin a tempo to a house and thereafter, AshishMeena and
Vimal Meena came and they mixed something in the milk.
Thereafter, they both raped mydaughter. Next day the lady again
came and anotherperson took her to a different house by vehicle
no. RJ 20 2184. In that house, they raped my daughter.
On08.10.14 in the evening, they went to Jaipur fromSawai
Madhopur by train by taking her. On 09.10.14my relative was
informedon phone from Jaipur station, whose phone no. is
 46
9661082432. He gave informationat my in laws place at Kheri. I
received the informationfrom Kheri. Aforesaid all the facts are
told to me by mydaughter. Prior to the same at all the
placesinformation was sent and she was searched at relativesby
me and my family. My daughter was brought by mefrom Kheri
on 11.10.14. From the report and from thefacts and
circumstances. of the case the offence isregistered under section
3, 4, 16/17 of POCSO Act2012 and 323/363, 376/366A (D),
370(4)/368, 120BIPC. Therefore, case no. 110/14 is registered in
theaforesaid case and the enquiry is handed over to ShriRajender
Singh Shekhawat RPS CO Circle GangapurCity.

During the investigation, the statement under section161 CrPC

was recorded with respect to complainantMadan Mohan Meena,
S/ o Ram Sahai Meena, victimKumari Suman D/o Sh. Madan
Mohan Meena, age 14years, witnesess Smt. Ungati W/o Sh.
Madan MohanMeena, Prem Singh S/o Ram Sahai Meena,
GangaSahai, S/o Sukhdev Meena R/o New Village, JagdishS/o
Genda Ram Meena, Santosh Kumar S/o ManoharLal. The
medical of the victim Suman was conductedand MLR was
received. Inspection of first and second spot of the incident was
conducted and the spot mapwas prepared. The age related
certificate of the victimwas obtained from the mark sheet of
Class 8. The statement of the victim under section 164 CrPC
wasrecorded and the copy of the statement was received.The call
details of the accused Vimal Meena’s mobile number
9549307352, accused Ashish’s mobile number 9529101303,
Kumari Suman’s mobile number9587580026, witness Santosh’s
mobile number9660182432 was obtained and included in the
record.Thereafter, due to the transfer of Sh. Rajender
 47
SinghShekhawat, RPS, the investigation of the case was doneby
Sh. Hari Mohan Sharma, RPS, Gangapur city. Hehad obtained
the call details of one Nokia mobile seizedduring investigation
having number 9414209744belonging to Hari Mohan (maternal
uncle of the girl),mobile number 9672109925 of Bablesh and
mobile number 7891333191 of accused Vimlesh and includedthe
same in the investigation file. The statement of thevictim Kumari
Suman D/o Madan Mohan Meena wasalso recorded. Statement
of Bablesh @ Babli, R/oKhanddeep, Mansa, S/o Ghanshyam
Prajapat, JagMohan, S/o Rewariya were recorded. As per
theidentification of the victim Kumari Suman, the place ofrape
was seen and map was prepared. One Swift Dzirecar number RJ
20CD 2184 was seized as proof and theaccused Vimlesh, S / o
Ram Sahai Meena, R/o NaglaMeena, P.S. Sh. Mahaveer ji,
District Karoli, SavaiMadhopur was investigated separately and
after preparing the investigation note, Vimlesh Kumar was
arrested under section 323,363, 366A, 368, 370(4), 376(D), 120
B IPC and under section 3, 4 of POCSOAct and the potency test
of Vimlesh was conducted andMLR was obtained. During
investigation, Sh. MukeshMeena R/o Mohchaka Pura had
prepared his reportand Sh. Ram Dev, Dy. Superintendent, P.S.
Pilondahad investigated. Thereafter, the statement of Sh.
RamDev Singh, police officer, P.S. Pilonda was recordedunder
section 161 CrPC. The accused of the casenamelyAshish Kumar
S/o Ram Vilas and VimalKumar S/o Ramesh Chand Meena were
enquiredseparately and the enquiry note was included in
thecharge sheet and from the investigation of the case,
theinvolvement of accused Ashish Kumar Meena andVimal
Kumar Meena was not found from theinvestigation. The
 48
suspected accused Janak Singh S/oKhilli Ram caste Meena, R/o
Kanchera, P.S. Bayana,District Bharatpur was searched and
proceedingsinitiated against him. Thereafter, with respect to
caseno. 109/14 under section 143, 365, 323, 379, 330 IPC,a letter
no. C-3BHART/UP/SR/15/391-95 dated16.01.15 was received
from the Superintendent ofPolice, Bharatpur toAdditional S.P.
for furtherinvestigation on 20.01.2015. During the
investigation,the Additional S.P. on 27.01.2015 inspected the
spot ofincident at village Naya Gaon, P.S. Pilonda. The placeof
incident was inspected on the identification ofcomplainant
Madan Mohan Meena and victim KumariSuman and the map
prepared by previous I.O. ShRajender Singh Shekhawat, RPS,
was found to becorrect. Separate investigation of the case was
madefrom complainant Sh. Madan Mohan, victim KumariSuman
and witnessSh, Prem Singh, Ganga Sahai andSmt. Ugnati and all
the above witnesses affirmed theirstatement made before
previousI.O. Sh. RajenderSingh Shekhawat and the victim
Kumari Suman alsoaffirmed her statement made under section
164 CrPC. The witnesses of the case Sh. Santosh Kumar
S/oManohar Lal, Jagdish S/o Genda Ram, Shiv Dayal, S/oRam
Singh, Sonu @ Gautam S/o Ram Dayal, LokeshS/o Babu Lal,
Bablesh @ Babli, S/o Sh. Lal Meena,R/o Khanddeep also,
affirmed their previous statement.Sh. Ashish Kumar Meena S/o
Ram Vilas caste- Meenaand accused Vimal Kumar Meena S/o
Ramesh ChandR/o Gangapur City were also enquired separately
andboth the accused affirm their statement made beforethe
previous I.O. Sh. Hari Mohan Sharma which wasrecorded in the
enquiry note. The arrested accusedVimlesh Kumar S/o Ram
Sahai Meena R/o NaglaMeena, P.S. Sh. Mahaveerji, District
 49
Karauli, after hisrelease on bail, was investigated by putting up
face toface before complainant Sh. Madan Mohan Meena and
victim Kumari Suman and Kumari Suman recognizedthe accused
Vimlesh Kumar and stated that theaccused Vimlesh Kumar had
raped her. The truth ofthe incident was again enquired by putting
up face toface the victim Kumari Suman and accused
VimleshKumar. The accused of the case Sh. Janak Singh S/oSh.
Khilli Ram caste Meena was called on 01.03.2015and the
accused Janak Singh was thoroughly enquiredand the enquiry
note was included in the charge sheetand the videography of the
enquiry from Janak Singhwas made and the CD was prepared.
During theinvestigation, the accused Janak Singh accepted
hiscrime and he was arrested and the arrest memo wasincluded in
the case. The accused Janak Singh Meena was taken along for the
inspection of the place of rapewith victim Kumari Suman Meena
and reached at Ambedkar Nagar Colony, Gangapur City where
on the identification of accused Janak Singh the place of rape
was inspected and map was prepared. The statement of the owner
of the house namely Sh Ram Avtar s/o Hazari Lal Sharma and
Keshav Sharma s/o Ram Avtar was recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and included in the file. The potency test of the arrested
accused Janak Singh Meena was conducted at Medical Junior
State Hospital Ganagapur City and MLR was received and the
blood and semen of accused Janak Singh was taken separately.
Accused Janak Singh was produced before Sessions Judge,
Sawai Madhopur and was sent to Judicial Custody. The
truthfulness of the incident was enquired into and after the
examination of the aforesaid documentary evidence and oral
evidence, the following facts were found-
 50
1) As per the statement of witness Sh. Santosh S/oManohar
Meena, he is the brother-in-law of KumanSuman and he went to
Jaipur Railway Station on09.10.14 to take victim Kumari Suman.
The victimKumari Suman had told to her brother-in-law
Sh.Santosh that due to some fight in the house she hadcome to
Jaipur but she didn’t tell anything aboutAshish and Vimal to her
brother-in-law Sh. SantoshMeena.

2) In the FIR, there is mention about vehicle no. RJ 20-2184 (car)

which was seized as evidence by previousInvestigating Officer
from accused Vimlesh S/o Ram Sahai Meena and the legal owner
of the aforesaid vehicle is Smt Maya Devi W/o the brother of
Vimlesh. The accused Vimlesh Meena was going by the car
along with his two children to Sawai Madhopur and on the way
victim Suman Kumari Meena asked for lift on Nadauti Road
situated after Village Kemla and he gave lift to her.

3. The mobile of the victim Kumari Suman was seized after the
production of the same by her uncle Sh. Prem Singh s/o Ram
Sahai Meena which was numbered as 9587580026. The said
mobile was with victim Kumari Meena at the time of the
incident. On the basis of the call details of the said mobile
between 07.10.14 to 11.10.14 the mobile was found at Gangapur
City on 07.10.14 and 08.10.14. Further, accused Janak Singh had
talk with her. It is clear that on 07.10.14 and 08.10.14, the
location of victim Kumari Suman was found at Gangapur City
andthereforethe statement of Kumari Sumanundersection 164
CrPC doesn’t establish that rape wascommitted with her at Sawai
Madhopur on 07.10.14and 08.10.14.
 51
4) The arrested accused Vimlesh Kumar S/o Ram SahaiMeena
R/o Nagla Meenahad told to the previousInvestigation Officer
during interrogation that on06.10.2014 at around 9.15am he
along with his twochildren Deepak and Harsh had started from
hisvillage in a Swift Dzire car number RJ 20CD 2184which
belong to Maya wife of his younger brother andproceeded for
Sawai Madhopur. On the way atNatauki Road, after the village
Kemla, one girl askedfor lift and she was taken in the car by him
via Udai Gangapur city, Bhadoti and Surwal to Sawai Madhopur
at the residence of his friend Bablesh @ Babli r/o Khand deep
and he talked to his wife on her mobile 7665020377, Bablesh @
Babli, the friend of Vimlesh Meena had talk to Vilmesh Meena
1-2 times on his mobile number 9587580026 for ensuring the
food to Vimlesh Meena and Kumari Suman. Vimlesh Meena had
kept victim Kumari Suman in the night of 06.10.14 and 07.10.14
at his residence and raped her three times. The aforesaid facts
were conformed from the interrogation of Vimlesh Meena, call
details of his mobile number 7891333191 and tower location as
well as face to face communication between Kumari Suman and
him.

5) The arrested accused Vimlesh Kumar S/o Ram Sahai Meena

r/o Nagla Meena PS, Sh. Mahaveer ji, District Kalaungi was
confronted face to face with complainant Madan Mohan Meeena
and victim Kumari Suman and on enquiry Kumari Suman
recognized Vimlesh Kumar and said that he had committed rape
with her.

6) The call details of mobile number 9785968425 and

9529101303 pertaining to Ashish Meena were obtained for the
period 06.10.14 to 10.10.14 and tower location was also obtained
 52
and it was found that accused Ashish Meena was at Jaipur City
between 06.10.14 to 10.10.14 and thereafter Ashish Meena went
to Delhi on 10.10.14. The aforesaid fact was affirmed from the
persons living in the same house in Jaipur as tenant namely Sh
Shiv Dayal, Sonu @ Gautam, Smt Pinky, Smt Suman, Lokesh,
Harish and landlord Lal Chand. It was also affirmed from the
birthday party of Sonu and his mobile tower call detail and
location.The accused Vimal Kumar Meena S/o Ramesh
ChandMeena R/o Kadi Jhopri, P.S. Gangapur City, isthe servant
of Ghamandi Lal Meena.His mobiletower location pertaining to
his mobile number9549307352 was obtained between 06.10.14
to10.10.14 and after analysis of the same, it was foundthat his
mobile location was near village MochaKapura, P.S. Pilonda and
nearby towers. The accusedVimal Kumar had taken Tundal Ram,
brother of hismaster Ghamandi Ram to Mahaveer Vaidh ji
on07.10.14 which is also confirmed from the call details.Apart
from that, in the night of 07.10.14, VimalMeena and other boys
namely Sandeep, Rahul,Akshay and RoopSingh were abducted
from MochaKapura by the persons from Naya Gaon to Naya
Gaonand made allegation of kidnapping of Kumari Sumanand
had beaten them and they connected the phone of Vimal meena
having number 9549307352 byspeaker to Ashish and talked to
him on 08.10.14 ataround 4.20am which is also proved from the
calldetails. In this regard, a case number 109/14 undersection
147, 363, 323, 379 IPC was registered at P.S.Pilonda and the
same is under investigation.

7) Before the aforesaid incident of this case, an FIR no.52/14

under section 457, 380 IPC was registered atP.S. Pilonda with
respect to theft from the house ofSh. Ghamandi Lal Meena by
 53
some unidentifiedaccused persons and in this case, an FR number
34dated 29.08.14 was registered. In the said case, somesuspected
persons were the relative of Madan Mohanand enquiry was made
from them. Due to the saidenquiry against them, these persons
had beaten Tej Ram Meena R/o Mocha Kapura and broken his
vehicle and in this regard, FIR No. 60/14 under section 147, 323,
341, 379, 427 IPC was registered at P.S. Pilonda and in the said
matter, after settlement between the persons of Mocha Kapura
and New Village, an FR was submitted. It is clear from the
aforesaid fact that the villagers of Naya Gaon had enmity with
Sh. Ghamandi Lal Meena and his relative accused Ashish Meena
and Vimal Meena of Mocha Kapura and due to the said enmity,
the victim Kumari Suman registered FIR and in her 164
statement falsely implicated accused Ashish and Vimal Meena.

8) The mobile number 9587580026 which was carried by the

victim Kumari Suman at the time of the incident, there is no call
from the said mobile to Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena in the
call details whereas on the said mobile number of Kumari
Suman, Vimlesh from his mobile number 7891333191 and
accused Janak Singh from his mobile number 7821987474 have
made several calls to each other and talked to each other. It is
clear from the aforesaid fact that in the aforesaid incident,
accused Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena were not involved in
the offence whereas accused Vimlesh Meena S/o Ram Sahai
Meena R/o Nagla Meena, P.S. Sh. Mahaveer Ji, District Karauli
and Sh. Janak Singh S/o Sh. Khilli Ram Meena R/o Kanchera,
P.S. Bayana, District Bharatpur were involved in the aforesaid
offence.
 54
9) The accused Janak Singh was interrogated on 01.03.15 and on
his interrogation, he told that he has two bhuas, Smt. Shanti Devi
and Smt. Bishan Bai inNaya Gaon. After the retirement of his
fufa Sh. Tillu Ram Meena, I had gone to my rented room at
Gangapur City on 04.10.14 to attend his retirement function and
on 04.10.14 in his retirement function, a program of music was
organised in the night. In the said program, I had some talk with
Kumari Suman Meena, D/o Madan Mohan Meena and I told her
to come to Gangapur City on 05.10.14. I came to my room at
Gangapur City. Suman called me on 07.10.14 at around 11.30
from her mobile number 9587580026 to my mobile number
7821987474 and told me that she has come to Gangapur City
Railway Station and asked me to take her. I again talked to
Suman on this number. I brought Suman to my rented room from
Gangapur City Railway Station and Suman stayed with me there
in the night. I raped her two times and thereafter on 0810.14 I left
her around 12.01 in the afternoon at Gangapur Railway Station
and thereafter where she had gone I didn't know. I had told
Suman to come to Gangapur City at Naya Gaon. Thus, 'on the
basis of the investigation from Janak Singh Meena and from the
aforesaid facts, it is proved that he was involved in the crime.

10)As per the call detail and mobile tower location of Janak
Singh with respect to his mobile number 7821987474, it is
proved that the accused Janak Singh Meena was present at Naya
Gaon on 04.10.14 and 05.10.14 and it is further proved from the
conversation between Janak Meena and victim Kumari Suman on
07.10.14 and 08.10.14 from the mobile number 9587580026 of
victim Kumari Suman with accused Janak Singh's mobile
number7821987474 that they were present at Gangapur City and
 55
further before the date of the incident, even on 05.10.14 there
was a conversation by the accused Janak Singh with victim
Kumari Suman on the mobile number 9602922824 which belong
to the father of Kumari Suman. That the accused Janak Singh
Meena had called victim Kumari Suman to Gangapur City and
raped her.

11) The accused Janak Singh Meena had stated about the incident
of rape committed by him with victim Kumari Suman at his
rented house. The accused admitted of commission of rape with
victim Kumari Suman on 07.10.14 and 08.10.14 in the night at
his rented accommodation of Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma S/o Hazaro
Lal Sharma, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Gangapur City and on his
identification, the map of the said place was prepared and the
statement of Ram Avtar Sharma and Keshav Sharma was
recorded from which it is clear that accused Janka Singh Meena
committed rape in the night of 07.10.14 and 08.10.14 at his
rented room with victim Kumari Suman. Thus, from the
aforesaid facts and investigation, statement of witnesses, call
details of the mobile number of Kumari Suman and tower
location and the confrontation made between victim Suman and
arrested accused Vimlesh. interrogation of accused Janak Singh
Meena, videographed CD of investigation of accused Janak
Singh, the available oral and documentary evidence with respect
to arrested accused Vimlesh Kumar and Janak Singh, the offence
under section 363, 366A, 368, 370(4), 376 IPC and section 3, 4
of POCSO Act is proved which has also been found to be correct
in theinvestigation madeby the previous IO Sh. Hari Mohan
Sharma, RPS, Gangapur City. In the S.B. Miscellaneous
Criminal Petition No. 5024/14 Sh. Madan Mohan Meena Vs.
 56
State, pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan
Jaipur, the Investigation Officer had appeared before the court on
01.04.15 and has produced the latest progress report before the
Hon'ble High Court and the High Court after hearing, has
referred the investigation to the CID (CB) Rajasthan, Jaipur.
Therefore, the order 01.04.15 passed by the Hon'ble High Court
has been included in the charge sheet. Thereafter, the records of
the case as per the order no. 92797 dated 27.04.15 passed by
Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights, Rajasthan. Jaipur, has
been transferred from the local police to the present agency for
investigation. During the investigation, the record of the case was
thoroughly examined and the place of occurrence was inspected
and investigation was made from complainant Sh. Madan Mohan
and victim Kumari Suman, Smt. Ugnati and Prem Singh and also
enquiry was made from accused Ashish and Vimal and Bablesh
and investigation note was prepared and included in the charge
sheet. The accused Janak Singh and Vimlesh were summoned
several times but they did not remain present for investigation.
Thereafter, I personally went to village Kanchera of accused
Janak Singh and tried to investigate the case but he was not found
and his family members told that he has gone out-station for
some work. Apart from that, further investigation was made by
going to the place of accused Vimlesh of village Nagla Meena,
P.S. Mahaveer ji but he was alsonot found there and his family
members told that he has gone to Jaipur for some urgent work. It
seems that both the accused persons are intentionally avoiding
the investigation. Thus, in the investigation made by the IO, the
following conditions are found:
 57
1. The complainant Sh. Madan Mohan Meena in the FIR has
stated that his daughter Kumari Suman had gone to cut grass at
around 9am on 06.10.14 and on the way, the accused Vimal and
Ashish met her and both of them forcibly kidnapped on the gun
point and Bablesh driver was standing with a vehicle and his
daughter was taken by them by putting her in the car. Whereas
the victim Kumari Suman in her statement under section 164
CrPC has stated that Vimal and Ashish had taken her in their
vehicle but there is no mention of the name of Bablesh in the
statement made under section 164 CrPC. Thus, in the FIR and in
the 164 statement of the prosecutrix, there are contradictions.

2. The complainant in the FIR has stated that the accused Vimal
and Ashish did bad thing with his daughter Suman on 06.10.14
and 07.10.14 at Sawai Madhopur and Kumari Suman has also in
her statement under section 164 CrPC, stated about rape
committed with her at Sawai Madhopur on 06.10.14 and also
stated that the very next day, i.e, on 07.10.14 the accused Ashish
raped her and further stated that on the same day she was taken to
Jaipur by train and on reaching Jaipur, while Ashish was
sleeping, I ran away in the crowd. She called her sister Saroj on
her mobile number 9660182432 and then her brother-in-law
Santoshhad picked her up. On the other hand, the complainant in
the FIR had stated that his daughter Kumari Suman had gone to
Jaipur on 08.10.14 in the evening from Sawai Madhopur by train
and called her brother-in-law Santosh. Thus, on the one hand, the
victim Kumari Suman in her statement under section 164 CrPC
has stated that she has gone to Jaipur from Sawai Madhopur by
train in the night of 07.10.14 whereas on the other hand, the
complainant in his FIR has stated that his daughter has gone to
 58
Jaipur from Sawai Madhopur on 08.10.14 and she had called her
brother-in-law Santosh on 09.10.14 after reaching Jaipur. Thus,
there are major contradictions in the FIR and statement recorded
under section 164 CrPC.

3. The complainant Madan Mohan has stated in the FIR and his
statement under section 161 CrPC that his daughter Suman had
come to Jaipur from village Khedi on 09.10.14 whereas Kumari
Suman in her statement under section 164 CrPC has stated that
she had come to village Khedi from Jaipur on the very next day
of the incident. Thus, there are major contradiction in the FIR
and 164 CrPC statements.

4. It is important to consider here that when the victim Kumari

Suman as per her statement under section 164 CrPC had come to
village Kheda on the very next day of the incident, i.e., on
07.10.14 and her parents had taken her to their village from
village Kheda.Then the complaint should have been registered in
the police station on the same day but the complaint was
registered on 11.10.14.

5.The complainant in the FIR has stated that his daughter Suman
had come to village Khedi from Jaipur on 09.10.14 and on the
same day he came to know about coming of Suman at village
Khedi. It is very important question here that when the
complainant had come to know about coming of his daughter
Suman from village Kheda on 09.10.14 then why did not he go to
village Kheda on the same day particularly when his daughter
was not traceable since 06.10.14. The complainant Madan
Mohan in his statement under section 161 CrPC has stated that he
had gone to village Kheda on 10.10.14 and taking her daughter to
 59
the village he registered the complaint on 11.10.14 which create
doubt about the whole incident.

6. The victim Kumari Suman in her statement under section 161

CrPC to the IO of the local police has stated that on 06.10.14 she
was kept for the whole night in a room along with accused
Ashish and one beard man and both committed one by one the
bad thing with her against her wishes and she further stated about
going to Jaipur from Sawaii Madhopur on 08.10.14 at around 1-
1.30 in the night. The complainant in his FIR has stated that his
daughter Suman was taken from Sawai Madhopur by the accused
to Jaipur in the night of 08.10.14 Thus, there are major
contradictions in the statement under section 161 of victim
Kumari Suman and her 164 statement as well as FIR and161
statement of Kumari Suman which raises question mark about
the incident.

7. The complainant in his FIR has stated that on 06.10.14 his

daughter was forcibly taken on the gun point by Ashish and
Vimal and she was taken in the car of Bablesh driver whereas the
victim in her 164 statement has only stated about Ashish and
Vimal and she in her 161 statement has named Bablesh along
with Vimal and Ashish. Thus, there are major contradictions in
the statements.

8. Santosh, brother-in-law of Kumari Suman has stated in his

statement under section 161 CrPC about reaching to Jaipur
Railway Station after receiving the phone of Suman and he had
taken Suman along with him and on enquiry by Santosh the
victim stated that there was some fight in the family and
therefore, she has come and she doesn't want to go to her home.
 60
This fact was stated by Santosh in his statement whereas the
victim had not stated about she being kidnapped by Ashish and
Vimal and taken to Jaipur from Sawai Madhopur. If Suman
would have been kidnapped by Ashish and Vimal and brought to
Jaipur from Sawai Madhopur, she must have told her brother-in-
law Santosh about the same but nothing of this sort was informed
by her to Santosh.

9. The victim Kumari Suman has stated about her kidnapping by

accused Vimal and Ashish on 06.10.14 at around 9am and
putting her in the vehicle but the details of calls of accused
Ashish and Vimal and their location shows that accused Ashish
was in Jaipur between 06.10.14 to10.10.14. In the same manner,
the accused Vimal as per his mobile location and call detail was
at village Mocha Kapura, P.S. Pilonda between 06.10.14 to
10.10.14 as per the nearby tower. In such situation, it cannot be
said that on 06.10.14. both the accused persons had kidnapped
Suman.

10. The victim Suman in her statement under section 164 CrPC
has stated that she had come from Sawai Madhopur to Jaipur on
07.10.14 in the night by train whereas the call detail and tower
location of Suman's mobile number 9587580026 was on 07.10.14
at around 11.34am to 08.10.14 at 5.06pm was found at Gangapur
City. Therefore, the statement of the victim seems to be
absolutely unbelievable.

11. The complainant Madan Mohan has stated that his daughter
Kumari Suman on 06.10.14 was abducted from his house by the
accused persons but complainant did not register any complaint
with respect to that in the police station which raises question
 61
mark on the incident. The Investigation Officer had tried to know
about the truthfulness of the aforesaid incident by secret
information in the Naya Gaon and Mocha Kapura both villages
and he came to know that the litigation against each other by
villagers was going on due to enmity amongst the both villages
Sometimes back, the complainant side persons namely Dhuji,
Bablu, Pintu, Jaiprakash, etc. had come along with 40-50 persons
and had beaten Dilip Kumar s/o Pyare Lal caste Jaatav, R/o
Mocha Kapura and forcibly picked him up and an FIR
wasregistered at P.S. Pilonda and FIR No. 52/14 was registered
by the accused person's relative Ghamandi Lal Meena against
suspected persons of Naya Gaon at P.S. Pilonda. One such other
case was registered by Tej Ram Meena, relative of the accused,
as FIR No. 60/14 at P.S. Pilonda with respect to meeting and
damaging the vehicle. Therefore, name of Vimal and Ashish has
been written falsely in this case. Prior to the present
investigation, 4 other investigators had done the investigation and
in which Sh. Hari Mohan Sharma, RPS, Gangapur City and Sh.
Bhawani Shankar, Deputy SP., Bharatpur had also did not find
any involvement of accused Ashish and Vimal and the offence
against accused Janak Singh and Vimlesh was proved under
section 363, 366A, 370 (a), 376 IPC and section 3/4 of POCSO
Act. Thus, as per the investigation made by the IO and analysis
and examination, the charges made against accused Vimal and
Ashish are found to be false and baseless. The truthfulness of the
incident is that on 06.10.14, Vimlesh along with his 2 children
was going from his village Nagla Meena by his vehicle to Sawai
Madhopur and on the way on the Nadauta Road, victim Suman
had asked for lift and he had given lift to her and took her to
 62
Sawai Madhopur where in the night of 06.10.14, Vimlesh did
wrong thing with Kumari Suman. Thereafter, on 07.10.14, the
accused Vimlesh brought Suman to Sawai Madhopur Railway
Station on his motor cycle at around 9am and purchased her a
ticket from Sawai Madhopur to Sh. Mahaveer ji and gaveher one
Nokia mobile set and sim and sent her by train. The victim
Suman got down from train at Gangapur City and after getting
down she called accused Janak Singh through her mobile at
around 11.34am and went to his room along with him. This is
proved from the discussion between victim Suman and accused
Janak Singh from their mobile numbers 9587580026 to
7821987474. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the accused
Janka Singh Meena had raped Kumari Suman by taking her to his
room. From the investigation the offence against the accused
Vimal and Ashish are not proved and their names are excluded
from the charge sheet. Thus, the complete investigation,
statement of witnesses, interrogation of accused, call details and
tower location as well as the evidence available on records, the
offence under section 323, 363, 366A, 368, 370(4), 376D, 120B
IPC and section 3, 4, 16/17 POCSO Act are proved against
accused. 1.Sh. Vimlesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Sahai, caste Meena,
R/o Nagla Meena, P.S. Sh. Mahaveer ji, District Karauli, and
2.Sh. Janak Singh S/o Sh, Khilli Ram, caste Meena, R/o
Kanchera, P.S. Bayana, District Bharatpur.

Therefore, this charge sheet no. 66 dated 22.12.15 is filed in the

court against 1. Sh. Vimlesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Sahai, caste
Meena, R/o Nagla Meena, P.S. Sh. Mahaveer ji, District Karauli,
and 2.Sh. Janak Singh S/o Sh. Khilli Ram, caste Meena, R/o
Kanchera, P.S. Bayana, District Bharatpur Under Section 323,
 63
363, 366A, 368, 370(4). 376D, 120B IPC and section 3, 4, 16/17
POCSO Act.

TRUE TRANSLATION
 64
ANNEXURE P-6

BEFORE THECOURT OF SESSION JUDGE,

SAWAIMADHOPUR (Raj)
PRESIDING OFFICER: MAHVEER PRASAD SHARMA-
FIRSTSESSION CASE NO.44/2016
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS JANAK SINGH AND
OTHERS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 193 OF CR.P.C.
PRESENT
1. Shri Himmat Singh Rajawat, Public Prosecutor on behalf
of State ,
2. Sh Om Prakash Tiharia, Advocate on behalf of
complainant
Order dated 19.11.2016
Through Court
Order

APPLICATION PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF

COMPLAINANT MADAN MOHAN MEENA UNDER
SECTION 193 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE IS
DISPOSED OF BY THIS ORDER

1. On 08.06.2016 complainant Madan Mohan Meena presented

one application under Section 193 of Criminal Procedure Code
on this basis that the complainant has presented one FIR No.
110/2014 at police station Pilauda on 11.10.2014 against
accused persons Ashish Meena son of Ram Gilas alias Bambi
Meena resident of Maucha Ka Pura and Vimal Meena Son of
Ramesh Chandra MeenaResident of Kari Ki Jhonpri presently
residing at MauchaKa Pura with regard to forcefully
kidnapping the minordaughter victim of the complainant and
doing bad actalong with her, Complainant and daughter
 65
ofComplainant affirmed the incident in their statements.
On18.10.2014 statement was registered under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. of the ‘victim. Victim in her statements alsostated
about commission of the offence by Ashish Meena and Vimal
Meena. Accused Ashish and Vimal are influential persons. In
their family Bhagwan sahay Meena is a big officer in police
and Ghamman Lal Meena is custom commissioner who while
using their influence removed aforesaid both the accused
persons from charge sheet. Investigator has not conducted the
investigation in the correct manner and impartial manner
whereas Hon’ble High Court has also passed the order for
conducting of correct and impartial investigation on
01.04.2015.

2. On taking the cognizance against accused Ashish and Vimal

under Sections 363, 366, 368, 370(4), 376D, 120 of IPC and
under Section ¾ and 16/17 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences the aforesaid accused persons to be
summoned through arrest warrant.

3. Ld. Advocate of the complainant heard.

4. Ld. Advocate of the complainant contended that sufficient

evidence is available on file against accused personsAshish
Meena and Vimal Meena. Victim has given theevidence in her
statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. with regard to
kidnapping done by aforesaid both he accused persons and
about raping her. Therefore, while making the prayer for
taking the cognizance against Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena
following case laws are presented in support of their
arguments
 66
1. Smt Suman Kandar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2013
(1) Crl Law Reporter (Raj) 161

2. Dharam Pal & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2013

Crl Law Reporter (SC) 818

5. In perspective of the arguments presented on behalf of the

complainant and case laws, the file is perused

6. Complainant Madan Mohan Meena presented one written

report on 11.10.2014 before Police station Pilauda, District
Sawaimadhopur with regard to kidnapping of theirdaughter
and committing bad act upon her on whichbasis First
Information Report Number 110/2014 isregistered
Complainant mentioned the facts aboutkidnapping done of his
daughter by Ashish Meena son ofRam Gilas alias Bambi
Meena and Vimal Meena son ofRamesh Chandra Meena and
fact about committing rapeupon her. Complainant Madan
Mohan, witness PremSingh and Smt. Uganti stated in their
statements underSection 161 of Criminal Procedure Code that
on 16.10.2014 victim did not reach the fields and when
searched she was not found. On 09.10.2014 it was known
through Ram Singh that his daughter is found. When he asked
from the victim, then victim told him that Ashish Meena son
of Ram Gilas and Vimal Meena son of Ramesh Chandra
Meena closed her mouth and put her in vehicle and took her to
Mahavirji Station and from there brought her to
Sawaimadhopur. In the night Ashish and Vimal raped me in
one room against my consent at sawai madhopur.

7. Victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that

on 06.10.2014 she was going from her house to goods place
 67
for bringing grass. Then on kaccha passage Ashish Meena and
Vimal Meena heldher and closed her mouth and making her sit
in thevehicle brought her to Mahavir Ji railway station.
Onmaking her sit in train from there brought her
toSawaimadhopur and kept her in one room and both ofthem
has done the bad act along with me against myconsent. On
07.10.2014 Vimal returned back. At 8-9 PMone person with
beard and Ashish on making her sit in vehicle number RJ 20-
2184 took her in one room and one by one both of them
committed bad act with me over there without my consent.

8. Statement of victim is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on

18.10.2014. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C it is
stated that on 06.10.2014 when I was going to bring grass in
the morning at 9 Am then Ashish and Vimal held me and pit
me forcefully in four wheeler vehicle to Mahavir ji and
brought me to Sawaimadhopur by train from there and in one
room Ashish and Vimal committed rape on me. On the next
day also Ashish forcefully raped me.

9. In this manner victim in her statements under Section161 and

164 of Criminal Procedure Code stated aboutraping her by
Ashish and Vimal at Sawaimadhopurduring the time duration
from 06.10.2014 till 07.10.2014.According to the mark sheet
of the result of 8" Class-examination the date of birth of victim
is 05.06.2000. Inthis manner victim appears to be of the age of
around 14years at the time of incident.

10.According to the aforesaid investigation and analysisprima

facie it is found that the case is made of taking the cognizance
against the accused persons Ashish Meena son of Ram Gilas
 68
alias Bambi Meena, resident of Mohcha ka Pura and Vimal
Meena son of Ramesh Chandra Meena resident of Kadi ki
Jhopri presently residing at Mohcha ka Pura under Section 363
and 366 of IPC and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act and in alternative under Section 376 (2)
(g) of IPC.

11.Therefore the cognizance is taken against aforesaid both the

accused persons under Section 363 and 366 of IPC and Section
5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and in
alternative under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC of Indian Penal
Code. Accused persons to be summoned through arrest
warrant.

Sd/-
19.11.2016
Session Judge
Sawai Madhopur
12.Order is pronounced today on 19.11.2016 in the open Court.
Duly signed and dated.
Sd/-
19.11.2016
Session Judge
Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATION
 69
ANNEXURE P-7

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 477/2017

1. Ashish Meena S/o Ramgilas @ Bambi Meena R/o

Mohchakapura. Gangapur City Distt. Sawaimadhopur Raj
2. Vimal Meena S/o Ramesh Chand Meena, R/o Kadi Ki
Jhopdi presently residing at Mohkakapura,
Gangapur City Distt. Sawaimadhopur Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Suresh Saini

Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma

For Respondent(s) Mr Rishsiraj Singh PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

Order

28/04/2017

1. Heard learned counsel for the accused/petitioners.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred on

behalf of the accused/petitioners against the order dated
19.11.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai
Madhopur whereby the application filed under Section 193
Cr.P.C. by the complainant-Madan Mohan Meena has been
 70
allowed and the cognizance for the offences punishable
under Sections 363 & IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act in
the alternative Section 376(2)(g) IPC has been taken against
the petitioners, Ashish Meena & Vimal Meena, and they
have been called through non-bailable warrants.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioners restricts his prayer to the extent that the order
summoning the accused/petitioners through non-bailable
warrants may be quashed.

4. This fact is undisputed that after thorough investigation

made by the Police, charge-sheet for the offences punishable
under Sections 363, 366, 368, 370(4), 376, 120-B IPC and
Section 3/4 and 16/17 of the POCSO Act was filed only
against Vimlesh Kumar and Janak Singh.
Accused/petitioners, Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena, were
not charge-sheeted. Vide order impugned dated 19.11.2016,
petitioners have been summoned through non-bailable
warrants for the offences mentioned above.

5. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into

consideration in totality, it appears that the order to the
extent of summoning the petitioners, Ashish Meena and
Vimal Meena, through non-bailable warrants does not
appear justified and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
However, the petitioners, Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena,
are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court and
to move application for their regular bail, which will be
 71
considered and allowed by that Court on the same day on
which it is moved .

6. It is also made clear that the accused/petitioners will be at

liberty to raise the contentions raised before this Court at the
time of framing of charges before the learned trial Court.

7. The Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed off

accordingly.

Sd/-

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI),J

TRUE COPY
 72
ANNEXURE P-8
SPECIAL COURT (POSCO) Sawaimadhopur
Order Sheet
30.05.2017

SPP present. On the surrender of accused persons viz.

Ashish and Vimal in the Court, the file of Ashish Meena was
taken up. Shri. Bhola Sharma appearing on behalf of accused,
produced the copy of order dated 28.04.2017 passed by Hon’ble
High Court in S.B. Crl Revision Petition No. 477/17 titled Ashish
etc vs State and bail application. The order passed by Hon’ble
High Court is as under-
The petitioners, Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena, are
directed to surrender before the learned trial Court and to move
application for their regular bail, which will be considered and
allowed by that Court on the same day on which it is moved.
In compliance of the said order, it the accused persons
furnish 2 sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each and bail bond of Rs One
lakh each, ensuring that they will appear on every appearance till
the judgment is delivered, then they be released on bail.
In compliance of order, bail bonds were furnished and
after their verification, accused persons were released on bail.
Accused from A/W police station be immediately called
for compliance
File be put up on fixed date 27.07.2017
30.05.2017
Judge, Special Court
POSCO, SawaiMadhopur

TRUE TRANSLATED COPY

 73
ANNEXURE P-9

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2178 OF 2017

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8030 of 2017)

Madan Mohan ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Rajasthan & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2)This appeal is filed by the Complainant against the final

judgment and order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Revision
Petition No.477 of 2017 whereby the High Court partly allowed
the criminal revision petition filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3
herein and set aside that part of the order dated 19.11.2016
passed by the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial
No.44/2016 whereby the Session Judge while allowing the
application filed under Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) by the
appellant (Complainant) issued non-bailable warrants against
respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for their arrest.
 74
3) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass so also the issue
involved in the appeal is short. They, however, need mention
infra.

4) Two accused, namely, Vimlesh Kumar and Janak Singh are

facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B,
363, 366, 368, 370 (4) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as "IPC") read with Section 3/4 and 16/17
of POCSO Act, in Sessions Trial No.44/2016. It is pending in
the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur. The
Sessions trial began pursuant to FIR No.110/2014 filed by the
complainant-Madan Mohan (appellant herein) in Police Station,
Piloda. A charge sheet has since been filed against two accused
mentioned above.

5) The appellant filed an application under Section 193 of the

Code in the Sessions Trial complaining therein that the names of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena though
figured prominently in all the material documents filed along
with the charge-sheet, yet for no justifiable reasons, their names
were deleted from the charge-sheet whereas only the names of
two accused, i.e., Vimlesh and Janak Singh were retained to face
the trial.

6) The appellant, therefore, prayed that respondent Nos.2 and 3

be summoned for being arrayed as accused persons along with
Vimlesh Kumar and Janak Singh to face the trial because,
according to him, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also involved in the
commission of the offence along with other two accused.
 75
7) The Sessions Judge, by order dated 19.11.2016, allowed the
application finding prima facie case against respondent Nos.2
and 3 and accordingly summoned both by issuing non-bailable
warrant of arrest against them.

8) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 felt aggrieved and filed Criminal

Revision under Section 397 of the Code in the High Court at
Rajasthan out of which this appeal arises. The complainant-
appellant herein at whose instance the order was passed by the
Sessions Judge was, however, not impleaded as party in the
revision.

9) By impugned order, the Single Judge allowed the revision in

part and set aside that portion of the order of the Sessions Judge
which had directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 while summoning them. The High Court
then proceeded to issue further direction to respondent Nos.2 and
3 to surrender before the Trial Court and move the application for
their regular bail, which would be considered and allowed by that
Court on the same day on which it is moved. A further liberty
was granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to raise the contentions at
the time of framing of the charges.

10) It is apposite to quote in verbatim the impugned order:

“1. Heard learned counsel for the accused/petitioners.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred on
behalf of the accused/petitioners against the order dated
19.11.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai
Madhopur whereby the application filed under Section 193
Cr.P.C. by the complainant-Madan Mohan Meena has
 76
been allowed and the cognizance for the offences
punishable under Sections 363 & IPC and Section 5/6
POCSO Act in the alternative Section 376(2)(g) IPC has
been taken against the petitioners, Ashish Meena & Vimal
Meena, and they have been called through non-bailable
warrants.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners restricts his prayer to the extent that the order
summoning the accused/petitioners through non-bailable
warrants may be quashed.
4. This fact is undisputed that after thorough investigation
made by the Police, charge-sheet for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368, 370(4), 376, 120-
B IPC and Section 3/4 and 16/17 of the POCSO Act was
filed only against Vimlesh Kumar and Janak Singh.
Accused/petitioners, Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena,
were not charge-sheeted. Vide order impugned dated
19.11.2016, petitioners have been summoned through non-
bailable warrants for the offences mentioned above.
5. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into
consideration in totality, it appears that the order to the
extent of summoning the petitioners, Ashish Meena and
Vimal Meena, through non-bailable warrants does not
appear justified and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
However, the petitioners, Ashish Meena and Vimal
Meena, are directed to surrender before the learned trial
Court and to move application for their regular bail, which
will be considered and allowed by that Court on the same
day on which it is moved .
 77
6. It is also made clear that the accused/petitioners will be
at liberty to raise the contentions raised before this Court at
the time of framing of charges before the learned trial
Court.
7. The Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed off
accordingly.”
(Emphasis supplied)

11) Against the impugned order of the High Court, the

complainant has felt aggrieved and after obtaining the leave has
filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.

12) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

13) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the
appeal and set aside the order to the extent mentioned below.

14) In our considered opinion, the Single Judge seemed to have

passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind
inasmuch as he committed two glaring errors while passing the
order. First, he failed to see that the complainant at whose
instance the Sessions Judge had passed the order and had allowed
his application under Section 193 of the Code was a necessary
party to the criminal revision along with the State. Therefore, he
should have been impleaded as respondent along with the State in
the revision. In other words, the Complainant also had a right of
hearing in the Revision because the order impugned in the
Revision was passed by the Session Judge on his application.
 78
This aspect of the case was, however, not noticed by the Single
Judge.

15) Second and more importantly was that the Single Judge
grossly erred in giving direction to the Sessions Judge to consider
the bail application of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and “allow” it on
the “same day”.

16) In our considered opinion, the High Court had no jurisdiction

to direct the Sessions Judge to "allow" the application for grant
of bail. Indeed, once such direction had been issued by the High
Court then what was left for the Sessions Judge to decide except
to follow the directions of the High Court and grant bail to
respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In other words, in compliance to the
mandatory directions issued by the High Court, the Sessions
Judge had no jurisdiction to reject the bail application but to
allow it.

17) No superior Court in hierarchical jurisdiction can issue such

direction/mandamus to any subordinate Court commanding them
to pass a particular order on any application filed by any party.
The judicial independence of every Court in passing the orders in
cases is well settled. It cannot be interfered with by any Court
including superior Court.

18) When an order is passed, it can be questioned by the

aggrieved party in appeal or revision, as the case may be, to the
superior Court. It is then for the Appellate/Revisionery Court to
decide as to what orders need to be passed in exercise of its
Appellate/Revisionery jurisdiction. Even while remanding the
case to the subordinate Court, the Superior Court cannot issue a
 79
direction to the subordinate Court to either “allow” the case or
“reject” it. If any such directions are issued, it would amount to
usurping the powers of that Court and would amount to
interfering in the discretionary powers of the subordinate Court.
Such order is, therefore, not legally sustainable.

19) It is the sole discretion of the Sessions Judge to find out

while hearing the bail application as to whether any case on facts
is made out for grant of bail by the accused or not. If made out
then to grant the bail and if not made out, to reject the bail. In
either case, i.e., to grant or reject, the Sessions Judge has to apply
his independent judicial mind and accordingly pass appropriate
reasoned order keeping in view the facts involved in the case and
the legal principles applicable for grant/rejection of the bail. In
this case, the Single Judge failed to keep in his mind this legal
principle.

20) It is for this reason, in our view, such directions were wholly
uncalled for and should not have been given. This Court cannot
countenance issuing of such direction by the High Court.

21) In our view, at best, the High Court could have made an
observation to the effect that the respondent Nos.2 and 3
(accused persons) are at liberty to approach the Sessions Judge
for grant of bail and, if any application is filed, it would be
decided by the Sessions Judge on its merits and in accordance
with law expeditiously but not beyond it.

22) We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the direction given

by the High Court to the Sessions Judge to "consider and allow"
 80
the bail application made by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Sessions
Trial Case No.44/2016 on the same day on which it was moved.

23) So far as the direction by which cognizance of the case

against respondent Nos.2 and 3 was taken by the Sessions Judge,
the Single Judge has upheld it. It is not questioned here. In the
light of this, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have to submit
themselves to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge and raise the
pleas which are available to them in law.

24)In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is

accordingly allowed. The impugned order to the extent indicated
above is set aside. The Session Judge would now decide the
application for bail, if made by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on its
merits and in accordance with law, if not so far decided.

………...................................J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi;
December 14, 2017

TRUE COPY
 81

ANNEXURE P-10

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 41/2019

Madan Mohan Meena S/o Ramsahai Meena B/c Meena, R/o

Naya
Ganv Police Thana Piloda Distt. Sawai Madhopur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Ashish Meena S/o Ramgilas Meena @ Bambi Meena B/c
Meena, R/o Mohchakapura Police Thana Piloda Teh.
Gangapurcity Distt. Sawaimadhopur Raj.
3. Vimal Meena S/o Ramesh Chand Meena, R/o Kadi Ki
Jhopdi Hall Niwasi Mohkakapura Police Thana Piloda
Tehsil Gangapurcity Distt. Sawaimadhopur Raj.
----Respondents

For Complainant- : Mr. S.R. Surana Sr. Adv. with

Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Yadav

For State(s) : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP

For Accused- : Mr. Nikhilesh Katara

Respondent(s)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

26/08/2019

1. Complainant-Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Bail

Cancellation Application seeking cancellation of bail granted to
Respondents No.2 & 3.
 82
2. It is contended by counsel for the complainant-petitioner that
an F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner on 11.10.2014 with the
specific allegation that daughter of prosecutrix has been
kidnapped and raped by the Respondents No.2 & 3.

3. It is contended that statement of prosecutrix was also recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she alleged
that she was forcefully taken away by Respondents No.2 & 3 and
was subjected to rape at Sawai Madhopur.

4. It is further contended that respondents have close relations

with a Senior Police Officer and Custom Officer and for that
reason, Police had not proceeded against them.

5. It is contended that Police submitted charge-sheet against

Janak Singh & Vimlesh and did not proceed against Respondents
No.2 & 3, in spite of specific statement of the prosecutrix. An
application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. was moved by the
complainant which was allowed by the Court and cognizance
was taken against Respondents No.2 & 3 and they were
summoned by non-bailable warrants.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below on

19.11.2016, respondents preferred Criminal Revision Petition
before the High Court which was allowed by the High Court and
Respondents No.2 & 3 were directed to surrender before the Trial
Court and move application for regular bail. Further direction
was given by the High Court that bail application will be
considered and allowed by the Court on the same day on which it
is moved.
 83
7. It is contended that aggrieved by the order of the High Court
dated 28.04.2017 complainant preferred an SLP before the Apex
Court. The Criminal Appeal was allowed by the Apex Court and
the order of the High Court to the extent, a direction was given to
allow the bail application, was set-aside.

8. It is contended that bail application of Respondents No.2 & 3

was granted without considering the merits of the case. Court
below had not considered Section 29 of the POCSO Act which
draws a presumption against the accused persons.

9. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "State of

Bihar vs. Raj Ballav Prasad" 2017 (2) SCC Page 178.

10. Counsel for the Respondent has opposed the Criminal Bail
Cancellation Application. It is contended that Police after due
investigation had submitted charge-sheet against Janak Singh and
Vimlesh. As per the mobile tower location, respondents were not
with the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged occurrence and
presence of Janak Singh and Vimlesh was established with the
prosecutrix and accordingly Police had submitted charge-sheet
against Janak Singh and Vimlesh.

11. It is also contended that bail application of respondents was

allowed by the Trial Court on 30.05.2017 i.e. prior to the date of
passing of the order by the Apex Court on 14.12.2017.

12. It is further contended that respondents are not having any

relation with any Senior Police Officer or Custom Officer.
 84
13. It is also contended that complainant is having enmity with
the respondents due to some prior dispute and there is no ground
for cancellation of bail.

14. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on "Manjit

Prakash Vs. Shobha Devi 2008 AIR (SCW) Page 5099"
"Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra 2000 SCC (Cri)
1508."

15. I have considered the contentions and have perused the

judgments cited by the parties.

16. Apex Court in "Manjit Prakash Vs. Shobha Devi" (supra) has
held that cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes
away the liberty of an individual and is not to be lightly resorted
to.

17. Apex Court in "Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra"

(supra) relying on judgment "Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana"
has held that once bail is granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner.

18. Judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner "State of Bihar

vs. Raj Ballav Prasad" (supra) was a case where the Apex Court
cancelled the bail granted by the High Court. Apex Court
referred to "Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr 2012 SCC 180" wherein Apex Court held that the High
Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail in cases where the
order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in
miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant
materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or
takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to
 85
the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the
Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such
orders are against the well recognized principles underlying the
power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable
leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening
circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper
with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the
court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions
Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they
are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes because
they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have
adverse impact on the society.

19. In the light of above judgments, reverting to the facts of this

case, in the F.I.R. there was specific allegation against
Respondents No.2 & 3 of abducting the prosecutrix and
of committing rape upon her. In her statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. also, prosecutrix specifically levelled allegations
against Respondents No.2 & 3. Court below while granting bail
did not go into the merits of the case, rather it allowed the bail, as
there was direction by the High Court to consider and allow the
bail application. The order passed by the High Court to the extent
it directed the Court below to consider and allow the bail
application, was set-aside by the Apex Court. However, since the
Court below had already allowed the bail application and no
application was moved by the respondents for grant of bail before
the Court, the Court below could not comply with the directions
given by the Apex Court to consider the bail application on
merits.
 86
20. As per Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012, if a person is
prosecuted for committing an offence under Section
3, 5, 7 &Section 9 of the Act, the Court shall presume that such
person has committed the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

21. There being a statement of the prosecutrix recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has made specific
allegations against the respondents. Plea of alibi raised by the
respondents on the basis of tower location or statement of
witnesses recorded by the Police, cannot come in aid of the
respondents at this stage.

22. It is true that cancellation of bail is harsh order but equally if

a bail is granted to a person accused of a heinous offence that is
committing gang rape with a child, the same would have an
adverse impact on the society.

23. Bail was granted by the Trial Court on the basis of directions
given by the High Court which direction has been set-aside by
the Apex Court. On the merits of the case, Respondents No.2 & 3
are not entitled to grant of bail. Hence, the bail granted to
the respondents vide order dated 30.05.2017 is quashed and set-
aside and bail cancellation application is allowed.

24. Trial Court is directed to take the Respondents No.2 & 3 in

custody.

Sd/-
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

TRUE COPY
 87
ANNEXURE P-11

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.13 SECTION II

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8768/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-

2019 in SBCRBCA No. 41/2019 passed by the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur)

ASHISH MEENA & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MADAN MOHAN MEENA & ANR.

Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.146275/2019-

EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. )

Date : 01-10-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddhartha Dave,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Rohini Musa,Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajesh Sharma,Adv.

 88
Mr. Firoz Saifi,Adv.

Mrs.Neeraj Singh,Adv.

Mr. Om Prakash Tehariya,Adv.

Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Heard.

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

The bail application of the petitioners is now required to be

considered in accordance with the directions in order dated 14th
December, 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.2178 of 2017.

Pending application shall also stand disposed of.

(ANITA MALHOTRA) (SAROJ KUMARI

GAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

TRUE COPY
 89

ANNEXURE P-12

Special Judge for trial of cases relating to POCSO Act, 2012

Sawai Madhopur

Original Sessions Trial No.75/2018

ORDER

23.12.2019

Ld. Public Prosecutor present. Ld. Counsel Shri Bhola

Shankar Sharma on behalf of accused Ashish Meena present.

Heard arguments on the application. Carefully perused the Case

file pertaining to the Original Sessions Trial No.75/2018.

The Court allowing an application u/s 193 Cr.PC filed on

behalf of the complainant vide its order dated 19.11.2016 taking

cognizance of offences punishable u/s 363, 366, 376(2)(G) & U/s

5/6 of POCSO Act had directed for producing the Applicant

accused Ashish Meena and co-accused Vimal Meena through

arrest warrant.

Applicant/accused Ashish Meena and co-accused Vimal

Meena by filing an S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.477/2017

before the Hon`ble High Court had challenged the cognizance

 90
order and the petition which has already been dismissed to the

extent of cognizance order vide order dated 28.04.2017 as not

pressed by the petitioners themselves i.e. the cognizance order

has been kept unchanged.

However the Hon`ble High Court in the same order while

directing the petitioners for surrendering before this court and for

moving a Regular Bail Application had issued directions to this

court for allowing after considering the bail application on the

same day.

In compliance of the aforesaid order and upon the

applicant/accused Ashish Meena and co-accused Vimal Meena

surrendering before this Court thereby moving a bail application,

both of them vide this court order dated 30.05.2017 were

enlarged on bail.

The complainant by instituting an SLP (Criminal)

No.8030/2017 before the Hon`ble Supreme Court had challenged

the aforesaid order of the Hon`ble High Court dated 28.04.2017

and subsequently led to institution of Criminal Appeal

No.2178/2017 and the Hon`ble Supreme Court vide order dated

14.12.2017 allowing the appeal had set aside the aforesaid order

of the Hon`ble High Court dated 28.04.2017 to the extent of

 91
directions to this court for allowing the bail and further directed

that if the bail application is yet not decided on the merits of the

case in accordance to law then upon filing of a bail application by

both accused persons/petitioners/respondent No.2, 3 the same be

decided on the merits of the case in accordance to law.

After which applications seeking cancellation of bail were

filed on behalf of the complainant before this court whereof first

application vide order dated 21.06.2018 and the second

application was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2018.

Upon which the Complainant approached before the

Hon`ble High Court and while instituting an SB Miscellaneous

Criminal Bail Cancellation Petition No.41/2019 challenged the

order of this Court dated 27.11.2018. The Hon`ble High Court

vide its order dated 26.08.2019 allowing the said petition and

cancelling the bail granted vide order dated 30.05.2017 to both

accused persons had directed this court for taking them into

custody forthwith.

Upon which an order was passed by this court on

30.08.2019 for producing both accused persons through warrant

of arrest and for cancelling their bail bonds previously furnished

by them.
 92
On 21.12.2019 accused Ashish Meena had surrendered

before the Court and taking accused Ashish Meena into judicial

custody forthwith thereafter has been sent to jail by way of J.C.

warrant.

Now it is prayed by Shri Bhola Shankar Sharma Ld.

Counsel on behalf of the applicant/accused Ashish Meena by

filing this bail application that an ex-parte cognizance of offence

against the applicant has been taken on the application of the

complainant and by asserting him to have been falsely named in

this case and no role played by him having proved from the

police investigation has therefore prayed for enlarging him on

bail.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

application for enlarging the applicant/accused on bail.

Respectively studied the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by

the Hon`ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8768/2019. The

Hon`ble Supreme Court vide the above order while dismissing

the SLP instituted by both accused persons has directed this

Court for considering the bail application of the petitioners in

light of directions issued in the previously passed order dated

14.12.2017.
 93
We have carefully considered the contentions raised by

both parties and also respectfully studied the order of the Hon`ble

High Court dated 28.04.2017 & 26.08.2019 and order dated

14.12.2017 passed by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Criminal

Appeal No.2178 of 2017.

We have also carefully perused the case file pertaining to

Original Sessions Trial.

Applicant/accused Ashish Meena and Co-accused Vimal

Meena have been summoned after taking cognizance of serious

offences against them for kidnapping and taking the minor

daughter of the complainant aged 14 Yrs. to Jaipur via different

places and for her gang rap.

It is correct that despite of being named in the FIR and

involvement of only these two accused persons in the incident

being stated by the victim in her statements recorded u/s 161

Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.P.C. the police accepting/holding the plea of

alibi taken by both the accused persons as proved and by giving

them clean-chit have submitted a charge sheet holding the

involvement of two other unknown persons namely Janak Singh

Meena & Vimlesh Meena proved in the case.

 94
But as per well established legal position that in the

absence of irrefutable documentary evidence and solid and

credible oral evidence, at the stage of investigation, the accused

cannot be given a clean chit by treating the plea of alibi as

proved, but generally except in exceptional cases, the plea of

alibi is required to be proved by the accused during trial.

Likewise, merely on the basis of clean-chit given by the

Police the involvement of applicant/accused Ashish Meena in the

alleged incident cannot be denied. Specifically when the

applicant/accused Ashish Meena and Co-accused Vimal Meena

were only named in the F.I.R. and the victim has also sated the

involvement of both these.

Also rape on the victim is confirmed from the medical

evidence because her hymen is found torn having inflammation

and pain and bleeding present in the vagina.

In the same sequence, it is also pertinent to mention that

the cognizance order has also attained finality as not being

pressed by the applicant/accused Ashish Meena and co-accused

Vimal Meena themselves.

Hence since the applicant/accused being booked for the

offences serious and ghastly in nature and in view of strong

 95
likelihood of prosecution witnesses being threatened, therefore I

do not find it justified for enlarging applicant/accused Ashish

Meena on bail.

Accordingly, this bail application u/s 439 Cr.PC being

without merits is hereby dismissed.

This application be placed in the original case file after

compliance as disposed of.

Order is pronounced in the open Court today on

23.12.2019.

Sd/- illegible

23.12.2019

Special Judge for trial of cases relating to

POCSO Act, 2012

Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATED COPY

 96
ANNEXURE P-13
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B.CriminalMiscellaneousBailApplicationNo.263/2020

Vimal Meena S/o Sh. Ramesh Meena, Aged About 24 Years,

R/oMohcha Ka Pura PS Piloda Dist. Sawai Madhopur (At
PresentConfinedAtDist.JailSawaiMadhopur)----Petitioner
Versus
StateOfRajasthan,throughPP….Respondent

ConnectedWith
S.B.CriminalMiscellaneousBailApplicationNo.264/2020
AashishMeenaS/oSh.Ramgilas@Bumbi,AgedAbout27Years,R/o
Mohcha Ka Pura PS Gangapur City Dist. Sawai Madhopur
(AtPresentConfinedAtDist.JailSawaiMadhopur)----Petitioner
Versus
StateOfRajasthan,throughPP….Respondent

ForPetitioner(s): Mr.RajeshGoswamithroughVC
ForComplainant(s) Mr.MohitBalwadathroughVC
ForState Mr.SherSinghMahla,PP

HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPANKAJBHANDARI
Order
14/12/2020
Counsel for the petitioners does not want to press these

criminal misc. bail applications.

The same are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn

(PANKAJBHANDARI),J

TRUE COPY
 97
ANNEXURE P- 14

Charges containing two or more heads

Before the Special Judge for trial of cases relating to Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sawai Madhopur

Sessions Trial No.50/2017

State Vs. Janak Singh & Ors.

Offences u/s 363, 366A, 368, 370(4), 376D, 120B I.P.C. & u/s

16/17 of POCSO Act

(A) I, Deepak Pandey, the Judge of the Special Court for trial

of cases relating to Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 Sawai Madhopur hereby charge you

the Ashish Meena S/o Ramgilas aged about 28 Yrs. caste

Meena- R/o Mohcha Ka Pura, Police Station Piloda for the

following offences:-

1. It has come to my cognizance that on 06.10.2014 at

around 9:00AM in the morning when the minor

daughter (victim) of the complainant Madan Mohan

aged under 18 Yrs. went to fetch grass on the field at

Village Nayagaon at that time you had kidnapped her

from the lawful custody of her guardianship without his

 98
consent. Your said act is hereby punishable under

section 363 I.P.C.

2. It has come to my cognizance that on the said date,

time and place, you knowing about the victim at the

time of incident being a minor aged under 18 Yrs. had

with the intent that she may be likely forced or seduced

to illicit intercourse, kidnapped her on the gun point by

dragging her inside the car. Your said act is hereby

punishable under section 366A I.P.C.

3. It has come to my cognizance that on the said date,

time and place, you knowing about that victim has been

kidnapped by you, despite of which you wrongfully

concealed or kept her in confinement. Your said act is

hereby punishable under section 368 I.P.C.

4. It has come to my cognizance that on the said date and

after the said date taking the victim to different

locations and taking turns forcibly gang raped by

having sexual intercourse against her will and consent.

Your said act is hereby punishable under section 376D

I.P.C.
 99
5. It has come to my cognizance that on the said date and

after the said date taking the victim to different

locations, you knowing the victim at the time of

incident being a minor aged under 18 Yrs. had

committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her

by an act of rape. Your said act is hereby punishable

under section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

6. It has come to my cognizance that on the said date,

time and place, you knowing about the victim at the

time of incident being a minor aged under 18 Yrs. had

with the intent of her exploitation kidnapped her by

threatening and committed an act of child trafficking.

Your said act is hereby punishable under section 370(4)

I.P.C. and which is in my cognizance.

7. It has come to my cognizance that on the said date,

time and place, in collusion with the co-accused you

had committed an offence of hatching a criminal

conspiracy for kidnapping and forcibly raping the

victim in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy. Your

said act is hereby punishable under section 120B I.P.C.

 100
8. It has come to my cognizance that on the said date and

after the said date, you knowing the victim being a

minor aged under 18 Yrs. had committed an offence of

abetment with her with the intent of having illicit

intercourse. Your said act is hereby punishable under

section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012.

(B) and I hereby direct this Court for conducting trial against

you for the said charges.

Sd/- illegible
26.3.2021
Special Court (POCSO Act)
Sawai Madhopur

Counter Statement of the Accused

Question:- The charges have been read over and explained to
you, whether you have understood the charges against you?

Answer: Yes.

Question:- Whether you plead guilty or claim trial?

Answer:- Plead as not guilty and claim trial.

Sd/- illegible
Special Court (POCSO Act)
Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATED COPY

 101
ANNEXURE P-15

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B.CriminalMiscellaneousII BailApplicationNo.9188/2021

Vimal Meena S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, R/oKadi ki

Jhonpripresently residing at Mocha ka Pura PS Piloda Dist.
Sawai Madhopur (At
PresentConfinedAtDist.JailSawaiMadhopur)
----Petitioner
Versus
StateOfRajasthan,throughPP ….Respondent

ConnectedWith
S.B.CriminalMiscellaneousII BailApplicationNo.10385/2021
AashishMeenaS/oSh.Ramgilas@Bumbi,AgedAbout27Years,R/o
Mohcha Ka Pura PS Gangapur City Dist. Sawai Madhopur
(AtPresentConfinedAtDist.JailSawaiMadhopur)----Petitioner
Versus
StateOfRajasthan,throughPP ….Respondent

ForPetitioner(s): Mr.HarshSharmafor
Mr.AnuragSharmain
CRLMB No.9188/2021
Mr.YashvardhanNandwanafor
Mr. Rajesh Goswami in
CRLMB No.10385/2021
ForComplainant(s) Mr.MohitBalwada&Ms.Asha Sharma
ForState Mr.BhawaniShankarSharma,PP

HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPANKAJBHANDARI
Order
23/09/2021
 102
1. Petitionershavefiledthesesecondbail applications under
Section439ofCr.P.C.
2. F.I.R.No.110/2014registeredatPoliceStationPilaudaDis
trictSawaiMadhopurforoffenceunderSections323,363,376-
D,366(A),370(4),368& 120-
BofI.P.C.readwithSections3/4&16/17POCSOAct,2012.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that

prosecutrixisnotturningupto giveevidence beforetheCourt.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the

complainanthave opposed these second bail applications. It is
contended thatprosecutrix appeared before the Court below on
02.09.2021 butdue to elections, statements were not recorded and
on the nextdate i.e. 20.09.2021, the Presiding Officer was on
leave. It is alsocontended that bail of present petitioners has been
cancelled bytheCourtbyadetailedorder.

5. Ihaveconsideredthecontentions.

6. Consideringtheabove,nogroundismadeoutforentertainin
gthesesecond bailapplications.

7. Thesesecondbailapplicationsareaccordinglydismissed.

8. Copyofthisorderbeplacedintheconnected file
(PANKAJBHANDARI),J

TRUE COPY
 103
ANNEXURE P-16

PW-01

Statement of witness
Recorded by the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases
relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial No.75/2018 titled as State Vs.
Janak Singh & Ors. on 21.10.2021.

I solemnly affirm on oath that my name is Madan Mohan

Meena S/o Shri Ram Sahai aged 40 years Occupation Farming
R/o Village Naya Gaon Tehsil Gangapur City District Sawai
Madhopur.

Oath is administered:-
Examination in chief:-
Incident pertains to dated 06.10.2014 at around 9:00-
10:00AM in the morning. My daughter Suman Meena was going
to fetch grass from field. Near the trijunction on the way from
where one of the way goes towards the Kemla and the other way
goes towards Semla. On the way, Vimal and Ashish both
abducted her on the point of kata (illegal country made pistol) by
forcibly dragging her inside the car. It was a four wheeler car.
Inside the car they both committed wrong act with my daughter
and took her to Mahavir Ji Station and from where on the
passenger train took her to Sawai Madhopur Station. Where met
a woman already waiting there. The said woman took my
daughter in a tempo to some house and behind them Vimal and
Ashish also reached there. Thereafter in the evening they gave a
tablet by mixing in the milk to my daughter. In the night Vimal
and Ashish raped my daughter. Then on the next day on 07 th they
 104
took my daughter to some other house where a person having
beard and Ashish both raped my daughter. Next day on 08 th
during the night that person with beard and Ashish boarding in
train from Sawai Madhopur Station took my daughter to Jaipur.
Where Ashish and that person having beard fell asleep at the
Jaipur Station and in the meanwhile Suman silently escaped
getting down from the train. Then Suman phone called her
relative Santosh further Santosh phone called my brother in-law
Ram Singh. Santosh informed to have found Suman and she is
with me. My brother in-law phone called and informed me to
have found Suman. Then I sent my brother Prem Singh and
Ganga Sahai to my brother in-law in my in-laws house. Prem
Singh and Ganga Sahai informed me that they have found
Suman. They brought Suman back on dated 10th. Then on the
next day I, alongwith Jagram and Ram Kishan brought the girl
back. Then Suman narrated the entire incident to me. Thereafter
on dated 11th going alongwith my daughter I had submitted a
report in Police Station Piloda which is Exhibit P-1 and two
places on the A to B part of which bears my signature. Chik FIR
is Exhibit P-2 and the A to B part of which bears my signature.
Police had reached on the place of occurrence and prepared the
site map of place of occurrence which is Exhibit P-3 & Exhibit P-
4 and the A to B part of which bears my signature. My daughter`s
medical examination in connection to her rape was conducted
which is Exhibit P-5 and the A to B part of which bears my
signature.

Cross examination by Shri Bhola Shankar Sharma learned

counsel for the accused persons Ashish and Vimal:-
 105
It is incorrect to say that the incident did not have occurred
in my presence and I may have disclosed all the facts on the basis
of hearsay. Then himself stated that neither I had eyewitness any
incident nor any incident occurred in my presence. I have
disclosed the incident on the basis of incident narrated to me by
my daughter. It is incorrect to say that investigation in this case
may have been conducted five times by different officers. I have
no knowledge of the fact whether or not Dy. S.P. Rajendra
Shekhawat had investigated the case. Dy. S.P. Hari Mohan
Sharma had conducted inquiry from me. I do not know Rajendra
Shekhawat by name if he had also conducted inquiry from me. I
have no knowledge of the fact whether or not Sub-Inspector
Ramdev had conducted inquiry from me since I do not know him
by his name. It is correct that the said case file was also
transferred for investigation even to the C.I.D. C.B. where the
investigation was conducted by the Additional S.P. in the
supervision of the Inspector General of Police. It is correct that
Suman was having a Mobile Phone but unaware of its No. was
9587580026. It is correct that Police had obtained complete call
detail records alongwith time and location of Suman. It is
incorrect to say that the incident is not corroborating from
Suman`s mobile phone location and her call detail records and
the report lodged by me and from my todays statement and my
statement given to the police. Suman left from my house on
6.10.2014 at 9:00-10:00AM in the morning. Left at around 7:00-
8:00AM. I have no knowledge of the fact if Suman after leaving
from my house at around 7:00-8:00AM in the morning while
walking herself went to Kemla Road because I have disclosed
exactly whatever is disclosed to me by my daughter. My
 106
daughter did not disclose before me that by taking lift at Kemla
Road she sat inside the Swift Dezire car. My daughter also did
not disclose to me that after sitting in Swift Dezire car she came
to Sawai Madhopur from Kemla Road. It is correct that in the
night of dated 06.10.2014 my daughter stayed in Sawai
Madhopur. But my daughter did not disclose the said fact to me.
My daughter also did not disclose to me that she went to attend
some retirement party in Sawai Madhopur. My daughter also did
not disclose to me that she went and purchased clothes from the
readymade shop. My daughter also did not disclose to me that on
dated 07th she boarded on Bayana Train from Sawai Madhopur
for going to Mahavir Ji. My daughter also did not disclose to me
that she got down from the train at Gangapur City but did not
reach Mahavir Ji. I have no knowledge of the fact whether a boy
named Bablesh gave an old mobile phone having SIM card to my
daughter at Sawai Madhopur. I have no knowledge of the fact
whether my daughter received any phone call from Bablesh on
the way. I have no knowledge of the fact whether the Police had
found location of my daughter on 06.10.2014 & 07.10.2014 with
Bablesh and Vimlesh at Sawai Madhopur. I have no knowledge
of the fact whether conversation between my daughter and Janak
Singh was found during police investigation. My daughter
Suman did not disclose before me that on dated 07th from
11:00AM till dated 08th she was in Gangapur City. My daughter
also did not disclose me the fact that after leaving from Gangapur
City in the evening of dated 08th she may have reached Sawai
Madhopur Railway Station. My daughter had disclosed to me
that on 09.10.2014 she left from Sawai Madhopur Railway
Station at 1:00OM for Jaipur. My daughter had also disclosed to
 107
me that my daughter reached Jaipur at 4:00AM in the morning.
My daughter did not disclose herself to be alone. I am known to
person named Santosh. Suman had told me that I had phone
called Santosh and Santosh travelling from Bikaner to Jaipur got
down at Sindhi Camp. It is incorrect to say that Santosh and my
daughter went to Village Kheri from Sindhi Camp Jaipur rather
went till Dausa. It is correct that Jagdish the maternal uncle of
Suman is living in village Kheri. It is incorrect to say that we
were first informed by Jagdish about the finding my daughter
rather Ram Singh had informed. I do not exactly remember the
No. through which Ram Singh had phone called. On dated 10 th I
did not receive any phone call over my phone from the maternal
uncle of my daughter rather received a phone call on dated 9 th. I
had received the phone call from her maternal uncle informing
that the girl is found. I have no knowledge of the fact whether
Ashish was studying in Jaipur. I also do not know whether
according to Police Investigation Ashish may not have gone
somewhere out of Jaipur from dated 04th till dated 11th. Vimal is
a resident of Village Mohcha Ka Pura. It is incorrect to say that
during the intervening night of dated 06.10.2014 & 07.10.2014
we had brought Vimal from his Village Mohcha Ka Pura to our
Village Naya Gaon. I have no knowledge of the fact whether
Vimal was given beatings. I have no knowledge of the fact
whether four other boys from the village were also brought along
with Vimal from his village. I also do not know whether Vimal
and four other boys brought alongwith with him were kept tied
and given beatings throughout the night. I do not know if an FIR
No.109/2014 in connection to beatings throughout the night is
registered in Police Station Piloda. Police did not conduct any
 108
inquiry from me in the said connection. I do not know whether
on 07.10.2014 Vimal was present in Naya Gaon. I also do not
know whether after me and my family gave beatings to Vimal me
and my family made him phone call on the mobile phone of
Ashish and kept his speaker mode on. It is incorrect to say that by
keeping the speaker phone on me and my family heard Ashish
saying he is studying in his room at Jaipur. It is correct that
disclosure made during examination in chief that “Vimal and
Ashish on the way …. got down silently” no such fact was
confirmed in my presence about the entire said sequence to have
been eyewitnessed by some villager or some other person as I am
deposing on the exactly as narrated to me by my daughter. I had
found my daughter on dated 9th. It is correct that my daughter left
from the house on dated 06th and was found on dated 9th. Despite
of which neither I phone called to any Police Station nor lodged
her missing report. It is correct that after finding my daughter on
dated 11th at 2:45PM I had lodged a case in the Police Station.
Ganga Sahai, Om Prakash, Jag Ram are neither my relatives nor
my family member rather they are from my village. I do not
know whether these people went to the village of Vimal and they
were sent by me. My daughter disclosed about first reaching
Mahavir Ji station after leaving from the village. My daughter did
not disclose to have come to Sawai Madhopur not even once. My
daughter also did not disclose to have boarded in a tempo. I did
not receive any phone call of my relative from Jaipur Station on
dated 9th. No registration Nos. of any car was disclosed by my
daughter. My daughter also did not disclose the name of that
woman who had met her. My daughter also did not disclose me
the name of the person having beard. Tehrir Report Exhibit P-1 is
 109
in my own handwriting. Also did not disclose the registration No.
of the car but I do not know how the registration No. got
recorded in the C to D part of Exhibit P-1. My daughter did not
disclose the fact about boarding in a tempo but I have no
knowledge of the fact how the said fact is recorded in the E to F
part of Exhibit P-1. My daughter did not disclose the fact about
going to Sawai Madhopur but I have no knowledge of the fact
how the said fact is recorded in the G to H part of Exhibit P-1.

My statement was recorded by the Police only once. We

went to Kheri Village to bring the daughter back and the fact
which is correct recorded by the Police. I had disclosed the fact
about kata (illegal country made pistol) in my Police Statement
but I do not know why the said fact about kata (illegal country
made pistol) is not recorded in my Police Statement.

Santosh who is the brother in-law of victim had informed

about bringing Suman with him from Jaipur Railway Station on
09.10.2014. I have no knowledge of the fact that my daughter
had told Santosh that being annoyed I have run away from my
house. It is correct that till the time my daughter stayed with
Santosh during the said period neither she took name of Ashish
and Vimal nor alleged any allegations. I do not know whether
Suman during Police inquiry had disclosed the fact of taking lift
in a car from Kemla More and reached sawai Madhopur, she may
not have disclosed the fact of going to Mahavir Ji. It is correct
that Prem Singh is the paternal uncle of my daughter who gave
the mobile phone of my daughter having Mobile No.9587580026
to the investigating officer and which was duly seized and
investigation was conducted by the Police. I also do not have
 110
knowledge of the fact that the said Mobile phone was in the
custody of my daughter from dated 7th till dated 11th. It is correct
that the same mobile phone remained in the custody of my
daughter throughout the entire incident. I also do not have any
knowledge of the fact whether the location of my daughter on
07.08.2014 may not have been found at Sawai Madhopur rather
at Gangapur City from the Police Inquiry and Police
Investigation. I do not know whether from dated 06.10.2014 till
10.10.2014 Ashish was studying in Jaipur and on 10.10.2014
went to Delhi for appearing in the examination.

It is correct that Vimal Kumar Meena R/o Kadi Jhopdi is

working with Ghamandi Ram Meena. I am unable to exactly tell
whether Vimal Meena during dated 06.10.2014 till 10.10.2014
was present in Village Mohcha Ka Pura Police Station Piloda and
nearby to it and during which people from my village brought
him with them and gave him beatings and the fact which may be
confirmed from his mobile phone location. I do not know
whether during the night of dated 07.10.2014 villagers from my
village had forcibly lifted and brought Vimal with them and gave
him beatings. I am unable to exactly tell whether none of the five
investigating officers had found any charged proved against
Vimal and Ashish. It is correct the name of both of them was not
nominated in the charge sheet.

I have no knowledge of the contents of Site map of place

of occurrence prepared by the Police. Police had noted the name
of the fields on the A, B & C part of the site map. The site map
Exhibit P-3 is false if the C to D, A and B to C part of it does not
bear the name of a single field. Then himself stated that I am
 111
unable to exactly tell about the contents of site map Exhibit P-3.
The site map Exhibit P-3 shows the kacha passage from the
trijunction to Kemla and Naya Gaon and the said passage is used
by people for commuting. The spot where the place of
occurrence is shown in the site map Exhibit P-3 was surrounded
by field and on which crops were standing. I do not remember
about which crop was standing. I also do not remember whether
my signature on the site map Exhibit P-3 &Exhibit P-4 were
obtained in the Police Station or someplace else.

I also do not know whether my family and villagers had

damaged the Bolero car of Tejram the relative of accused Ashish
and a case in connection to which was lodged. I do not know
about the said fact that by threatening the family of accused we
got a compromise arrived at in this case. I am not known to
Ghamandi the Paternal uncle of accused Ashish. I have no
knowledge of the fact about any inquiry conducted from my
family and villagers in connection to a theft in the house of
Ghamandi R/o Mohcha Ka Pura. It is incorrect to say that an old
enmity is prevailing between our village and the village of
accused Ashish Mohcha Ka Pura and between us and the accused
persons over the issue of theft and causing damage to the car. It is
incorrect to say that due to said enmity my daughter in collusion
with my family by hatching a pre-planned conspiracy have got a
false case registered by targeting Ashish and Vimal. It is
incorrect to say that with the motive of falsely implicating Ashish
and Vimal by hatching a conspiracy we intentionally did not
lodge any case in any Police Station in between dated 06.10.2014
till dated 10.10.2014. It is incorrect to say that I am falsely
deposing out of enmity.
 112
Cross examination by learned counsel for remaining accused
persons:- Nil

Re-examination:- Nil

Statement of witness is recorded by the steno on my directions

which is read over to the witness who heard and found correct
and scribed his signature.

Sd/- illegible

21.10.21

Special Judge for trial of cases relating to

POCSO Act,

Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATION
 113
ANNEXURE P-17

PW-02

Statement of witness

Recorded by the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases

relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial No.75/2018 titled as State Vs.
Janak Singh & Ors. on 21.10.2021.

I solemnly affirm on oath that my name is Suman Kumari

Meena D/o Shri Madan Mohan aged 21 years (D.O.B.
06.10.2000) Occupation None R/o Village Naya Gaon Tehsil
Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur.

Note:-

1. The said statement is recorded under camera proceedings

2. During recording of statement of witness her father Shri

Madan Mohan is present with the witness inside the Court
room.

3. It has been completely satisfied that the accused persons

during statement are not visible to the witness but they can
hear the witness while deposing. Accused Vimal absent
from judicial custody. Learned counsel for the accused
present.

Oath is administered:-

Examination in chief:-
Incident pertains to dated 06.10.2014 at around 9:00AM.
When I was going for fetching grass to our field where near the
 114
crossing Vimal and Ashish lay ambushed behind the tall grass. I
reached to the trijunction where Ashish and Vimal held me and
gagged my mouth. A car was parked behind tall grass and they
forcibly dragged me inside that car. Ashish and Vimal molested
me inside the car. The car was driven by driver Vimlesh. They
took me to Mahavir Ji Station where gave me tablet mixed with
water and due to which I felt dizziness. They boarded me in the
passenger train. Ashish and Vimal both were with me inside the
train. Thereafter got down at Sawai Madhopur Station where
already a women was standing and that woman in an auto took
me to a room where Ashish and Vimal reached behind us. Ashish
and Vimal stayed with me throughout the night and both of them
committed wrong act with me i.e. raped me. In the morning on
dated 7th Vimal left from there while Ashish stayed back with
me. On that day we stayed in the room. In the morning of dated
08th one person having beard came thereafter Ashish and that
person having beard committed wrong act with me. In the night
of dated 08th at 1:30AM that person with beard and Ashish took
me to Jaipur over train to Jaipur. They fell asleep in the train
while I got down at Jaipur Station. I phone called over the mobile
phone of my sister Saroj but my brother in-law Santosh received
the phone call. Then Santosh instructed saying you stay there I
am coming. Then my brother in-law Santosh reached there and
he took me from Jaipur to Dausa to my maternal uncles house
and from where my maternal uncle brought me to his village
Kheri. My maternal uncle phone called my father. On dated 9 th
my paternal uncle Prem Singh and Ganga Sahai came to Kheri to
see whether I have been found or not. They returned back and
informed my father that Suman is there in village Kheri. Then on
 115
the next day my father reached Kheri and took me alongwith him
to our house. Then I narrated the entire incident. Thereafter
alomngwith my father went to the Police Station and reported the
incident.
Tehrir report is Exhibit P-1 and two places on the I to J
part of which bears my signature. Chak FIR is Exhibit P-2 and
the C to D part of which bears my signature. Police had reached
on the place of occurrence and had prepared the site map of place
of occurrence Exhibit P-6 and the A to B part of which bears my
signature. Site map Exhibit P-3 & Exhibit P-4 were prepared by
the Police. The E to F part of site map Exhibit P-3 and the C to D
part of site map Exhibit P-4 bears my signature.
My medical examination was conducted and the C to D
part of which bears my consent and the E to F part bears my
signature. My statement was recorded before the Magistrate
which is Exhibit P-7 and two places on the A to B part of which
bears my signature. My age at the time of occurrence was 14 Yrs.
Permission is sought by the learned Special Public Prosecutor
for confronting the witness with her titamba bayan
(supplementary statement) u/s 161 Cr.PC which is granted in
the interest of justice:-
I did not record the A to B part of my titamba bayan
Exhibit P-8 to the Police.
Cross examination by Shri Bhola Shankar Sharma advocate
on behalf of accused persons Vimal and Ashish:-
It is correct that by submitting complaints wherein alleging
the investigation of this case we have got it investigated five
times by different officers. I do not know whether the case was
investigated by three Dy. S.P., one Addl. S.P. and one Sub-
 116
Inspector. I gave one mobile phone to the Police which was duly
seized and the No. of that Mobile Phone was not 9587580026. I
do not know the no. of the mobile phone which was with me. I
left from the house on 06.10.2014 at 9:00AM in the morning. I
did not leave from the house at around 7:00-8:00AM in the
morning. I did not go alone upto Kemla Road. I did not go to
Kemla Road rather I went to the field. I was not abducted from
Kemla road rather they abducted me from the field. Neither I
know the registration No. of the car in which I was abducted nor
is known to my father. When my father went for lodging the
report at that time I had accompanied with him. I know the
contents of Exhibit P-1. I did not disclose the registration No. of
the car in the Exhibit P-1. The registration No.RJ20 2184 which
is disclosed by me on the C to D part of Exhibit P-1 is of the car
through which I was taken from the room at Sawai Madhopur to
Station Sawai Madhopur. First I was abducted from the field and
taken in the car to Mahavir Ji but I do not know which car was it
and what was its registration No. I am educated and studied upto
9th standard. When I went to Mahavir Ji from the village at that
time there was no toll booth on the way. It is incorrect to say that
after leaving from my village first I did not go to Mahavir Ji
instead took lift in a car and came to Sawai Madhopur. The car in
which I was taken from the village to Mahavir Ji was not a swift
Dezire car. I also do not remember the exact date and time when
I reached Mahavir Ji. I directly went to the Railway Station and
the train arrived ten fifteen minutes later at Mahavir Ji station and
I boarded in the train. I do not know the destination upto where
ticket was purchased. It is correct that hundreds of people were
present on the railway station and Police person from the RPF
 117
and GRP were also present there and many people were also
present inside the train. I was drugged with sleeping pill due to
which I did not raise an alarm. I do not remember whether I
walked myself or I was lifted while I was unconscious. However
I remember the train had arrived after ten fifteen minutes. I do
not know the exact time taken by the train to reach Sawai
Madhopur. It is correct that hundreds of people were present at
Sawai Madhopur station. I got down at Sawai Madhopur Station
on 06.10.2014 but do not remember the exact time. I got down in
the morning time. Then left through auto. One woman took me
with her. I do not know the registration No. of that auto and the
name and address of that woman. I also did not inquire about the
name and address of that woman. During the said time also I did
not complain to anyone. I do not know for how long the auto was
driven. I also do not know the name of the mohalla where the
room was situated in which I was taken. I continuously remained
in Sawai Madhopur from dated 06.10.2014 till dated 08.10.2014.
My mouth was gagged inside the auto due to which I did not
raise an alarm but my mouth was not gagged at the railway
station. My mouth was gagged with the handkerchief. I had
disclosed the fact about my mouth was gagged in my statement
u/s 164 Cr.PC before the Magistrate Exhibit P-7, Police
Statement Exhibit D-2, titamba bayan Exhibit P-8 and Report
Exhibit P-1 but cannot tell the reason why the said fact is not
recorded. My mouth was not gagged inside the room and other
places despite of which I did not complain to anyone. Herself
stated that I was kept confined inside the room therefore to whom
I could complain. The room in which I have disclosed of being
confined at Sawai Madhopur where no two other children were
 118
present. I did not go to Sawai Madhopur for having dinner in
some retirement party. I did not purchase any clothes from
readymade shop in Sawai Madhopur. I left from Jaipur in the
evening at 1:30PM on 08.10.2014 through train from Bayana. It
is incorrect to say that on 07.10.2014 I may have boarded on the
train from Bayana for going to Mahavir Ji from Sawai
Madhopur. It is incorrect to say that after purchasing ticket for
Mahavir Ji I did not go to Mahavir Ji rather got down at
Gangapur City. It is incorrect to say that I left from the house on
the pretext of fetching grass at that time I may have directly come
to Sawai Madhopur from my village rather I went to Mahavir Ji.
I do not know any person named Bablesh. It is incorrect to say
that while travelling from Sawai Madhopur to Ganga City I had a
conversation over my mobile phone with a person named
Bablesh. It is incorrect to say that after reaching Sawai Madhopur
the person named Bablesh gave me a mobile phone with a SIM
card. It is incorrect to say that my mobile tower location and call
detail records have revealed my presence with Bablesh and
Vimlesh.
Note:- At this stage since the witness is feeling unwell (due to
vomiting) thus her cross is reserved.

Statement of witness is recorded by the steno on my directions

which is read over to the witness who heard and found correct
and scribed her signature.
Sd/- illegible
21.10.21
Special Judge for trial of cases relating to
POCSO Act,
Sawai Madhopur

True Translated Copy

 119
Statement of witness

Recorded by the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases

relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial No.75/2018 titled as State Vs.
Janak Singh & Ors. on 26.11.2021.

I solemnly affirm on oath that my name is Suman Kumari

Meena D/o Shri Madan Mohan aged 21 years (D.O.B.
06.10.2000) Occupation None R/o Village Naya Gaon Tehsil
Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur.

Cross examination continued from dated 21.10.2021

Note:-

1. The said statement is recorded under camera proceedings

2. During recording of statement of witness her father Shri

Madan Mohan is present with the witness inside the Court
room.

3. It has been completely satisfied that the accused persons

during statement are not visible to the witness but they can
hear the witness while deposing. Accused Vimal absent
from judicial custody. Learned counsel for the accused
present.

Oath is administered:-

It is incorrect to say that each time I am giving my

statement by changing my version. My statement was recorded
by Dy. S.P. Gangapur City. I did not record the C to D part of my
Police Statement Exhibit P-8 that “on 06.10.2014 I …….was
 120
driven by the person having beard.” But I do not know why the
same is recorded by the Police. The E to F part of my Police
Statement Exhibit P-8 that “I waived to the car ….. would you
take me” I did not record but do not know why the same is
recorded by the Police. I also did not record the G to H part of
my Police Statement Exhibit P-8 that “he allowed me in the car
…. Drop me” but do not know why the same is recorded by the
Police. I also did not record the I to J part of my Police Statement
Exhibit P-8 that “then we kept going …. Consumed Kurkure” but
do not know why the same is recorded by the Police. I also did
not record the K to L part of my Police Statement Exhibit P-8
that “then we kept going …. Din not Drop me at Gangapur city”
but do not know why the same is recorded by the Police. I also
did not record the M to N part of my Police Statement Exhibit P-
8 that “Vimlesh near Batoda …. Bought me a suit” but do not
know why the same is recorded by the Police. I also did not
record the O to P part of my Police Statement Exhibit P-8 that
“In front of the said shop …. Vimlesh raped me against my will”
but do not know why the same is recorded by the Police. I also
did not record the Q to R part of my Police Statement Exhibit P-8
that “Then in the morning …. Brought me to Sawai Madhopur
station” but do not know why the same is recorded by the Police.
I also did not record the S to T part of my Police Statement
Exhibit P-8 that “Me to Sawai Madhopur …. Gave me a mobile
phone having No.9587580026” but do not know why the same is
recorded by the Police. I also did not record the U to V part of
my Police Statement Exhibit P-8 that “Then I came to Gangapur
City” but do not know why the same is recorded by the Police
and the same is recorded incorrectly. I also did not record the A
 121
to B part of my Police Statement Exhibit P-8 that “Gangapur City
…. went” but do not know why the same is recorded by the
Police. I also did not record the W to X part of my Police
Statement Exhibit P-8 that “over this phone …. Can show the
house” but do not know why the same is recorded by the Police.
It is correct that previously the facts those have been disclosed by
me during my examination in chief are not present in my present
in my said Police Statement Exhibit P-8. Neither the Dy. S.P. had
made any video of recording my statement nor any C.D. was
made of recording my statement each time. Tehrir Report Exhibit
P-1 was lodged in my presence. I reached to my maternal uncle`s
house in the evening of dated 9th an reached my village on dated
10th.

On 13.10.2014 the Dy. S.P. had recorded my statement

Exhibit D-2. I do not know Bablesh and Vimlesh. I had recorded
the fact about the car driven by Bablesh in my statement Exhibit
D-2. I do not know whether Vimlesh and Bablesh are two
different persons. In my statement Exhibit D-2 I had recorded
about Bablesh and not about Vimlesh. I do not know whether car
bearing registration No.RJ20 2184 belongs to Bablesh or
Vimlesh. Bablesh did not buy me ticket from Sawai Madhopur to
Mahavir Ji. I did not disclose before the Police in my Police
Statement Exhibit D-2 that I may have got down at Gangapur
city Railway Station instead of Mahavir Ji. I had phone called my
sister Saroj from Jaipur Railway Station. Previously during my
examination in chief before the Court I had recorded the name of
Bablesh and not Vimlesh. Santosh is my brother in-law.
Presently I am not studying. I am educated upto 9th standard. The
mobile No. of my brother in-law Santosh is 9660182432. The
 122
mobile phone of my sister was with my brother in-law but I had
phone called my sister only. I had talked with my brother in-law
over the phone and not with my sister. My mobile phone which
was seized by the Police was having No.9587580026. I do not
remember the No. of the phone which was seized by the Police
from my possession. Hari Mohan is not my maternal uncle in
relation. I do not know when Police had arrested Vimlesh. Me
and Vimlesh were not confronted with each other by the Dy. S.P.
for our interrogation. It is incorrect to say that my Mobile No. is
9587580026 and today deliberately I am concealing my mobile
phone No. I left from the house on dated 6th and returned back to
my maternal uncle`s house on dated 9th and returned back to my
house on dated 10th. I do not know whether during the said time I
had received 4-5 calls or even more than that over my mobile
phone. My brother in-law was called from my seized mobile
phone. In addition to my brother in-law I did not phone call on
Bablesh`s Mobile Phone No.7891333191. I do not remember the
exact time when I reached Mahavir Ji Railway Station on
06.10.2014. I also do not know the name of the train in which I
boarded from the station. I did not purchase the ticket. After
boarding from Mahavir Ji Station I got down at Sawai Madhopur
Station. I do not remember the exact time taken by the train in
reaching to Sawai Madhopur from Mahavir Ji. I also do not
remember the exact time when I got down at Sawai Madhopur
station. Herself stated that it was afternoon time. I am having
good memory. I do not know whether it was Meena Colony or
someplace else where the house was situated to which I was
taken from sawai Madhopur Station. I do not know the exact time
it took for the auto to reach the said house from Sawai Madhopur
 123
station. It is in correct to say that neither I may have gone to
Mahavir Ji and nor I may have come to Sawai Madhopur station
through train on that day where I may not have met with any
woman and did not go to any house from the station thus I may
be unaware of the above facts. I have no knowledge of the fact if
Bablesh @ Babli is a resident of Khandip. Neither the Police had
conducted inquiry from me in the presence of my father Madan
Mohan nor made any C.D. Then herself stated that I do not
remember. I do not know any person named Janak Singh S/o
Khilli Ram R/o Kachera Police Station Bayana. I do not know
whether the house to which I was taken is owned by Ramavtar
S/o Hazari Lal Sharma & Keshav. On dated 9th my brother in-law
had reached Jaipur at 5:30AM in the morning for taking me with
him. My brother in-law did not lodge an immediate report nor he
had informed the police. I had narrated the entire incident to my
brother in-law. It is correct that I met my brother in-law on dated
9th at 5:30AM in the morning and we had reported the incident on
11.10.2014 at 2:45PM in the afternoon. It is correct that from
dated 09.10.2014 till dated 11.10.2014 I stayed with my maternal
uncle, parents and my family. My maternal uncle did not inform
the Police nor lodged any report. I did not narrate the entire
incident to my maternal uncle. I do not know whether or not my
brother in-law had told the entire incident with me to my
maternal uncle. The name of my maternal uncle is not Hari
Mohan rather is Ram Singh. My maternal uncle Ram Singh is a
resident of Village Kheri. I went from Sawai Madhopur to Jaipur
through train. I do not know about how much was the fare of that
train? It is incorrect to say that when I boarded in the train at that
time I had received phone calls from Janak Singh, Vimlesh,
 124
Bablesh and one other unknown person rather it was not my
phone as I had lifted the phone of Ashish and that person with
beard.

Question:- None of the number from the mobile phone of Ashish

and person with beard is matching with the number of your
brother in-law, you are lying, what do you have to say in this
regard?

Answer:- I am not lying. I had lifted the phone from their side.

The mobile phone which I had lifted from their side was
handed over by me to the Police. In the First Information Report
Exhibit P-1, statement u/s 164 Cr.PC Exhibit P-7, statement u/s
161 Cr.PC Exhibit P-8 in my Police Statement Exhibit D-2 I had
disclosed the said fact but do not know why the same is not
recorded. My brother in-law Santosh did not tell me that the
phone call which you made was from Phone No.9587580026.

Note:- Further cross examination of the witness is reserved due to

paucity of time.

Statement of witness is recorded by the steno on my directions

which is read over to the witness who heard and found correct
and scribed her signature.
Sd/- illegible
26.11.21
Special Judge for trial of cases relating to
POCSO Act,
Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATION
 125
ANNEXURE P-18

PW-03

Statement of witness
Recorded by the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases
relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial No.75/2018 titled as State Vs.
Janak Singh & Ors. on 26.04.2022.

I solemnly affirm on oath that my name is Dr.Dinesh

Chand Gupta S/o Shri Daulat Chand Gupta aged 58 years
Occupation currently Medical Officer Government Hospital
Gangapur City R/o Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur.

Oath is administered:-
Examination in chief:-
On 11.10.2014 I was deputed as Medical Officer in
Government Hospital Gangapur City. On that day on the receipt
of Police Proforma a Medical Board was constituted by the PMO
comprising of members including me and Dr. Rakesh Meena and
Gynecologist Dr. Shashi Meena. We had conducted the medical
examination of victim Suman D/o Madan Mohan Meena aged 14
Yrs. R/o Naya Gaon Police Station Piloda and the medical
examination of the private part of the victim was conducted by
the Gynecologist Dr. Shashi Meena.

Victim at the time of her medical examination was

completely conscious and was having normal built and healthy
and the victim was having well developed secondary sexual
characteristics with presence of hair on her skull, armpit and
private part and was having developed breasts on which no injury
 126
was apparent. Victim was having an abrasion of 3 X 0.5 cm of
dark grey colour present on the right shoulder which was simple
in nature and appeared to have been caused by some blunt object
and duration of which was in between 4 to 7 days.

During the examination it was disclosed by the victim that

she had last menstruated on 18.09.2014 and alongwith which
disclosed the date of sexual intercourse as 06.10.2014 and which
is recorded in the medical report. No external injury was apparent
on the genitals of the victim. Swelling was present on the hymen
and was experiencing pain on touching. Hymen was found torn
and bleeding was apparent from the vagina. The cervical and
vaginal slide with swab of the victim for the FSL analysis were
sealed. After drawing saliva and blood swab of the victim the
same was sealed and also sealed an underwear, blue colour
salwar and brown colour kurta of the victim.

OPINION:- According to Board opinion the possibility of sexual

intercourse could not be denied and it final opinion could be
rendered only after receiving FSL Report.

Medical Report is Exhibit P-5 and the C to D part of which

bears the consent of the victim and the E to F part bears the
signature of victim and the A to B part bears the signature of the
father of victim and the Point X bears the thumb impression of
the mother of victim, G to H part bears the signature of Women
Nurse Reena Sharma and the I to J part bears my signature and
the K to L part bears the Board Opinion.

On 12.11.2014on the receipt of Police Proforma I had

conducted potency test of Vimlesh S/o Ram Sahai Meena aged
 127
35 Yrs. R/o Nangla Meena Police Station Mahavir Ji with his
consent. During his medical examination after drawing his saliva,
blood and semen sample the same were sealed in separate
packets. After examination Vimlesh was not found impotent.

Medical examination Report is Exhibit P-9 and the A to B

part of which bears the consent and signature of Vimlesh, C to D
part bears my signature and the E to F part bears my opinion.

On 02.03.2015 on the receipt of Police Performa I had

conducted potency test of Janak Singh S/o Khilli Ram Meena
aged 21 Yrs. R/o Kachera Police Station Bayana with his
consent. During his medical examination after drawing his saliva,
blood and semen sample the same were sealed in separate
packets. After examination Vimlesh was not found impotent.

Medical examination Report is Exhibit P-10 and the A to

B part of which bears the consent and signature of Janak Singh,
C to D part bears my opinion and the E to F part bears my
signature.

Cross examination by learned counsels for the accused

persons:-

It is correct that ossification test in order to determine the

age of victim was not conducted by us. We have mentioned the
age as disclosed by the victim in the Medical Report Exhibit P-5.
It is correct that no internal and external injury was apparent on
the genitals of the victim. It is correct that repeatedly scratching
on some part of body can cause swelling.
 128
Question:- Whether normally there is possibility of a woman
having irregular periods?

Answer:- It is possible.

It is correct that there can be several causes for bleeding

which may be due to some girl taking birth control pills which
can cause her bleeding. Early periods may cause bleeding. It is
correct that the possibility of sustaining injuries by a woman on
her chest, breast, spine, buttocks, back while forcibly raped by a
man cannot be denied. It is correct that no such kind of injuries
were apparent on the body of the victim. Himself stated that an
injury was present on her shoulder. Injury on the shoulder is not
possible to have been self-inflicted. The said part of the body is
approachable. Police did not show me any weapon that the said
injury was possible to have been caused by it.

Question:- Whether you have disclosed any such specific weapon

in your report through which the said injury is possible?

Answer:- I have disclosed the said injury to have been caused by

some blunt weapon.

I am disclosing it on the basis of my experience that the

said injury is not self-inflicted. I cannot exactly tell whether the
other doctors will also give a similar opinion in respect of the
said injury as their opinion can differ. I am unable to exactly tell
whether the approachable injury which is a caused by blunt
object is self-inflicted or caused by some other person as it is not
possible to specifically define but the court needs to examine in
light of medical jurisprudence. I have worked on the post of
Medical Jurist for 4-5 years. Himself stated that I have worked in
 129
intervals. It is correct that there is a separate course for Medical
Jurist. It is correct that it is written in Medical Jurisprudence
about the injury changing colour in how many hours and days. It
is correct that colour of injury changes from dark brown to black
after three days. Then himself stated that the colour changes from
blue to dark brown after three days. Victim is having injury on
her right shoulder. Injury at first was red, on the next day blue
thereafter brown and on the third day turns dark brown. It was an
external injury thus was apparent. I am unable to exactly tell the
specific object through which this injury was possible to have
been caused.

It is correct that medical board in its medical opinion has

not confirmed rape. Himself stated that final opinion was kept
reserve for the FSL report. I was not present when the genitals of
the victim were medically examined. It is correct that FSL report
was not received for final opinion in my presence. Therefore I
cannot exactly tell in the final opinion whether or not there was
sexual intercourse with the victim.

Re-examination:- Nil
Statement of witness is recorded by the steno on my directions
which is read over to the witness who heard and found correct
and scribed his signature.
Sd/- illegible
26.04.22
Special Judge for trial of cases relating to
POCSO Act, Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATION
 130
ANNEXURE P-19

PW-04
Statement of witness
Recorded by the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases
relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial No.75/2018 titled as State Vs.
Janak Singh & Ors. on 26.04.2022.

I solemnly affirm on oath that my name is Dr. Ramkesh

Meena S/o Shri Bharosi Meena aged 48 years Occupation
currently Medical Officer Government Hospital Gangapur City
R/o Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur.

Oath is administered:-
Examination in chief:-
On 11.10.2014 I was deputed as Medical Officer in
Government Hospital Gangapur City. On that day on the receipt
of Police Proforma a Medical Board was constituted by the PMO
comprising of members including me and Dr. Dinesh Chand
Gupta and Gynecologist Dr. Shashi Meena. We had conducted
the medical examination of victim Suman D/o Madan Mohan
Meena aged 14 Yrs. R/o Naya Gaon Police Station Piloda and the
medical examination of the private part of the victim was
conducted by the Gynecologist Dr. Shashi Meena.

Victim at the time of her medical examination was

completely conscious and was having normal built and healthy
and the victim was having well developed secondary sexual
characteristics with presence of hair on her skull, armpit and
private part and was having developed breasts on which no injury
was apparent. Victim was having an abrasion of 3 X 0.5 cm of
 131
dark grey colour present on the right shoulder which was simple
in nature and appeared to have been caused by some blunt object
and duration of which was in between 4 to 7 days.

During the examination it was disclosed by the victim that

she had last menstruated on 18.09.2014 and alongwith which
disclosed the date of sexual intercourse as 06.10.2014 and which
is recorded in the medical report. No external injury was apparent
on the genitals of the victim. Swelling was present on the hymen
and was experiencing pain on touching. Hymen was found torn
and bleeding was apparent from the vagina. The cervical and
vaginal slide with swab of the victim for the FSL analysis were
sealed. After drawing saliva and blood swab of the victim the
same was sealed and also sealed an underwear, blue colour
salwar and brown colour kurta of the victim.

OPINION:- According to Board opinion the possibility of sexual

intercourse could not be denied and it final opinion could be
rendered only after receiving FSL Report.

Medical Report is Exhibit P-5 and the C to D part of which

bears the consent of the victim and the E to F part bears the
signature of victim and the A to B part bears the signature of the
father of victim and the Point X bears the thumb impression of
the mother of victim, G to H part bears the signature of Women
Nurse Reena Sharma and the M to N part bears my signature and
the K to L part bears the Board Opinion.
Cross examination by learned counsels for the accused
persons:-

It is correct that ossification test in order to determine the

age of victim was not conducted by us. We have mentioned the
 132
age as disclosed by the victim in the Medical Report Exhibit P-5.
It is correct that no internal and external injury was apparent on
the genitals of the victim. It is correct that repeatedly scratching
on some part of body can cause swelling.

Question:- Whether normally there is possibility of a woman

having irregular periods?

Answer:- It is possible.

It is correct that there can be several causes for bleeding

which may be due to some girl taking birth control pills which
can cause her bleeding. Early periods may cause bleeding. It is
correct that the possibility of sustaining injuries by a woman on
her chest, breast, spine, buttocks, back while forcibly raped by a
man cannot be denied. It is correct that no such kind of injuries
were apparent on the body of the victim. Himself stated that an
injury was present on her shoulder. Injury on the shoulder is
possible to have been self-inflicted.

It is correct that medical board in its medical opinion has

not confirmed rape. Himself stated that final opinion was kept
reserve for the FSL report. I was not present when the genitals of
the victim were medically examined. It is correct that FSL report
was not received for final opinion in my presence. Therefore I
cannot exactly tell in the final opinion whether or not there was
sexual intercourse with the victim.

I am disclosing it on the basis of my experience that the

said injury is not self-inflicted. I cannot exactly tell whether the
other doctors will also give a similar opinion in respect of the
said injury as their opinion can differ. I am unable to exactly tell
 133
whether the approachable injury which is a caused by blunt
object is self-inflicted or caused by some other person as it is not
possible to specifically define but the court needs to examine in
light of medical jurisprudence. I have worked on the post of
Medical Jurist for 4-5 years. Himself stated that I have worked in
intervals. It is correct that there is a separate course for Medical
Jurist. It is correct that it is written in Medical Jurisprudence
about the injury changing colour in how many hours and days. It
is correct that colour of injury changes from dark brown to black
after three days. Then himself stated that the colour changes from
blue to dark brown after three days. Victim is having injury on
her right shoulder. Injury at first was red, on the next day blue
thereafter brown and on the third day turns dark brown. It was an
external injury thus was apparent. I am unable to exactly tell the
specific object through which this injury was possible to have
been caused.

Re-examination:- Nil
Statement of witness is recorded by the steno on my directions
which is read over to the witness who heard and found correct
and scribed his signature.

Sd/- illegible
26.04.22

Special Judge for trial of cases relating to

POCSO Act, Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATION
 134
ANNEXURE P-20

PW-05
Statement of witness

Recorded by the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases

relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial No.75/2018 titled as State Vs.
Janak Singh & Ors. on 30.04.2022.

I solemnly affirm on oath that my name is Prem Singh S/o

Shri Ram Sahai aged 30 years Occupation Farming R/o Village
Naya Gaon Tehsil Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur.

Oath is administered:-
Examination in chief:-
Incident pertains to dated 06.10.2014 at around 9:00-
10:00AM in the morning when I went to kesla for purchasing
groceries. I returned back to my house at around 11:00AM in the
morning and found my elder brother Madan Mohan and sister in-
law Uganti searching for their daughter Suman. They informed
that Suman went to the field to fetch grass but did not return back
and despite of search is not traceable. Suman was searched for
two three days. On dated 9th my elder brother Madan Mohan had
informed that a phone call is received from my brother in-law
Ram Singh to have found Suman. Then went to the village of
Ram Singh at Kheri. Where we had found Suman. We returned
back after seeing Suman. Thereafter on returning back informed
my brother Madan Mohan that Suman is present there. Then on
the next day me along with my brother Madan went to Village
Kheri and brought Suman back with us. My brother and sister in-
law had inquired from Suman and on which she narrated that
 135
around 9:00AM she went to fetch grass where on the way Ashish
and Vimal were already standing near the trijunction from where
kacha passage goes to Kemla and Semla and a car was already
parked behind the bushes inside which they forcibly dragged me.
Thereafter the facts are known by my brother since she had
narrated before him only. Police had reached and prepared the
site map of place of occurrence Exhibit P-3 & Exhibit P-4. The G
to H part of site map Exhibit P-3 & E to F part of site map
Exhibit P-4 bears my signature.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor declaring this witness
hostile has sought permission to cross examine which in the
interest of justice is granted:-
Cross examination by learned Special Public Prosecutor:-
Police did not conduct inquiry from me. The A to B part of
my Police Statement Exhibit P-11 is correct. I did not record the
C to D part of my Police Statement Exhibit P-11 but I do not
know how the same has been recorded by the Police. It is
incorrect to say that we have arrived at a compromise with the
accused persons. It is incorrect to say that I am falsely deposing
today due to the compromise.
Cross examination by Shri BHola Shankar Sharma learned
advocate on behalf of accused Vimal and Ashish:-
I have no knowledge about the date of return of Suman.
Himself stated that received a phone call on 9th-10th and she
returned back on the 10th. I did not receive any phone call from
the victim. Neither Neither Suman had left in my presence nor
returned back in my presence. I did not give the call details of the
phone of Suman`s brother. I did not have any direct conversation
with Suman. It is correct that today I am deposing on the basis of
 136
hearsay. I did not tell any phone number to the Police. I also did
not tell any date to the Police. Gangaram, Ram Kishan, Jagram
did not meet me directly. Police has incorrectly recorded the
above facts in the A to B part of my Police Statement Exhibit P-
11 as I do not have any knowledge about the said facts. I had a
conversation with my brother and sister in-law on 06.10.2014
and last on 11.10.2014. The fact which I have disclosed in my
examination in chief about “laying ambush” and “kidnapping the
girl” on 11.10.2014 then himself stated to have disclosed on
10.10.2014. I was not told about the registration No. of the car.
We are not having any old family enmity with Vimal and Ashish.
In the year 2014 no FIR No.60/2014 was registered against us in
connection to causing damage to the car of the relative of Ashish.
I am acquainted to Ashish and the name of his uncle is
Ghamandi. It is correct that Vimal is employed at Ghamandi. It is
incorrect to say that when there was a theft in the house of
Ghamandi at that time FIR No.52/2014 war registered and in
connection to which Police did not call us for inquiry. I do not
know Pyare Lal. It is correct that the name of the children of the
paternal uncle of the girl is Dauji, Pintu, Bablu and Jai Prakash. I
do not know whether the son of Pyare Lal and his other family
members were forcibly abducted and in connection to which an
FIR No.109/2014 for assault with them was registered against
these persons and a Challan in which was filed. It is incorrect to
say that I am falsely deposing due to having animosity with the
relatives of the victim and the accused persons.
Cross examination by Shri Arif Ali and Sandeep Sharma
learned counsel on behalf of the remaining accused persons:-
 137
It is correct that today I am deposing on the basis of
hearsay.

Re-examination:- Nil

Statement of witness is recorded by the steno on my directions

which is read over to the witness who heard and found correct
and scribed his signature.

Sd/- illegible

Special Judge for trial of cases relating to

POCSO Act,
Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATION
 138
ANNEXURE P-21

PW-06
Statement of witness
Recorded by the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases
relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial No.75/2018 titled as State Vs.
Janak Singh & Ors. on 30.04.2022.
I solemnly affirm on oath that my name is Uganti W/o Shri
Madan Mohan aged 40 years Occupation Farming R/o Village
Naya Gaon Tehsil Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur.

Oath is administered:-
Examination in chief:-
Incident pertains to 4-5 years ago. When I went to the
field at 6:00-7:00AM in the morning and left Suman`s father
Madan Mohan behind in the house. Then Suman was coming to
me at the field but Suman did not reach to the field. Then I
returned back to my house fetching grass where inquired from
Suman`s father where is Suman? Suman`s father replied saying
Suman went to the field. I told that she did not come to me. Then
we searched for her in the nearby and phone called to our
relatives but had no whereabouts of her. Thereafter Suman
returned back from whom we had inquired and it was disclosed
by her that while I was coming to you at that time at the
trijunction on the way where the road goes towards Kemra and
Semla where Ashish and Vimal were standing who gaged my
mouth and ahead found a car parked behind the tall grass wherein
they forcibly dragged me and took me to Mahavir Ji station.
From where Ashish and Vimal boarded me on the train and took
me to Madhopur. Then got down at Sawai Madhopur Station
 139
where a woman was already waiting and who accompanied me
with her on the tempo to a house. Then Ashish and Vimal also
reached there. Then they confined me in that room and
committed wrong act with me. On the next day in the night
Vimal and a person with beard came to the house at 1:00AM in
the night from where Ashish and the person with beard took me
to Jaipur in train. Then the person with the beard and Ashish fell
asleep. They were having a mobile phone which I picked up and
phone called to Saroj. The phone was received by Santosh the
husband of Saroj. Santosh reached to received Suman and phone
called to my brother Ram Singh. Santosh took her upto Dausa
and then my brother reached there. My brother brought Suman
back to his village. Then my brother phone called and informed
my husband that he had found the girl. Then Ganga Sahai and my
brother in-law Prem went to see the girl whether the news was
correct or false. Then they returned back after seeing the girl and
on the next day left along with one or two other persons and
brought my daughter back in the evening. When we inquired
from the daughter at that time she did not disclose to us. The
report of incident was lodged by my daughter Suman and my
husband Madan Mohan. My daughter was medically examined in
connection to her rape, which is Exhibit P-5 and the X point of
which bears my thumb impression.

Cross examination by Shri Bhola Shankar Sharma learned

counsel for the accused persons Ashish and Vimal:-
Police did not conduct any inquiry from me. I am not
educated. I do not understand anything about the dates. I did not
disclose any date to the Police. Whatever date and month which
 140
is mentioned in my Police Statement Exhibit D-8 has all been
recorded by the Police themselves. I understand the time. I do not
understand date 09.10.2014 and I did not record anything about
the time. My daughter had disclosed to me the registration No. of
the car and the company make of the car. She had disclosed
about a big car which could accommodate 8-10 passengers. I
have no knowledge of the fact whether how many persons were
sitting in the car. I did not tell the number of persons sitting
inside the car. I do not understand dated 10.10.2014. My
daughter did not disclose before me about the Mohall, gali and
train through which she was taken. My daughter also did not
disclose anything about the places and time with duration where
she was confined. We did not lodge any missing report in
connection to missing our daughter. When our daughter returned
back then also we did not immediately report about her return. It
is correct that our daughter did not raise any alarm while taken in
train from Sawai Madhopur and in the car and the Tempo.
Herself stated that may be out of fear she did not raise any alarm.
Despite of meeting brother in-law did not call the police on the
station because he was afraid of police. It is correct that I did not
record in my Police Statement Exhibit P-8 that the daughter felt
jittered and therefore she did not complain to anyone and after
meeting her brother in-law on the station and out of fear the
police was not called. Neither any of my acquaints saw accused
Ashish and Vimal kidnapping my daughter from the village and
at Mahavir Ji station, Sawai Madhopur Station, tempo or at
someone`s house or by anyone in Jaipur nor I am aware of any
such names. I was aware of the fact that my daughter had phone
called after picking up the mobile phone of the accused persons
 141
which was disclosed to me by my daughter. I had recorded the
said fact in my police statement Exhibit D-8 but I am unable to
tell the reason why the said fact is not recorded in my Police
Statement. I had also disclosed the said fact in the First
Information Report Exhibit P-1 but I am unable to tell the reason
why the said fact is not recorded in my Police Statement. It is
incorrect to say that my daughter used to have a mobile phone. I
did not go to the police station for lodging the report. I went to
the hospital. I am unaware of the fact when my daughter was
medically examined because I was made to sit outside the
hospital. I am also unable to tell whether how many doctors had
medically examined my daughter. It is incorrect to say that an old
enmity is prevailing between us and the family of Vimal and
Ashish. I do not know both the accused persons. In the A to B
and the C to D part of my Police Statement Exhibit D-8 I did not
record the address of the accused persons and their village. I also
did not record the name of the third person in my Police
Statement Exhibit D-8. I also did not record the name of driver
Vimal @ Bablesh in the E to F part of my Police Statement
Exhibit D-8. It is incorrect to say that I am falsely deposing due
to enmity. No incident occurred in my presence. It is correct that
I did not have any direct conversation with my daughter and it
was disclosed to me by my husband and according to which I am
deposing.

Cross examination by Shri Arif Ali and Sandeep Sharma

learned counsel on behalf of the remaining accused persons:-

Opportunity granted: Nil

 142

Re-examination:- Nil
Statement of witness is recorded by the steno on my directions
which is read over to the witness who heard and found correct
and scribed his signature.

Sd/- illegible

30.04.2022
Special Judge for trial of cases relating to

POCSO Act,

Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATION
 143
ANNEXURE P- 22

Before the Special Judge for trial of cases relating to Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sawai Madhopur

Presiding Officer:- Deepak Pandey, RJS (DJ Cadre)

Bail Application No.135/2021

Ashish S/o Ramgilas @ Bambi R/o Mohcha Ka Pura, Police

Station Piloda, District Sawai Madhopur

… Applicant/accused

Versus

State Government through Public Prosecutor, Sawai Madhopur

...Non-applicant

Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

F.I.R. No. 110/2014 P.S. Piloda (Session Trial No.75/2018 titled

as State Vs. Janak Singh & Ors.)

Offence U/s 363, 366 (A), 368, 376(D), 370 (4), 120B IPC and
under Section 5/6 & 16/17 of POCSO Act

Present:-

1. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused

2. Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on

behalf of the State

 144
ORDER

Dated 14 December, 2021

(Through Court)

1. This second bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. is

moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Ashish and a

copy of which is supplied to the Ld. Special Public

Prosecutor.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that the complainant on

11.10.2014 by appearing in person at Police Station Piloda

submitted a written report to the effect that his daughter

(victim) went for fetching grass from the field on

06.10.2014. On the way Ashish and Vimal kidnapped her

on the gun point. Bablesh driver was waiting ahead with

the car in which they kidnapped her. On the way both of

them molested his daughter and both of them boarding her

in the train from Shri Mahavir Ji station took her daughter

to Sawai Madhopur and where a woman had met and by

boarding his daughter in the tempo took to her house.

Sometime later Ashish and Vimal also reached there who

raped his daughter. On the next day that woman came and

in Car bearing registration No. RJ20 2184 took his

daughter to some other house and where also both of them

 145
raped his daughter. On 08.10.2014 in the evening time

took her to Jaipur through train from Sawai Madhopur and

on 09.10.2014 informed her relative over telephone from

the Jaipur Station who further informed the in-laws of the

complainant at Kheri and the complainant is informed

from Kheri. Therefore by registering the complaint to take

strictest legal action.

3. Heard arguments on the bail application advanced by both

parties.

4. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the

applicant/accused that the applicant/accused has been

falsely implicated in this case and he is neither directly nor

indirectly having any role in the alleged incident. Neither

he has committed any incident of rape on the victim nor

has abducted/kidnapped her. The report of incident is

lodged belatedly with a delay of 5 days and no explanation

for which is given in the written report.

5. It has also been contended by him that the call detail

record and tower location in connection to the victim`s

Mobile No.9587580026 and applicant/accused Ashish`s

mobile No.9529101303 those have been obtained during

 146
the course of investigation, according to which the location

of applicant/accused from dated 06.10.2014 till dated

10.10.2014 has been found nearby to Mohcha Ka Pura

Police Station Piloda and his location is not found at Sawai

Madhopur or Jaipur and other places. The victim in her

statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC has stated the fact of

travelling by boarding in train from Sawai Madhopur to

Jaipur in the night of dated 07.10.2014; whereas her

mobile No. call detail has been found nearby Gangapur

City on the said date.

6. It is also contended by him that investigation in this case

has been conducted by three investigating officers and all

of them have held a false report to have been lodged

against the applicant/accused and the charge sheet in the

case has been filed only against the co-accused Vimlesh

and Janak Singh, both of whom are already enlarged on

bail. The Court allowing an application u/s 193 Cr.PC vide

its order dated 19.11.2016 has already taken cognizance of

offences punishable u/s 363, 366, 376(2) & U/s 5/6 of

POCSO Act against the applicant/accused.

 147
7. It is also contended by him that serious contradictions are

apparent in the statement of the victim and her father

recorded before the Court. Victim`s father during his cross

examination has denied to have eyewitnessed and incident.

Victim in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC has stated of

boarding in train from Shri Mahavir Ji Station; whereas if

she wanted she could have easily complained to the people

present over there and requested for their help.

8. It is also contended by him that the applicant/accused is

not having any previous criminal antecedents and there is

no likelihood of the abscondance of the applicant/accused

or threatening the witnesses. The trial in the case is likely

to take some time. Therefore it is prayed for granting

benefit of bail to the applicant/accused.

9. On the contrary, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor vehemently

opposing the bail application has further contended that

cognizance of offences was taken against the

applicant/accused and after his arrest was sent to judicial

custody. Applicant/accused has also been named in the

F.I.R. and the victim in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC has

also mentioned about the acts of applicant/accused Ashish.

 148
In view of the nature of serious offences of the

applicant/accused it is prayed for dismissing his bail

application.

10. It is apparent after hearing to both parties and perusal of

case file pertaining to Sessions Trial No.75/2018 titled as

State Vs. Janak Singh & Ors. that although after

investigation a charge sheet for the offences punishable u/s

323, 363, 366A, 368, 370(4), 376(D), 120B I.P.C. & u/s

3/4 & 16/17 of POCSO Act was filed against the case co-

accused Janak Singh and Vimlesh. Thereafter the Court

allowing an application u/s 193 Cr.PC filed on behalf of

the complainant vide its order dated 19.11.2016 taking

cognizance of offences punishable u/s 363, 366, 376(2)(G)

& U/s 5/6 of POCSO Act had directed for producing the

Applicant/accused Ashish Meena and co-accused Vimal

Meena through arrest warrant.

11. On filing of a S.B. Criminal Revision Petition

No.477/2017 titled as Ashish & Anr. Vs. State before the

Hon`ble High Court by the Applicant/accused Ashish

Meena and co-accused Vimal Meena challenging the said

order dated 19.11.2016 and in compliance of the order

 149
dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Hon`ble High Court and

upon the applicant/accused Ashish Meena and co-accused

Vimal Meena surrendering before the Court on 30.05.2017

thereby moving a regular bail application, both of them

were enlarged on bail. After which applications seeking

cancellation of bail were filed on behalf of the complainant

before the court whereof first application vide order dated

21.06.2018 and the second application was dismissed vide

order dated 27.11.2018. Upon which an SB Miscellaneous

Criminal Bail Cancellation Petition No.41/2019 titled as

Madan Mohan Vs. State & Ors. being filed by the

complainant before the Hon`ble High Court challenging

the order dated 27.11.2018 whereby the Hon`ble High

Court vide its order dated 26.08.2019 allowing the said

petition and cancelling the bail granted vide order dated

30.05.2017 to applicant/accused Ashish and co-accused

Vimal had directed for taking both the accused persons

into custody forthwith and in compliance of said order

both the accused persons continue in judicial custody.

12. The charges for the offences punishable u/s 363, 366A,

368, 376D, 370(4), 120B I.P.C. & U/s 5/6 & 16/17 were

framed against the applicant/accused thereafter trial has

 150
already commenced. Likewise trial for the commission of

offences of serious nature is being conducted against the

applicant/accused. The first bail application moved on

behalf of the applicant/accused Ashish has already been

dismissed on 23.12.2019. So far as the question relates to

the contradictions towards the acts of the applicant/accused

are apparent in the statement of the victim`s father and

victim recorded before the Court where in the said

connection victim`s father is not stated as the eyewitness

of incident and the deposition of the victim herself is still

incomplete. Otherwise also, at the stage of bail, it does not

appear justified for making any comments in connection to

the credibility of the statement of witnesses. The case is

pending trial for the charges of commission of offences

serious in nature against the applicant/accused.

13. In the said circumstances, keeping in view the facts and

circumstances and seriousness of offence in the case and

without commenting on the merits of the case it does not

appear justified for granting benefit of bail to the

applicant/accused.
 151
14. Hence this second bail application u/s 439 Cr.PC moved

on behalf of the applicant/accused Ashish is hereby

rejected and dismissed.

Sd/- illegible

14.12.2021

(Deepak Pandey)

Special Judge for trial of cases relating to

POCSO Act, 2012

Sawai Madhopur

TRUE TRANSLATED COPY

 152
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRL.M.P. No. OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ashish …Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan …Respondent

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and His Companion

Judges of the Supreme Court of India;

The humble Petition of the petitioner above-named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Special

Leave Petition against the final judgment and order dated
11.05.2022 passed by the High Court Judicature for
Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Third
Bail Application No.2562/2022, whereby the Hon'ble High
Court was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the
petitioner herein.
 153
2. That the Annexures P-1, P-3, P-5, P-6, P-8, P-12, P-14 &
P-16 to P-22 filed herewith were originally in vernacular
language i.e. Hindi and the counsel has got the same
translated into English.
3. That it is in the interest of justice that the petitioner may be
exempted from getting Annexures P-1, P-3, P-5, P-6, P-8,
P-12, P-14 & P-16 to P-22 translated by an Official
Translator.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to :

a) Allow this application and accept the English translation of

Annexures P-1, P-3, P-5, P-6, P-8, P-12, P-14 & P-16 to P-
22 and exempt the Petitioner from filing Official
Translation of the same;

b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Filed By:

Filed on: 06.07.2022

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
 154
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Jail,
Sawai Madhopur

Sr. No./Jail/Prisoner/2022-23/Dasti Dated: 26.05.2022

DETENTION CERTIFICATE

Accused Ashish Meena S/o Ramgilas aged about 28 Yrs.

caste Meena- R/o Mohcha Ka Pura, Police Station Piloda District
Sawai Madhopur is continuously in detention in this Jail since
dated 20.12.2019 vide the order of the POCSO Court in
connection to Case No.110/2014.

Information is respectfully sent.

Sd/- illegible

26.5.22

JAILER

District Jail Sawai Madhopur

 155

FIR DETAILS
1. Diary No. :

2. Date of Lodgment of : 06.10.2014

FIR/Complaint
3. Date of Occurrence : 06.10.2014

4. Police Station Address : Piloda, Dist. Sawai

Madhopur.

5. Date of filing Charge Sheet : 21.12.2015

6. Whether tried by the Court of : Court of Sessions Judge,

Trial Sawaimadhopur

7. Whether tried by the Sessions : Court of Sessions Judge,

Judge Sawaimadhopur

Filed on: 06.07.2022

Filed By

AoR’s Name DR. CHARU MATHUR

Advocate for Petitioner
 156
SECTION II
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL/ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP/W.P/TP/RP/APPEAL/CIVIL/CRIMINAL/ NO…..OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF

Ashish …Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan …Respondent

INDEX
S. Particulars Copies Court Fee
No.
1. List of Dates 1+3
2. Impugned order 1+3
3. Special Leave Petition with affidavit 1+3
4. Annexures P-1 to P-22 1+3
5. Application for exemption from filing 1+3
official tranlsation.
Vakalatnama 1

Filed on : 06.07.2022

Filed by

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
29, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi 110001
Code No.1642
Mob.: 9868009602
E-mail: charumilind@gmail.com
 CAS File No.- 985/2021 Matter not listed within 5 Days Section- PIL W

IN THE SUPREME COUllT OF INDIA

CrVIL/CRL/APPELLATE/ORIGINALJURISDICATION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL/CRL.)NO. OF 20
CIVIL/CRIMINAL/APPEALAVRIT PETITIOIN NO. OF 20
CIVIL/CRIMINAL/MISC.PETITION NO. ■OF 20

W.PC NO.-258/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Pardeep Goyal
PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS

UOI & Ors.

RESPONDENT(S)

INDEX

SL. Particulars Copies Court Fess

No.
1. Counter Affidavit
NIL
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

TOTAL Rs.-NIL/-

New Delhi Office No.-23383121

Dated: 15/06/2021

(M.K. Maroria)
(Add. Govt. Advocate & AOR)
Code No-2324
Advocate for the Respondent
Appellant(s) Caveator/Intervenor
Central Agency Section
 %. ' 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION(CIVILI No.258 OF 2021

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

TN THE MATTER OF:

PRADEEP GOYAL • ■.PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. • •.RESPONDENTS

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

I, Ajay Saxena, S/o Late Shri. Satyendra Nath Saxena, aged 56 years, presently
posted as, Principal Commissioner, Bengalura West Commissionerate,
Bengaluru, hereby solenmly affirm and state on oath as under:-
a. That I am posted as the Principal Commissioner and I am duly authorised to
represent the Respondents in the aforesaid petition. I am as such conversant
with the facts of the present case and competent to swear this counter
affidavit on behalf ofthe Respondents.
b. That I have gone through the contents of the writ petition and afler
examining the records of the case, as maintained in the office of the
Respondents,I am filing the present counter affidavit.
c. At the outset it is submitted that the Respondent denies and disputes all the
allegations and contentions raised by the Petitioner in the present special
leave petition. The Respondents humbly submit that the contents of the writ
,/i:(ARy>eIition are denied, except to the extent admitted below and nothing shall be
to have been admitted by the Respondents merely on the ground of
aol ^cific traverse.
vja*^
\S«

*
<3!
 »

^ , , ;
d. The Petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, seeking
the following reliefs, interalia
a. Issue a writ of mandamus / direction / order to the Respondents to
have a mechanism to track total GST paid on the OIDAR services
used by Non NTORs (Non-Taxable Online Recipient) Indian
recipients under reverse charge basis;
b. To amend GSTR-5A or introduce new form to reflect in the GST
returnfigures ofrevenue generated out ofservices provided to Non
NTOR;

c. To direct the Respondents to have a mechanism to verify the total

receipts earned byforeign online service providersfrom India and
check GST compliances;
d. To direct overseas service providers to havefixed establishment in
India or allow the Indian authorities to have control or access to
their accounting records in order to verify their compliances under
GST laws;

e. To direct respondents to have strong mechanism for overseas

OIDAR like it hasfor others by which there is strong tax collection,
compliance and reporting mechanism through various types of
periodical returns, GST auditfrom independent auditors and also
other machinery provisions; and
f To direct the GST authorities to provide data as to how many
persons located in a non-taxable territory are providing OIDAR
services in India,

e. The following is submitted for consideration ofthis Hon'ble Court

a. That Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
"GST Act, 2017") was introduced by The Constitution (101st
Amendment) Act, 2016 which came into effect from 1st July2017.
\By this constitutional amendment interalia, concurrent taxing
A

dete 2A
 3
powers were conferred upon the Union as well as the States to
make laws for levying goods and services tax on every transaction
of supply of goods or services or both. GST has replaced several
indirect taxes being levied by the Union and the State Governments
and is intended to remove cascading effect of taxes and provide for
a common national market for goods and services. The proposed
Central and State GST will be levied on all transactions involving
supply of goods and services, except those which are kept out ofthe
purview ofthe GST Act,2017.
b. Section 9 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for levy and collection
of central goods and services tax for intra state supply. Section 9 is
extracted below:-

Section 9-Levy and Collection

9. (I) Subject to the provisions ofsub-section (2), there shall
be levied a tax called the central goods and services tax on
all intra-State supplies ofgoods or services or both, except
on the supply ofalcoholic liquorfor human consumption, on
the value determined under section 15 and at such rates, not
exceeding twenty per cent., as may be notified by the
Government on the recommendations of the Council and
collected in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be
paid by the taxable person.
(2) The central tax on the supply ofpetroleum crude, high
speed diesel, motor spirit (commonly known as petrol),
natural gas and aviation turbine fuel shall be levied with
effectfrom such date as may be notified by the Government
on the recommendations ofthe Council.
(3) The Government mav. on the recommendations of the
★
Council, bv notification, specify categories of suwlv of
Urban & Ruf®*

of
 goods Of services or both^ the tax on which shall be paid on
reverse charge basis hv the reciyient of such soods or
services or both and all the provisions ofthis Act shall apply
to such recipient as if he is the person liable for paying the
tax in relation to the supply of such soods or services or
both.

(4) The central tax in respect ofthe supply oftaxable goods

or services or both by a supplier, who is not registered, to a
registered person shall be paid by such person on reverse
charge basis as the recipient and all the provisions of this
Act shall apply to such recipient as ifhe is the person liable
for paying the tax in relation to the supply ofsuch goods or
services or both.

(5) The Government may, on the recommendations of the

Council, by notification, specify categories of services the
tax on intra-State supplies of which shall be paid by the
electronic commerce operator ifsuch services are supplied
through it, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to
such electronic commerce operator as if he is the supplier
liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such
services:

Provided that where an electronic commerce operator does

not have a physical presence in the taxable territory, any
person representing such electronic commerce operator for
any purpose in the taxable territory shall be liable to pay
tax:

Provided further, that where an electronic commerce

operator does not have a physical presence in the taxable
★
us Urt»30
territory and also he does not have a representative in the
HQ

%Date'^
©r
 r
said territory, such electronic commerce operator shall
appoint a person in the taxable territory for the purpose of
paying tax and such person shall be liable to pay tax..^

c. Section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

[hereinafter referred to as ""IGST Act, 2017^] provides for levy and
collection of integrated goods and services tax on inter State supply
and includes levy of integrated goods and services act on reverse
charge basis.
Section 5-Levy and Collection
(1)Subject to the provisions ofsub-section (2), there shall be
levied a tax called the integrated soods and services tax on
all inter-State suvvlies of 20ods or services or both, except
on the supply ofalcoholic liquorfor human consumption, on
the value determined under section 15 ofthe Central Goods
and Services Tax Act and at such rates, not exceedingforty
per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the
recommendations of the Council and collected in such
manner as may be prescribed and shall be paid by the
taxable person:
Provided that the integrated tax on goods imported
into India shall be levied and collected in accordance with
the provisions ofsection 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
on the value as determined under the said Act at the point
when duties of customs are levied on the said goods under
section 12 ofthe Customs Act, 1962.
(2) The integrated tax on the supply ofpetroleum crude, high
a/. -k
speed diesel, motor spirit (commonly known as petrol),
-k
natural gas and aviation turbine fuel shall be levied with
ftora^
01
vcar«».ta^*

Date
 effectfrom such date as may be notified by the Government
on the recommendations ofthe Council.
(3) The Government mav. on the recommendations of the
Council bv notification, specify categories of supply of
^oods or services or both, the tax on which shall be paid on
reverse charge basis hv the recipient of such soods or
services or both and all the provisions ofthis Act shall apply
to such recipient as if he is the person liable for payins the
tax in relation to the supply of such soods or services or
both.

(4) The integrated tax in respect of the supply of taxable

goods or services or both by a supplier, who is not
registered, to a registered person shall be paid by such
person on reverse charge basis as the recipient and all the
provisions ofthis Act shall apply to such recipient as ifhe is
the person liablefor paying the tax in relation to the supply
ofsuch goods or services or both.
(5) The Government may, on the recommendations of the
Council, by notification, specify categories of services, the
tax on inter-State supplies of which shall be paid by the
electronic commerce operator ifsuch services are supplied
through it, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to
such electronic commerce operator as if he is the supplier
liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such
services:

Provided that where an electronic commerce operator

does not have a physical presence in the taxable territory,
o
★
shA* any person representing such electronic commerce operator
★
®^galore Sr
(Jrben Ufa! M
M
★
<9; (»»
★

«fe 2A

©F
 for any purpose in the taxable territory shall be liable to pay
tax:

Provided further that where an electronic commerce

operator does not have a physical presence in the taxable
territory and also does not have a representative in the said
territory, such electronic commerce operator shall appoint a
person in the taxable territoryfor the purpose ofpaying tax
and such person shall be liable to pay tax.."

d. One of the services taxable under the IGST Act, 2017 is Online
Information Database Access and Retrieval Services piereinafter
referred to as 'OIDAR']. This is a category of service provided through
the medium of internet and received by the recipient online without
having any physical interface with the supplier of the services. E.g.
downloading of an e-book for payment would amount to receipt of
OIDAR services by the consumer.
e. The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred
to as 'IGST Act, 2017'] defines 'online information and database
access or retrieval services 'under Section 2(17) as follows: -
"...(17) "online information and database access or
retrieval services** means services whose delivery is
mediated by information technolosv over the internet or an
electronic network and the nature of which renders their
suvvlv essentially automated and involving: minimal human
intervention and impossible to ensure in the absence of
information technology and includes electronic services such
as:

sh P
★ 6.^ (i) Advertising on the internet;
®^galor«
Urban
(ii) Providing cloud services;
tl
★ Na
★
9
^9te 2A
- OF
 (Hi) Provision ofe-books, movie, music, softwdve and othev
intangibles through telecommunication networks or internet;
(iv)Providing data or information, retrievable or otherwise,
to any person in electronic form through a computer
network;

(v) online supplies of digital content (movies, television

shows, music and the like);
(vi) digital data storage; and
(vii) online gaming;,y
f. Another term, relevant for the present purpose - 'non taxable online
[hereinafter referred to as WTOi?'] is defined under Section
2(16)ofthe IGST Act, 2017as
''...Section 2(16) "non-taxable online recipient" means any
Government, local authority, governmental authority, an
individual or any other person not registered and receiving
online information and database access or retrieval services
in relation to any purpose other than commerce, industry or
any other business or profession, located in taxable
territory.

Explanation. —For the purposes of this clause, the

expression "governmental authority" means an authority or
a hoard or any other body, —
(i) set up by an Act ofParliament or a State Legislature; or
(ii) established by any Government, with ninety per cent, or
more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out
anyfunction entrusted to a municipality under article 243W
ofthe Constitution;..."
sh
★ 9^
ir
^galore
Urban Rural
ir
★

7A

OF
 9

g. The place of supply of OIDAR services is provided under Section

13(12) ofthe IGST Act, 2017 as: -
Section 13- Place of supply of services where location of
supplier or location ofrecipient Is outside India
(I)The provisions of this section shall apply to determine
the place ofsupply ofservices where the location ofthe
supplier of services or the location of the recipient of
setyices is outside India.

(12) The place ofsupply ofonline information and database

access or retrieval services shall be the location of the
recipient ofservices..T
h. The nature of OIDAR services is such that it can be provided online
from a remote location outside the taxable territory. If the overseas
supplier being located outside India would not be liable to pay tax,
then such service provider would have an unfair tax advantage
compared to similar service provided by an Indian service provider
from within the taxable territory to recipients in India, as they would
be taxable.

I. To remove this disparity between OIDAR service provider located

outside India and OIDAR service provider located in India and at the
same time ensure that the compliance verification mechanism for
OIDAR service provider from outside India was not made difficult, a
simplified scheme for taxation of such service is provided under
Section 14 of the IGST Act 2017.
In order to better appreciate the taxation of OIDAR services, it would
important to explain the nature of transaction undertaken by a
Banialont^
Urban Mwal
.I ^
r Ma. /★
 0 10

supplier of online information and database access or retrieval

services:-

i. supplies to a business entity (registered person)( or Non-

NTOR) located in India (commonly called as Business to
Business or B2B supplies) and
ii. supplies to a non-taxable online recipient (NTOR) or an
individual customer located in India (commonly called as
Business to Consumer or B2C supplies).
k. Both the abovementioned transactions are duly taxed but treated
differently and these are explained below:-

B2B SUPPLY

i. In cases where the supplier of OIDAR services is located

outside India and the recipient is a business entity (registered
person) located in India (B2B Supplies), the liability to pay
GST rests on the person located in the taxable territory (India)
under reverse charge basis, as provided under Section 5 of the
IGST Act, 2017.
ii. Under Section 5 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 9 of
the CGST Act, 2017, the government may, on the
recommendations of the GST Council, by notification, specify
the categories of supply of goods or services or both, the tax on
which shall be paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient of
such goods or services or both. All the provisions of the IGST
Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017 would apply to such recipient,
as if such person is the person liable for paying the tax in
o relation to the supply of such goods or services or both.
ar

\o(®

Date
(35
OX
 11

iii. Under Section 2(98) of the COST Act, 2017,'reverse charge' is

defined as follows :-

Section 2(98) ''reverse charge" means the liability to pay

tax by the recipient of suvvlv of soods or services or both
instead of the supplier of such goods or services or both
under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 9, or
under sub-section (3) or subsection (4) of section 5 of the
Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act;.."
iv. Vide Notification No. 10/2017 — Integrated Tax (Rate) dated
28.06.2017, any IGSt on services supplied by any person who
is located in a non-taxable territory to any person other than
non-taxable online recipient (NTOR) would be chargeable to
any person located in the taxable territory other than non-
taxable online recipient.
V. In other words, the person located in the taxable territory (other
than non-taxable online recipient) would be required to pay the
tax on reverse charge basis and would be liable to pay GST
under reverse charge and undertake necessary compliances like
accounting, filing returns, payment of tax etc.
vi. Such person who is the recipient of OIDAR service (other than
NTOR) and who is required to pay the tax on reverse charge
basis is liable to be compulsorily registered under Section 24
(iii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
"...Section 24 Compulsory registration in certain
cases

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)

ofsection 22, thefollowing categories ofpersons shall
be required to be registered under this Act:

Wf^a -k
Ca

^§a\oc«

-^C
b9^

-*C S'
(S Date "2^
/r%^
 a 12

(iii) persons who are required to pay tax under

reverse charge;
»

vii. In other words, in the case of OIDAR supplies to registered

entities in India (B2B), the liability to pay taxes vests on the
recipient of the said services under the reverse charge
mechanism.

viii. The transactions of OIDAR supplies by Overseas Supplier to

the registered entity in India is reflected by such registered
Indian entities (Non NTORs) in their respective monthly
GSTR-3B (Table 3(1)(D))returns filed.
ix. The registered taxable persons (Non NTORs) also file annual
returns in the Form GSTR-9 & Form GSTR-9C, wherein these
transactions which are subjected to reverse charge mechanism
are aggregated and in turn validated against the
monthly/quarterly returns filed by them.
X. These registered taxpayers in India are subjected to regular
audit by the audit teams ofthe Department.
xi. Therefore, in the case of B2B transactions, the Indian registered
recipient steps into the shoes of the Overseas supplier and is
liable to pay GST, since such transactions are accounted for in
his books of accounts.

xii. The registered taxpayer or the Non-NTOR recipient of

OIDAR services being liable to pay GST on reverse charge
mechanism basis on such import of services is also amenable to
all recovery provisions as per Section 73 and Section 74 of the
CGST Act etc. and penalty / interest in case of non-payment or
63^ w 9r
short payment oftaxes under RCM basis.

Ban?alore
VJrba'i
RiKa^
(J Kat ★
R04 Wo
k 'I
Oate2^
 3 13

xiii. Since services supplied by foreign / overseas suppliers to

registered persons in India(Non-NTRO) are liable for payment
of tax under reverse charge basis, there is no revenue loss.
Further the transactions are recorded in the books of accounts of
the Indian recipients.

B2C SUPPLY

xiv. If the supplier is located outside India and the recipient in

India is an individual consumer (B2C supply) (Non Taxable
Online Recipient), then also the place of supply "would be India
and the transaction would be amenable to le"vy of GST.
XV.However, it would be impractical to ask the individual in India
to register under the GST Act and undertake necessary
compliance under GST Act for a one-off purchase on the
Internet.

xvi. Therefore, Section 14 of the IGST Act provides for a special

provision for payment of tax by a supplier of OIDAR services
and stipulates that on supply of online information and database
access or retrieval services by any person located in a non-
taxable territory (outside India) and received by a non-taxable
online recipient (NTOR) in India, the supplier of services
located in a non-taxable territory (foreign supplier) shall be the
person liable for paying integrated tax on such supply of
services(on forward charge basis),
"...Section 14-Special provisionfor payment oftax by
a supplier of online information and database access
or retrieval services
"k
★ (I) On supply ofonline information and database access
.27 bangalore V
fU Urban & )•* or retrieval services by any person located in a noh-
9^. U ★
★

&ato^
wf
 14

taxable territory and received bv a non-taxable

online recipient, the supplier ofservices located in a
non-taxable territory shall be the person liable for
pavins integrated tax on such supply of services:
Provided that in the case of supply of online
information and database access or retrieval
services by any person located in a non-taxable
territory and received by a nontaxable online
recipient, an intermediary located in the non-taxable
territory, who arranges or facilitates the supply of
such services, shall be deemed to be the recipient of
such services from the supplier of services in non-
taxable territory and supplying such services to the
non-taxable online recipient except when such
intermediary satisfies the following conditions,
namely:—
(a) the invoice or customer's bill or receipt issued or
made available by such intermediary taking part in
the supply clearly identifies the service in question
and its supplier in non-taxable territory;
(b) the intermediary involved in the supply does not
authorize the charge to the customer or take part in
its charge which is that the intermediary neither
collects or processes payment in any manner nor is
responsible for the payment between then on-taxable
online recipient and the supplier of such services;

*
(c) the intermediary involved in the supply does not
Vf.

-k authorize delivery; and

10
QUf»
urban
o
ca** ■k
003?
*
Oate'^
0if
 f 15

((^ ^/ze general terms and conditions of the supply

are not set by the intermediary involved in the supply
but by the supplier ofservices...'"
xvii. As provided in the Proviso to Section 14, if an
intermediary located outside India arranges or facilitates supply
of such service to a non-taxable online recipient in India, the
intermediary would be treated as the supplier of the said service,
when the intermediary satisfies the following conditions;
■ a) The invoice or customer's bill receipt issued or made
available by such intermediary taking part in the supply
clearly identifies the service in question and its supplier in
non-taxable territory;

b) The intermediary involved in the supply does not authorize

the charge to the customer or take part in its charge which is
that the intermediary neither collects nor processes payment
in any manner nor Online Information Data Base Access
and Retrieval Services in GST is responsible for the
payment between the non-taxable online recipient" and the
supplier ofsuch services;
c) The intermediary involved in the supply does not authorize
delivery; and
d) The general terms and conditions of the supplier are not set
by the intermediary involved in the supptyj but by the
supplier of services;
xviii. In the case of B2C transactions, i.e., OIDAR supplies from
an overseas supplier- to an individual consumer in India, for
purposes other than business, the liability to pay tax as per
Qr -k Section 14(1) of the IGST Act, 2017 is on the overseas supplier
★ aVof

o k
*009^
Re4 w« jg'
<55
<P
0 Dote tA

©f
 1/ 16

who is required to pay the GST either himself or through an

intermediary or an authorized representative.
xix. When the OIDAR supplies are made to any government,
local authority, individual or any other person not registered, in
relation to any purpose other than commerce, industry or any
other business or profession located in India, the overseas
supplier takes registration with Bengaluru GST West
Commissionerate and pay IGST.
XX.As per Section 24(xi) of the CGST Act, 2017, every person
supplying OIDAR services from a place outside India, to a
person in India, other than a registered person, is required to be
compulsorily registered under GST.
xxi. Rule 14 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
provides:-
"...Rule 14 - Grant of registration to a person supplying
online information and database access or retrieval
servicesfrom a place outside India to a non-taxable online
recipient-
(1) Any person supplying online information and database
access or retrieval services from a place outside India to a
non-taxable online recipient shall electronically submit an
application for registration, duly signed or verified through
electronic verification code, in FORM GST REG-10, at the
common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation
Centre notified by the Commissioner,
(2) The applicant referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be granted
registration, in FORM GST REG-06, subject to such
conditions and restrictions and by such officer as may be
notified by the Central Government on the recommendations
ofthe Council...^''
xxii. Rule 64 of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides that every
o p registered person providing online information and data base
★ access or retrieval services from a place outside India to a
ftdngalore
U Urban & Rural «
itabi
★
★
JT
6fffe2A
 17

person in India other than a registered person, shall file return in

Form GSTR-5A
"Rule 64 - Form and manner of submission of return by
persons providing online information and database access
or retrieval services, -
Every registered person providing online information and
data base access or retrieval services from a place outside
India to a person in India other than a registered person
shall file return in FORM GSTR-5A on or before the
twentieth day ofthe month succeeding the calendar month or
part thereof
xxiii. Therefore, every person supplying online information and
database access or retrieval services from a place outside India
is required to file his returns in case ofB2C transactions.
1. The total earning on accoimt of supplies to India by an overseas
supplier constitutes his B2B as well as the B2C supplies made by him.
m. The data pertaining to the B2B supplies made are summarized under
Table 3(l)(d) of the GSTR-3B returns filed by the registered Indian
recipient. These transactions are accounted for and verified by the
departmental officers as part of their regular scrutiny of the returns
filed by the taxpayers and these returns are also verified along with the
annual returns filed by them including the documents supporting them
by the departmental audit teams in a periodical manner. Thus, the
compliance under the GST laws is ensured and the revenue to the
government is safeguarded,
n. It is submitted that the registered entities(Non-NTORs)are eligible for
taking input tax credit on the GST paid by them on reverse charge
basis for the supplies received from overseas OIDAR suppliers.
Therefore, it is also in their own interest that they enter such
P .transactions in their books of accounts and pay the GST on such B2B
★ ★
SS
.sactions. These transactions are consolidated and the same is
Kangalors
Urban & Rim M

★ Rea ★
<ii
T
i)at 2A

©F
 18

shown under Table 3.1(d) of GSTR-3B returns that are filed on

monthly basis. Further, Returns are subject to Audit by the
departmental teams on a regular periodical basis. Thus, the revenue is
safeguarded.
o. It is also submitted that every registered person whose aggregate
turnover during a financial year exceeds five Crore rupees shall get his
accoimts audited as specified under Section 35(5) of the CGST Act,
2017, and is required to furnish a copy of the audited annual accounts
and a reconciliation statement, duly certified, in Form GSTR-9C. This
audit includes the liability towards receipt of OIDAR services from
overseas suppliers.
p. In case of B2C transactions, the overseas supplier himself takes the
registration under Form REG-10 and pays the taxes due and files the
monthly returns under form GSTR-5A. In the GSTR-5A returns the
overseas supplier declares the consolidated taxable value and the tax
dues State wise. As per Section 24(xi) of the CGST Act, 2017, every
person supplying OIDAR services from a place outside India, to a
person in India, other than a registered person, is required to be
compulsorily registered under GST.
q. Additionally, Rule 64 of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides that every
registered person providing online information and data base access or
retrieval services from a place outside India to a person in India other
than a registered person, shall file return in Form GSTR-5A.
r. It is also humbly submitted that the major overseas OIDAR suppliers
(to NTORs in India) like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon Web
Services, Grammarly.com, Apple Inc., McAffee, Netflix, Microsoft,
' Zoom Video Communications, University of London, American
★
sVimTx ^is;hemical Society etc., are already registered under Section 24(xi) of
U
O&ngaloreth\ CGST Act, 2017 and are paying taxes regularly and filing their
Urban S Rln

K
34
 11 19

monthly GSTR-5A returns. The GST authorities including executive

Commissionerate and the departmental intelligence agencies are
undertaking regular and continuous revenue augmentation efforts to
bring in more possible overseas OIDAR service providers under the
GST net and give them registration and collect the due taxes with
interest and to comply with the Indian GST laws,
s. It is also submitted for consideration that as per Section 1 of the IGST
Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017, the GST laws extend to the whole of
India. Therefore, to direct OIDAR services providers located outside
India to have an establishment in India only for this purpose, would not
be justifiable.
t. Further, the overseas OIDAR service providers do not have any
exemption / threshold limit unlike in the case of domestic taxpayers.
For example, there could be some small overseas OIDAR service
providers like individual singers who have created their own. albums
and are selling these online. Such small service providers cannot be
expected to have an establishment in India just for the non-taxable
ordinary recipients(NTOR).
u. Moreover, the facility of input tax credit is not made available to these
overseas taxpayers / OIDAR service providers and in case of such B2C
transactions the overseas service providers are required to pay tax
through their electronic cash ledger only.
V. Notification No. 30/2019-Central Tax dated 28.06.2019 was issued
which provided that the overseas OIDAR service providers have been
exempted from furnishing annual returns (GSTR-9) and reconciliation
statement (GSTR-9C). This is because the OIDAR persons are
supplying from outside Indian and their accounts in foreign jurisdiction
★ audited by the local laws ofthe country where they are located.
&dngalor«
Urb£ ^ J*9
nataliB
M®. lOWSAo"/ ^
*

c?i
 20

w. It is also humbly and respectfully submitted that to have a policy

stipulating a fixed establishment in India for the overseas suppliers of
OIDAR services would be against the basic tenet of international trade. In
other words, it may mean that all the companies exporting OIDAR or other
taxable services across the world may have to have their physical
establishments and maintain accounts as per the local accounting practices
in each of the respective countries.
6. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the relief sought by the Petitioner
cannot be granted.
a. The present mechanism to track total GST paid on OIDAR services
used by Non NTORs (Non-Taxable Online Recipient) Indian
recipients under reverse charge basis is sufficient and with
adequate checks and balances to ensure no revenue loss.
b. ■ There is no requirement to amend GSTR-5A or introduce a new
form to reflect the GST return figures of revenue generated out of
services provided to Non-NTOR, as this is already reflected in the
returns filed by Non-NTORs, which is subject to scrutiny and
audit, as prescribed under law.
c. There is sufficient mechanism under the present GST regime and
within the international law framework to verify the total receipts
earned by foreign online service providers from India and to check
GST compliance.
d. There is no further requirement to have a stronger mechanism for
overseas OIDAR for stronger collection, compliance and reporting
through periodical returns, GST audit from independent auditors
etc., as the present GST regime takes care of such compliances.
7. In light of the submission, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed. sh
★
Tk
®angafor« if
^rban
★ na

*
 21

8. The following is submitted in reply to the Grounds raised by the Petitioner in

the writ petition

Ground A That the contents of this grounds are denied, as there is no

. asymmetry in information and no revenue loss has been caused
to the nation.

It is submitted that the registered entities (Non-NTORs) are

eligible for taking input tax credit on the GST paid by them on
reverse charge basis for the supplies received from overseas
OIDAR suppliers. Therefore, it is in their own interest that they
enter such transactions in their books of accounts and paythe
GST on such B2B transactions. These transactions are
consolidated and the same is shown under Table 3.1(d) of
GSTR-3B retumsthat are filed on monthly basis. Further,
Returns are subject to Audit by the departmental teams on a
regular periodical basis. Thus,the revenue is safeguarded.

Ground B That in contents of this Ground is denied. There are no glaring

gaps in the GST regime as is contended and no loss is being
caused to the nation.

It is submitted that in case of Non-NTOR service recipients in

India, they are registered under GST Act and declare the
consolidated data of supplies received from overseas suppliers.
The tax due on such transactions are paid by these Indian
registered (Non-NTOR) business entities under reverse charge
basis. They also file annual returns and are subjected to audit by
the department which do scrutinize their liability on reverse
charge basis and invoices of such foreign suppliers of services.
★ Further, every registered person whose aggregate turnover
Urban
Rufal
O Karna
099
Ma
-k
%
 22

during a financial year exceeds five Crore rupees shall get his
accounts audited as specified under Section 35(5) of the CGST
Act, 2017, and shall furnish a copy of the audited annual
accounts and a reconciliation statement, duly certified, in Form
GSTR-9C. This audit includes the liability towards receipt of
OIDAR services from overseas suppliers.

Ground C& That the contents of Ground C & D are denied. It is submitted
D that under GST, major overseas OIDAR suppliers (to NTORs in
India) like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon Web Services,
Grammarly.com, Apple Inc., McAffee, Netflix, Microsoft,
Zoom Video Communications, University of London, American
Chemical Society etc., are already registered and are paying
taxes regularly and filing their monthly GSTR-5A returns.
Further GST authorities including executive Commissionerate
and the departmental intelligence agencies are undertaking
regular and continuous revenue augmentation efforts to bring in
more possible overseas OIDAR service providers under the
GST net and give them registration and collect the due taxes
with interest and to comply with the Indian GST laws.

Ground B That the contents of this Ground in so far as they are contrary to
record are denied. It is submitted that the Non-NTORs
(registered Indian entities) are eligible for taking input tax.credit
on the GST paid by them on reverse charge basis for the
supplies received from overseas OIDAR suppliers. Hence, it is
in the interest of the Non-NTORs that they enter the
transactions in their books of accounts and pay GST on such
B2B transactions. These transactions are consolidated and the
ay
-k
same is shown under Table 3.1(d) of GSTR-3B returns that are
Urban
U

1ft Cft
 ^3 23

filed on monthly basis. Further, these are subject to Audit by the

departmental teams on a regular periodical basis. Thus, the
revenue is safeguarded.

Ground F That in reply to the contents of this Ground, it is submitted that

under Section 14(2) of the IGST Act, 2017, the overseas
OIDAR services provider in non-taxable territory who are
providing services to NTOR are required to take registration
under a simplified form REG-10, pay taxes and file monthly
returns in form GSTR-5A.

Vide Notification No. 30/2019-Central Tax dated 28.06.2019,

overseas OIDAR service providers have been exempted from
furnishing annual returns (GSTR-9) and reconciliation
statement (GSTR-9C). This is because the OIDAR persons are
supplying from outside Indian and their accounts in foreign
jurisdiction are audited by the local laws of the country where
they are located.

Ground G That in reply to the contents of this Ground, it is submitted that

in case of receipt of OIDAR services whether supplied from
outside India or within India, the place of supply is the place of
the recipient, i.e. India. Since GST is a consumption-based tax,
therefore, irrespective of the location of supply, all transactions
are amenable to GST.

As submitted earlier, in case of supply of OIDAR services from

outside India to registered taxable person in India, the GST is
chargeable from the recipient on reverse charge basis. In case of
o ★
ar
supply of OIDAR services from outside India by an overseas
vot«
ovir» iplier to NTOR recipient, the GST is chargeable from the
s
-k
Date
 24

overseas service provider on forward charge basis. Similarly, in

the case of supply of OIDAR service from a supplier located in
India to a registered Indian entity, such supplier in India pays
the GST on forward charge basis. Thus, no discrimination is
caused to Indian service provider.

It is also important to point out that with effect from

01.12.2016, even in the erstwhile service tax regime, the place
of provision of OIDAR services was changed from 'location of
service provider to service recipient' - which would imply that
the services received from outside India, became taxable in
India when the service recipient is located in India. This
situation continued with the introduction ofGST from July 2017
and thus there is level playing field for the domestic service
providers.

Ground H That in reply to Ground H, it is submitted that the overseas

OIDAR service providers are exempt from filing annual returns
in GSTR-9 as services received from them by registered entities
in India are liable to GST on reverse charge basis and tax is
payable by the recipient in India. These transactions are
consolidated and reflected in the GSTR-3B returns of the Indian
recipients. Further, they also maintain the details of such
consolidation which is subject to detailed Audit by the
departmental officers. Section 14(2) of the IGST Act,
2017prescribes a single registration under a simplified
registration scheme for the supplier of OIDAR services from
outside India. Rule 64 of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides that
w ar
every registered person providing online information and data
a\oT«
oof» lase access or retrieval services from a place outside India to a
tai®
O

Bate
 25

person in India other than a registered person, shall file return in

FormGSTR-5A.

Ground I That in reply to the contents of this Ground, it is submitted that

there is no information asymmetry. The contents of this Ground
have already been addressed earlier and the same are reiterated.
It is submitted that in case of supply of OIDAR services by
foreign suppliers to registered businesses / Non-NTORs, the
liability of payment of tax is on recipient located in India on
reverse charge basis. Further, as per Section 24(iii) of the CGST
Act, 2017, all persons who are required to pay tax under reverse
charge are compulsorily required to take GST registration.
Further, for supply of OIDAR service by foreign suppliers to the
NTOR recipients (individuals), the tax liability is on the foreign
supplier on forward charge basis. In essence, the person who is
liable to pay the tax is legally bound to take registration and pay
the GST. Therefore, there is no information asymmetry and no
revenue loss is caused.

Ground J That in reply to this Ground, it is submitted that there is no

glaring gap or leakage offoreign exchange as under GST, major
overseas OIDAR suppliers (to NTORs in India) like Google,
Facebook, Twitter, Amazon Web Services, Grammarly.com,
Apple Inc., McAffee, Netflix, Microsoft, Zoom Video
Communications, University of Long, American Chemical
Society etc. are already registered and are paying taxes regularly
and filing their monthly GSTR-5A returns. When the OIDAR
supplies are made to any person duly registered in relation to
commerce, industry to any other business located in India, the
9r ★
y*
Orb®"
9^
Kar ★
Us

Oote^
or
 26

registered recipient in India pays IGST on reverse charge basis.

Ground K That in reply to Ground K, it is submitted that Section 14 of

IGST Act, 2017 is a special provision for payment of tax by an
overseas foreign supplier of OIDAR supplied to a non-taxable
online recipient(NTOR).In case the service is used for business
purpose, the recipient in India is compulsorily required to
register himself and inform his registration number (GSTIN) to
the overseas service provider so that he may raise the Invoice
accordingly. If the service provider outside India mentions the
GSTIN number of the Indian recipient then the liability of
payment of GST is on the recipient in India under reverse
charge mechanism.

Ground L That in reply to the contents of Ground L, it is submitted that

there is no discrimination as is contended by the Petitioner. The
overseas OIDAR service providers are exempt from filing
annual returns in GSTR-9 as services received from them by
registered entities in India are liable to GST on reverse charge
basis payable by the recipient in India. These transactions are
consolidated and reflected in the GSTR-3B returns of the Indian
recipients. Further, they also maintain the details of such
consolidation which is subject to detailed Audit by the
departmental officers. Section 14(2) of the IGST Act,
2017prescribes a single registration under a simplified
registration scheme for the supplier of OIDAR services from
outside India to consumers for other than business purposes.
Rule 64 of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides that every registered
sn «/■ person(foreign supplier) providing online information and
*

Urban
database access or retrieval services from a place outside India
Kar

©f
 27

to a person in India other than a registered person shall file

return in Form GSTR-5A.

Ground M That the contention regarding any unfair advantage is denied. It

is submitted that in case of B2C transactions of overseas
OIDAR suppliers to NTOR entities in India, the overseas
OIDAR suppliers are required to file monthly return in Form
GSTR-5A in terms of Rule 64 of the CGST Rules, 2017,
wherein State / UT wise supplies made, rate of tax, taxable
value, IGST payable are reported along with tax, late fees,
interest paid etc. The GSTR-5A return is required to be filed
only by the overseas service provider (or his representative)
providing OIDAR services from outside India to a non-taxable
online recipient(NTOR)in India.

Ground N That in reply to this Ground, it is submitted that in case of

foreign supplier of OIDAR services to NTOR, the supplier of
services is located outside the territory of India and a simplified
registration scheme and return has been prescribed under
Section 14(2) of the IGST Act, 2017 and Rule 64 of the CGST
Rules, 2017. In addition, the submissions made in Ground J are
reiterated.

Ground O That in reply to this Ground, it is submitted that the definition of

nontaxable online recipient(NTOR)as per Section 2(16) of the
IGST Act, 2017 ensures that when the recipient is a
governmental authority, an individual or any other person in
^
relation to a non-commercial purpose, then the overseas service
provider shall be liable to pay the GST as it would be
it 6^ if impractical to ask the government or the individual to register
4
iCr
Bangalor
U Urban MJ5

★ Reg He OSS ★

.05 G«e2A

OF W
 28

and undertake necessary compliance under GST for one off

purchase on the internet.

Ground P& That in reply to this Ground, it is submitted that the overseas
Q OIDAR service providers are exempted from filing annual
returns in GSTR-9 as services received from them by registered
entities in India are liable to GST on reverse charge basis
payable by the recipient in India. These transactions are
consolidated and reflected in the GSTR-3B returns of the Indian

recipients. Further, they also maintain the details of such

consolidation which is subject to detailed Audit by the
departmental officers. Also, Section 14(2) of the IGST Act,
2017, prescribes a single registration under a simplified
registration scheme for the supplier of OIDAR services from
outside India.

It is also submitted that the Rule 64 of the CGST Rules, 2017

provides that every registered person providing online
information and data base access or retrieval services from a

place outside India to a person in India other than a registered

person shall file return in Form GSTR-5A.

Ground R That the contents of this Ground, in so far as they are contraiy
to record are denied. The rest of the contents require no
comment.

Ground S That in reply to this Ground, it is submitted that in case of

foreign supplier of OIDAR services to NTOR, the supplier of
services is located outside the territory of India and a simplified
registration scheme and return were prescribed under Section
-k
oFthe IGST Act, 2017 and Rule 64 of the CGST Rules,
Urban
✩
•k

SXateTP'
!ri
 29

2017. Additionally, the submissions made in Para J are

reiterated.

Ground T That the contents of this Ground in so far as they are contrary to
record are denied. It is submitted that the definition of non

taxable online recipient is provided under Section 2(16) of the

IGST Act, 2017 and this definition ensures that when the
recipient is a governmental authority, an individual or any other
person in relation to a non-commercial purpose, then the
overseas provider shall be liable to pay the GST as it would be
. impractical to ask the government or the individual to register
and undertake necessary compliance under GST for a one-off
purchase on the internet or for buying an eBook etc.

Ground That in reply to these Grounds, it is submitted that the overseas

U& V OIDAR service providers are exempted from filing annual
returns in GSTR 9 as services received from them by registered
entities in India are liable to GST on reverse charge basis,
payable by the recipient in India. These transactions are
consolidated and reflected in the GSTR-3B returns of the Indian

recipients. Further, they also maintain the details of such

consolidation which is subject to detailed audit by the
departmental officers. Section 14(2) of the IGST Act, 2017
prescribes a single registration under a simplified registration
scheme for the supplier of OIDAR services from outside India.
Rule 64 of the CGST Rules, 2017 provide that every registered
person providing online information and database or retrieval
services from a place outside India to a person other than a
sh
★
★
registered person shall file return in Form GSTR 5A.
®^0a/or9
Urban
Rur
Kar •9
★ Reg
★

OF
a
30
3.
Ground W That the contents of this Ground require no comment from the
Respondent.

9. Therefore, in light ofthe aforesaid submissions, the writ petition deserves to

be dismissed,

10.The Respondent reserves its right to file a comprehensive affidavit if this

Hon'ble Court deems appropriate and the Respondent also reserves its right
to make oral submissions at the time of oral arguments.
11.The Answering Respondent submits accordingly.

3nwHW«f/?qiiy®M»na
TOH 3ITgW,
^ndpal CommlCTloner of Central Tax
B^ngaluru West Commi^ionefate
Verification
vniSiCt, Banashank^. Bengalum

I, the Deponent above-named, do hereby verify the contents of the above-

mentioned Affidavit as being correct to the best of my knowledge and
information and state that nothing material has been kept concealed there
from.

Verified at Bengaluru on the 1*^ day of rf\<^ 2021

DEPONENT

sh ann / Aiay Saxena

9a
^ 9y\"k TOH angw,
Bangalore ^ Principal CommlssloRer of Central Tax
Urban feUurdl
Nst. JrarnatahB I Bengaluru West Commissionerate
if No 1069 if
^11^/Banashankari, Bengaluru

^fe 24 _ME
BEE

^J^SHEKARAllal#"
"j
 SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES

That the appellant prefers the instant criminal appeal being

aggrieved by the impugned judgment whereby the judgment of

acquittal passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the appellant

and two other accused were found guilty of the offence under

sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of

Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to serve additional

imprisonment of one year.

That as per the prosecution on 29.11.1974 at between 7 and 7.30

p.m. on the road between P.P. Academy Chhak and Bhagirathi

Chhak of Balangir Town, the deceased was proceeding towards

Bhaigathi Chhak in a cycle borrowed from Bibhu Udgata (P.W.1).

The deceased being a representative of Oriya Daily Prajatantra was

in the habit of going to the head post office then situate at Bhagirathi

Chhak in the evening hours of every day. The accused were waiting

near P.A. Academy Chhak in a Congress Party Jeep which was

being driven by accused Premlal Suna. The accused chased the

deceased in the Jeep and dashed the Jeep against the cycle of the

deceased. The deceased fell down the ground but even thereafter

the accused in order to kill the deceased deliberately ran over the

Jeep on the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained

severe injuries on his person and eventually succumbed to the

injuries in the district headquarters hospital, Bolangir in the same

night.

The Trial Court vide judgment and order vide order dated
30.06.2008 held that :-

“40. In ultimate analysis, I would like to summarise my principal

findings as under:

(i) The death of the deceased took place as a result of head

injury which might have been caused by running over of a

vehicle or by any other mode.

(ii) The previous hostile relationship between both the political

parties in general and between both the parties in this in

particular cannot be itself be strong motive for the murder of

the deceased.

(iii) The testimony of the four eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 12, 14 and

18 is unworthy of credit and does not inspire any confidence.

(iv) The evidence and the circumstances on record point out that

the identification of the accused persons in the jeep at the

material time could not have been possible.

(v) The jeep M.O.X. has not been proved to the hilt to be the

vehicle used for running over the deceased.

(vi) The development of the prosecution story at three different

sages adversely affects the credibility of the prosecution case.

(vii) Some of the circumstances and broad probabilities as

discussed, weigh in favour of the accused persons.

(viii) The dialogue theory as spoken to by P.W.1 is considered to

be unworthy of any credit.

(ix) the police investigation cannot be said to be wholly

perfunctory, and at any rate no benefit accrues to the

 prosecution thereby.

41. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the facts,

circumstances, and the evidence on record, the interested and

partisan nature of the testimony of the witnesses examined by the

prosecution and complete absence of any corroborative evidence

from independent and untainted source, I would hold in conclusion

that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused

persons beyond all reasonable doubts. The ingredients of the

offences with which the accused persons have been charges have

not been brought home to the accused persons beyond every

shadow of doubt. The accused persons are, therefore, entitled to

acquittal. In the result, all the accused persons are found not guilty

of the offences with which they have been charged, and as such

they are acquitted and set at liberty.”

The Hon’ble High Court vide impugned order set aside the judgment

of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and the appellant and two

other accused were found guilty of the offence under sections

302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of

Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to serve additional

imprisonment of one year

It is submitted that on an analysis of the detailed judgment of the

Trial Court it cannot be said that the judgment of the trial Court is

based on no material and it suffers from any legal infirmity in the

sense that there was non-consideration or mis-appreciation of the

evidence on record.
In Kallu alias Masih and Ors. vs. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC

313, it was held that;

“While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of

the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised

while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of

appeals the power exists to review the entire evidence.

However, one significant difference is that an order of

acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court,

where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence

and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not

reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a

different view is possible. The appellate Court will also

bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in

favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get

the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it

should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the

trial Court”.

29.11.74 That as per the prosecution the accused were the

members of Yuva Congress Party and they were

political adversaries of the deceased Parsuram

Satpathy. The deceased was a Journalist by profession

and a staunch supporter of Bharatiya Lok Dal. There

was political rivalry between the parties and a case and

counter case was instituted between the parties on

16.11.1974 and in that connection the deceased was

arrested on 16.11.1974 and he was released on bail on

22.11.1974. Two days prior the occurrence i.e. on

27.11.1974, some of the accused persons had

threatened the informant Hareram Satpathy (respondent

No.1) brother of deceased.

That on 29.11.1974 at between 7 and 7.30 p.m. on the

road between P.P. Academy Chhak and Bhagirathi

Chhak of Balangir Town, the deceased was proceeding

towards Bhaigathi Chhak in a cycle borrowed from

Bibhu Udgata (P.W.1). The deceased being a

representative of Oriya Daily Prajatantra was in the

habit of going to the head post office then situate at

Bhagirathi Chhak in the evening hours of every day. The

accused were waiting near P.A. Academy Chhak in a

Congress Party Jeep which was being driven by

accused Premlal Suna. The accused chased the

deceased in the Jeep and dashed the Jeep against the

cycle of the deceased. The deceased fell down the

ground but even thereafter the accused in order to kill

the deceased deliberately ran over the Jeep on the

deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained

severe injuries on his person and eventually succumbed

to the injuries in the district headquarters hospital,

Bolangir in the same night.

That P.W.1 Bibhudananda Udgata, P.W.12 Hrudananda

 Nanda and P.W.18 Hareram Satpathy reached at the

spot where the deceased was lying in a pool of blood.

On the request of P.W.1, one Advocate of Bolangir

namely Shri Hari Bandhu Swain informed the incident to

Sadar Police Station, Bolangir over telephone. On the

basis of such telephonic communication, Station Diary

Entry No.691 dated 29.11.1974 (Ext. A) was made.

P.W.19 Pabitra Mohan Das, Sub-Inspector of Police

along with other police officials proceeded to the spot.

At the spot, P.W.18 Hareram Satpathy lodged a written

report at 7.40 p.m. which was sent by P.W. 19 to Sadar

Police Station, Bolangir for registration and accordingly

P.S. Case No.281 of 1974 was registered on

29.11.1974 at 7.50 p.m. under Section

147/302/149/120-B Indian Penal Code.

02.12.74 On 2.12.1974 the Jeep bearing registration No.DLH-

9836 was seized from the garage of the Congress Party

which was locked from outside

10.02.75 After completion of investigation charge-sheet was

submitted on 10.02.1975 against six accused persons.

In respect of the accused no. 7, 8 and 9 the police

submitted a final report saying that no offence appeared

to have been made out against them.

20.11.75 A protest petition was filed before the learned S.D.J.M.

Bolangir and on perusal of the materials available on

record, process was issued against accused no. 7, 8

and 9. Revision petition against the said order was

allowed on 25.8.1976 and the order of issuance of

process against the accused No.7, 8 and 9 was set

aside. The same was challenged before This Hon’ble

Court and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated

25.08.1978 set aside the judgment and order in the

revision petition and accordingly accused No.7, 8 and 9

also faced trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 22

witnesses and exhibited 47 documents.

P.W.1 Bibhudananda Udgata, P.W.12 Hrudananda

Nanda P.W.14 Sankar Tripathy and P.W.18 Hareram

Satpathy are the alleged eye witnesses to the

occurrence.

P.W.3 Dr. Rajkumar Mukharjee who had conducted

postmortem examination on 30.11.1974 noticed the

following ante mortem injuries :-

(i) An abrasion on the right side of the face and

forehead measuring 5 ½” x 4 ½ extending from

the transversely extending from a point 1”

anterior to the right ear to a point medial angle of

the eyebrow;
(ii) An abrasion of the size of 2 ½” x ¼” on the

extensor aspect of the left arm situated vertically

extending from lateral epicondyle to above;

(iii) Multiple abrasions within 2” and 1/2” on the

extensor aspect of the left hand over the third,

fourth and fifth knuckle;

(iv) An abrasion of the size of 1/10” x 1/10” over the

second, fourth and fifth fingers from the extensor

aspect of left hand on the first interphalangeal

joints;

(v) An abrasion of the size of ½” x ½” on the middle

of the extensor aspect of the left arm 6” above the

olecranon;

(vi) An abrasion of the size of 1 1/2” x ½” on the left

patella;

(vii) An abrasion of the size of 2 ½” x 1” over the

medial aspect of the left leg 6” above medial

malieolus;

(viii) An abrasion of the size of ½” x ½” on the posterior

aspect of the left lateral malleolus;

(ix) An abrasion of the size of ¼” x ¼” on the left leg

over the head of the fibula;

(x) An abrasion of the size of ½” x ¼” on the right

palm on the thenar eminence;

(xi) An abrasion of the size of ½” x 3/4” on the right

knee just above patella;

(xii) An abrasion of the size of 1” x ½” on the right side

of the back at the level of 10th thoracic spine 1”

lateral to the mid line.

On dissection of the face and skull injury, P.W.3 found

that blood clots were present over the pericranium and

the frontal bone and both the parietal bones were

fractured into pieces with aceration of the meningeal

and underlying brain tissue. The injuries were all ante-

mortem in nature and in the opinion of the doctor, the

death of the deceased was due to compression and

laceration of the brain as a result of fracture of the skull.

It is submitted that the opinion evidence of the doctor is

hardly decisive and it is advisory in nature and not

binding upon the Court. The Court has to form its own

opinion considering the material data available on

record. Moreover in his cross-examination PW-3 has

stated that the reasoning given by him that the head

injury on the deceased could not have been caused due

to accidental dash of a jeep are not as medical expert

but as a common man. The doctor has admitted that

although the cause and nature of the injury are generally

stated in the P.M. report, he had omitted to mention the

same due to inadvertence, though clarified by him later

on query.

That with respect to the jeep which has been alleged to

be used in the incident P.W.6, the M.V.I., Bolangir, in

cross-examination has stated that no mark of any

damage, injury or assault was externally visible in the

jeep and that there was no scratch or violence either.

He has opined that the vehicle is bound to leave some

scratch or mark on it if the vehicle running in speed hits

any hard substance.

It is submitted that the registration number of the jeep

was not mentioned in the FIR. The Trial Court has

observed that If P.Ws 1,12 and 18 had really seen the

number of the jeep at the material time, it is expected,

having regard to the facts and circumstances and

previous relationship between the parties, that the

registration number of the jeep would not have been

omitted from the F.I.R. The station diary entry on the

basis of the telephonic message also does not mention

about the registration number of the jeep. P.W.18 the

informant has no where in his evidence offered any

explanation regarding the non-mention of the number of

the jeep in his F.I.R.

Also there is absence of any mark of violence in the

jeep, particularly in its front side. If a jeep running at a

fairly high speed dashed against a speeding cyclist and

the cycle was severely damaged then the impact on the

cycle must have been quite heavy. The absence of any

such mark on the frontal portion of the jeep and the fact
that no hair or flesh is said to be sticking to the left rear

wheel of the jeep militates against the theory of dashing

of this particular Jeep against cycle and supports the

contention that the jeep was not used in the incident in

question.

The Trial Court thus held that the use of the jeep M.O.X

in the incident in question appears to be doubtful.

The Trial Court further held that considering the

evidence of P.Ws.6, 9 and 19 about the features seen

by them on the spot and taking the documents Ext.8,

11, 5/6 and 5/9 into consideration, the oral evidence

regarding the manner in which the incident took place,

is rather unbelievable.

P.W.1 has stated that the deceased rode on the cycle

and proceeded towards Bhagirathi Chhak from the P.P.

Academy Chhak in speed. The Congress jeep boarded

by some of the accused and driven by accused Premlal

proceeded towards Bhagirathi Chhak. After a little he

heard the sound of collision of the jeep and the cycle.

He ran to the spot when the collision had taken place,

and found that after collision the jeep sped towards

Bhatirathi Chhak.

P.W.12 has stated that at about 7.15 P.M. on the

material date he left his sister’s house at Rugudipada

and was house at Rugudi pada returning to this house

at Tikarapada by crossing Bhagirathi Chhak. After he

had crossed the N.C.C. Office, he saw the jeep coming

from Tikrapada chhak towards Bhagirahi chhak. He also

saw the deceased coming in a cycle in speed ahead of

the said jeep. The jeep was following the deceased in

great speed. Then he saw the jeep dashing with great

force against the cycle on which the deceased was

riding, as a result of which the deceased fell down on

the ground. The jeep was in brake for a few second. 2

or 3 persons got down from the jeep and they were

holding some weapons resembling bedi. Within these

few seconds these 2 or 3 person again boarded the

jeep. The jeep was taken backwards by reverse gear

and then shot forward towards Bhagirathi chhak side.

He has further said that the left side wheel of the jeep

ran over the deceased who was lying on the ground and

then the jeep short forward.

P.W.14 has stated that on the material date at 7.00 P.M.

as he reached the puja mandap, he saw the light of a

jeep at P.P. Academy chhak. He was riding on a cycle.

At P.P. Academy chhak he saw that the jeep was drawn

backwards by reverse gear and then it proceeded

towards Bhatirathi chhak in high speed. Then he saw

that all on a sudden the jeep was taken to the left hand

side of the road, and he heard a dashing sound. He got

the impression that the jeep dashed against some

stones stacked on the road side. The jeep was drawn

slightly backwards by the reverse gear, and again shot

forward, and he again heard a dashing sound. Then he

came to the spot and found the deceased and the cycle

lying at the spot.

P.W.18 has stated that in the evening he was in this

book-stall. Finding the jeep in front of his shop on a few

occasions he became apprehensive about the

impending danger to the life of the deceased. He

thereafter came to his house, and not finding the

deceased there, he came to Tikarapada chhak with a

view to go to Bhagirathi chhak in a cycle. As he reached

the P.P. Academy chhak he found the congress jeep

coming from the road and proceeding towards

Bhagirathi chhak. As he proceeded 20 to 30 cubits

ahead of P.P. Academy he saw the cyclist whom he

could not identify proceeding ahead of the jeep. The

jeep came from behind and dashed against the cyclist.

The jeep halted for some time and was drawn

backwards by reverse gear. Then it was driven forward

and ran away. Then he went to the place and identified

the cyclist to be the deceased.

Thus three distinct theories have been set up by the

prosecution from the initiation of the prosecution till the

trial stage. In the initial stage when the F.I.R. was drawn

up, it was come of a single impact. In the subsequent

complaint petition it is clearly stated that the deceased

was first knocked down by dashing of the jeep, and then

done to death by severe assaults by means of lethal

weapons. At the trial stage it was P.W.1 who initially

spoke about the single impact, but the subsequent

witnesses P.Ws 12, 14 and 18, who have been

examined after the medical officer P.W.3, have all

spoken regarding the reverse gear theory.

The Trial Court after considering the evidence of PW

1,12,14 and 18 held that “It would thus appear that three

distinct stories are available before the court regarding

the incident responsible for the death of the deceased. It

is also significant to note that the three stories are

mutually destructive of one another.” It was further held

that “As a matter of fact in a murder trial the evidence

must be cogent, reliable and in pointed as to what

exactly the deceased died. In such state of affairs the

effect of putting forth different stories by the prosecution

cannot be lightly viewed.”

With regard to the identification of the accused by PW

12 and 18, the Trial Court observed “the inside of the

jeep, as common experience goes, ordinarily remains

dark when it is covered.” “In other words, it was not a

jeep which was entirely open, in which case the street

light and moon light would have fallen on the features of

the persons or persons occupying the jeep. The jeep

was in a fairly good speed as stated by all the four eye-

witnesses.” In such speed, the jeep must have passed

by the side of P.W.12, in a split second while he was

standing by the road side. Except the solitary version of

P.W.12, there is no corroboration to his evidence that he

was standing by the side of the burning street light.

Even if it is accepted to be true, the version of P.W.12

about the possibility to identification, even of known

persons, in a speeding vehicle is extremely difficult to be

believed. Although I do not propose to impute my own

experience that in the circumstances narrated above

P.W.12 could not have possibly identified any of the

occupants of the jeep, except at best the driver of the

jeep, who would have been nearest to him (P.W.12)

while crossing of the jeep. Coming to the evidence of

P.W.14, it would be noticed that he has not identified

nor named any of the occupants of jeep. Coming to the

evidence of P.W.18 the informant, it would be noticed

that he had also not stated as to who were the

occupants of the jeep at the time of incident, or a little

before or after the incident. His evidence regarding

identification relates to the time when he was present in

his book-stall, Apasara Book Agency between 6.30 P.M.

and 7 P.M. According to him at that time the jeep in

question came from Samalei Mandir side and stopped in

front of his book-stall, when he found accused Premlal

driving the jeep and accused Tikaram, Prasanna Kumar

and Artatran Singh sitting on the front seat, and accused

Dhobai, Jagyan and Gunahidhi and 2 or 3 others sitting

on the back seats. Thereafter according to P.W.18, he

went to his house in search of the deceased and again

came to Tikarapda chhak. According to him when the

jeep a proceeded towards Tikrapada chhak all the

occupants of the jeep named above were sitting in the

jeep, but after that he has not specifically said as to who

were the occupants of the jeep. There cannot be any

surmise or conjecture that the same occupants were in

the jeep when actually the incident took place, may be

some 10 or 15 minutes after.” “In the light of my

foregoing discussions, I would hold in conclusion that

the evidence of the P.Ws 1, 12 and 18 claiming to have

identified some of the accused persons a little before or

just after the occurrence does not inspire any

confidence. I therefore entertain grave doubts if these

P.Ws would have really identified any of the occupants

of the jeep at the material time.”

Appellant Dhobai Podh has pleaded that he was only a

supporter of the congress party. He was supporting

accused Tikaram about the school construction in

 Sudhapada area, to which belongs. For that reason the

B.L.D. leader like Sarbasri H.B. Swain and P.K. Bohidar

and Durgacharan Behera have falsely implicated him in

this case. The P.Ws. being the workers of B.L.D. party

have at their instance falsely deposed against him.

30.06.08 The Trial Court vide judgment and order vide order

dated 30.06.2008 held that :-

“40. In ultimate analysis, I would like to summarise my

principal findings as under:

(i) The death of the deceased took place as a result

of hsad injury which might have been caused by

running over of a vehicle or by any other mode.

(ii) The previous hostile relationship between both

the political parties in general and between both

the parties in this in particular cannot be itself be

strong motive for the murder of the deceased.

(iii) The testimony of the four eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1,

12, 14 and 18 is unworthy of credit and does not

inspire any confidence.

(iv) The evidence and the circumstances on record

point out that the identification of the accused

persons in the jeep at the material time could not

have been possible.

(v) The jeep M.O.X. has not been proved to the hilt to

be the vehicle used for running over the

 deceased.

(vi) The development of the prosecution story at three

different sages adversely affects the credibility of

the prosecution case.

(vii) Some of the circumstances and broad

probabilities as discussed, weigh in favour of the

accused persons.

(viii) The dialogue theory as spoken to by P.W.1 is

considered to be unworthy of any credit.

(ix) The police investigation cannot be said to be

wholly perfunctory, and at any rate no benefit

accrues to the prosecution thereby.

41. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the

facts, circumstances, and the evidence on record, the

interested and partisan nature of the testimony of the

witnesses examined by the prosecution and complete

absence of any corroborative evidence from

independent and untainted source, I would hold in

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish

the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable

doubts. The ingredients of the offences with which the

accused persons have been charges have not been

brought home to the accused persons beyond every

shadow of doubt. The accused persons are, therefore,

entitled to acquittal. In the result, all the accused

persons are found not guilty of the offences with which

 they have been charged, and as such they are acquitted

and set at liberty.”

The trial Court thus acquitted all the nine accused

including the appellant herein of the charges under

sections 120-B, 147, 302/34 and 302/149 Indian Penal

Code so also the accused No.1 of the charge under

section 302 Indian Penal Code.

26.09.80 The complainant respondents filed an application under

sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 378 Cr.P.C. for grant

of leave to appeal challenging the judgment and order

dated 30.06.1980 of the learned Sessions Judge,

Bolangir-Kalahandi, Bolangir passed in Sessions Case

No.37-B of 1976 and Sessions Case No.36-B of 1978

which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.423 of

1980. The said application was dismissed at the stage

of admission on 12.01.1982against which the

complainants preferred an appeal by Special Leave

before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as

Criminal Appeal No.711 of 1983. This Hon’ble Court

vide order dated 02.12.1983 granted leave under

Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. and directed the Court to hear

the appeal on merits and dispose of the same in

accordance with law. After receipt of the order of

Hon’ble Supreme Court, Criminal Misc Case No. 423 of

1980 vas reregistered as Criminal Appeal No. 22 of

1984.
 As accused No. 1-Premlal Suna, accused No.2-Jagyan

Puruseth, accused No.4-Gunanidhi Ghas @ Banchhor,

accused No.5-Prafulla Bhoi, accused No.6-Sugyan

Sandh and accused No.8-Tikaram Agrawalla had

expired during the pendency of the appeal the Criminal

Appeal stood abated as against accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5

6 and 8 in view of the provisions under Section 394

(1)Cr.P.C.

04.05.15 The Hon’ble High Court vide impugned order set aside

the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and

the appellant and two other accused were found guilty

of the offence under sections 302/149 IPC and

sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-

and in default of payment of fine to serve additional

imprisonment of one year

Hence the present appeal.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF : POSITION OF PARTIES

Trial Court High Court This Court

Dhobai Podh Accused Respondent Appellant

S/o Late Kuturha Podh No.3
At Kulerbahali
P.O. Randa
District Balangir,
(Odisha).

Versus

1. State of Orissa Prosecution Respondent Respondent

Through Secretary No.10
Department of Home
Cuttack (Odisha).

2. Hareram Satpathy Complainant Appellant Respondent

S/o Late Chakrapani Satpathy, No.1

3. Sitaram Satpathy Complainant Appellant Respondent

S/o Late Chakrapani Satpathy, No.2

Both R/o Balangir Town,

P.O./P.S. Balangir,
District-Balangir,
In the Judgeship of Balangir
Kalahandi (Odisha).

(All are Contesting Respondents)

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 379 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, READ WITH ORDER
XXI OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013
AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND FINAL
ORDER DATED 4.5.2015 PASSED BY THE HIGH
COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK IN CRLA NO. 22 OF
1984
To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India.

The humble appeal of the

Appellant above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the appellant preferred the present appeal against the

final impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2015 passed by the

High court of Orissa, Cuttack in CRLA No. 22 of 1984 by which the

Hon’ble High Court was pleased to set aside the order dated

30.6.1980 passed by the trial court.

QUESTION OF LAW:

I. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in setting aside the

acquittal of the appellant when the view taken by the Trial

Court was reasonable and probable on the facts and

circumstances of the present case?

II. Whether in view of the detailed judgment and reasoned

appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court the reversal of

acquittal by the High Court can be said to be justified?

III. Whether from the evidence on record it is proved beyond

doubt that appellant was present at the incident site or that he

shared the common object?

IV. When in the night in question which was a night of lunar

 eclipse and identification was not possible with the existing

street light that was available, and having regards to other

circumstances, such as, speeding vehicle and parking of

vehicle in the dark and seeing the jeep from the front when the

head light would be directly falling on the face; Whether the

Hon’ble High Court erred in observing that “it cannot be said

that there would have been any difficulty on the part of the

witnesses to identify the occupants of the open jeep.”?

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. That as per the prosecution the accused were the members of

Yuva Congress Party and they were political adversaries of

the deceased Parsuram Satpathy. The deceased was a

Journalist by profession and a staunch supporter of Bharatiya

Lok Dal. There was political rivalry between the parties and a

case and counter case was instituted between the parties on

16.11.1974 and in that connection the deceased was arrested

on 16.11.1974 and he was released on bail on 22.11.1974.

Two days prior the occurrence i.e. on 27.11.1974, some of the

accused persons had threatened the informant Hareram

Satpathy (respondent No.1) brother of deceased.

2. That on 29.11.1974 at between 7 and 7.30 p.m. on the road

between P.P. Academy Chhak and Bhagirathi Chhak of

Balangir Town, the deceased was proceeding towards

Bhaigathi Chhak in a cycle borrowed from Bibhu Udgata

(P.W.1). The deceased being a representative of Oriya Daily

 Prajatantra was in the habit of going to the head post office

then situate at Bhagirathi Chhak in the evening hours of every

day. The accused were waiting near P.A. Academy Chhak in a

Congress Party Jeep which was being driven by accused

Premlal Suna. The accused chased the deceased in the Jeep

and dashed the Jeep against the cycle of the deceased. The

deceased fell down the ground but even thereafter the

accused in order to kill the deceased deliberately ran over the

Jeep on the deceased as a result of which the deceased

sustained severe injuries on his person and eventually

succumbed to the injuries in the district headquarters hospital,

Bolangir in the same night.

3. That P.W.1 Bibhudananda Udgata, P.W.12 Hrudananda

Nanda and P.W.18 Hareram Satpathy reached at the spot

where the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. On the

request of P.W.1, one Advocate of Bolangir namely Shri Hari

Bandhu Swain informed the incident to Sadar Police Station,

Bolangir over telephone. On the basis of such telephonic

communication, Station Diary Entry No.691 dated 29.11.1974

(Ext. A) was made. P.W.19 Pabitra Mohan Das, Sub-Inspector

of Police along with other police officials proceeded to the

spot. At the spot, P.W.18 Hareram Satpathy lodged a written

report at 7.40 p.m. which was sent by P.W. 19 to Sadar Police

Station, Bolangir for registration and accordingly P.S. Case

No.281 of 1974 was registered on 29.11.1974 at 7.50 p.m.

 under Section 147/302/149/120-B Indian Penal Code.

4. That on 2.12.1974 the Jeep bearing registration No.DLH-9836

was seized from the garage of the Congress Party which was

locked from outside

5. That after completion of investigation charge-sheet was

submitted on 10.02.1975 against six accused persons. In

respect of the accused no. 7, 8 and 9 the police submitted a

final report saying that no offence appeared to have been

made out against them.

5. That on 20.11.1975 a protest petition was filed before the

learned S.D.J.M. Bolangir and on perusal of the materials

available on record, process was issued against accused no.

7, 8 and 9. Revision petition against the said order was

allowed on 25.8.1976 and the order of issuance of process

against the accused No.7, 8 and 9 was set aside. The same

was challenged before This Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble

Court vide order dated 25.08.1978 set aside the judgment and

order in the revision petition and accordingly accused No.7, 8

and 9 also faced trial.

6. That in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 22

witnesses and exhibited 47 documents.

P.W.1 Bibhudananda Udgata, P.W.12 Hrudananda Nanda

P.W.14 Sankar Tripathy and P.W.18 Hareram Satpathy are

the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence.

P.W.3 Dr. Rajkumar Mukharjee who had conducted

postmortem examination on 30.11.1974 noticed the following

ante mortem injuries :-

(i) An abrasion on the right side of the face and

forehead measuring 5 ½” x 4 ½ extending from

the transversely extending from a point 1”

anterior to the right ear to a point medial angle of

the eyebrow;

(ii) An abrasion of the size of 2 ½” x ¼” on the

extensor aspect of the left arm situated vertically

extending from lateral epicondyle to above;

(iii) Multiple abrasions within 2” and 1/2” on the

extensor aspect of the left hand over the third,

fourth and fifth knuckle;

(iv) An abrasion of the size of 1/10” x 1/10” over the

second, fourth and fifth fingers from the extensor

aspect of left hand on the first interphalangeal

joints;

(v) An abrasion of the size of ½” x ½” on the middle

of the extensor aspect of the left arm 6” above the

olecranon;

(vi) An abrasion of the size of 1 1/2” x ½” on the left

patella;

(vii) An abrasion of the size of 2 ½” x 1” over the

 medial aspect of the left leg 6” above medial

malieolus;

(viii) An abrasion of the size of ½” x ½” on the posterior

aspect of the left lateral malleolus;

(ix) An abrasion of the size of ¼” x ¼” on the left leg

over the head of the fibula;

(x) An abrasion of the size of ½” x ¼” on the right

palm on the thenar eminence;

(xi) An abrasion of the size of ½” x 3/4” on the right

knee just above patella;

(xii) An abrasion of the size of 1” x ½” on the right side

of the back at the level of 10th thoracic spine 1”

lateral to the mid line.

7. That on dissection of the face and skull injury, P.W.3 found

that blood clots were present over the pericranium and the

frontal bone and both the parietal bones were fractured into

pieces with aceration of the meningeal and underlying brain

tissue. The injuries were all ante-mortem in nature and in the

opinion of the doctor, the death of the deceased was due to

compression and laceration of the brain as a result of fracture

of the skull.

It is submitted that the opinion evidence of the doctor is hardly

decisive and it is advisory in nature and not binding upon the

Court. The Court has to form its own opinion considering the

material data available on record. Moreover in his cross-

examination PW-3 has stated that the reasoning given by him

 that the head injury on the deceased could not have been

caused due to accidental dash of a jeep are not as medical

expert but as a common man. The doctor has admitted that

although the cause and nature of the injury are generally

stated in the P.M. report, he had omitted to mention the same

due to inadvertence, though clarified by him later on query.

8. That with respect to the jeep which has been alleged to be

used in the incident P.W.6, the M.V.I., Bolangir, in cross-

examination has stated that no mark of any damage, injury or

assault was externally visible in the jeep and that there was no

scratch or violence either. He has opined that the vehicle is

bound to leave some scratch or mark on it if the vehicle

running in speed hits any hard substance.

It is submitted that the registration number of the jeep was not

mentioned in the FIR. The Trial Court has observed that If

P.Ws 1,12 and 18 had really seen the number of the jeep at

the material time, it is expected, having regard to the facts and

circumstances and previous relationship between the parties,

that the registration number of the jeep would not have been

omitted from the F.I.R. The station diary entry on the basis of

the telephonic message also does not mention about the

registration number of the jeep. P.W.18 the informant has no

where in his evidence offered any explanation regarding the

non-mention of the number of the jeep in his F.I.R.

Also there is absence of any mark of violence in the jeep,

 particularly in its front side. If a jeep running at a fairly high

speed dashed against a speeding cyclist and the cycle was

severely damaged then the impact on the cycle must have

been quite heavy. The absence of any such mark on the

frontal portion of the jeep and the fact that no hair or flesh is

said to be sticking to the left rear wheel of the jeep militates

against the theory of dashing of this particular Jeep against

cycle and supports the contention that the jeep was not used

in the incident in question.

9. That the Trial Court thus held that the use of the jeep M.O.X in

the incident in question appears to be doubtful.

10. That the Trial Court further held that considering the evidence

of P.Ws.6, 9 and 19 about the features seen by them on the

spot and taking the documents Ext.8, 11, 5/6 and 5/9 into

consideration, the oral evidence regarding the manner in

which the incident took place, is rather unbelievable.

11. That P.W.1 has stated that the deceased rode on the cycle

and proceeded towards Bhagirathi Chhak from the P.P.

Academy Chhak in speed. The Congress jeep boarded by

some of the accused and driven by accused Premlal

proceeded towards Bhagirathi Chhak. After a little he heard

the sound of collision of the jeep and the cycle. He ran to the

spot when the collision had taken place, and found that after

collision the jeep sped towards Bhatirathi Chhak.

12. That P.W.12 has stated that at about 7.15 P.M. on the

material date he left his sister’s house at Rugudipada and was

house at Rugudi pada returning to this house at Tikarapada by

crossing Bhagirathi Chhak. After he had crossed the N.C.C.

Office, he saw the jeep coming from Tikrapada chhak towards

Bhagirahi chhak. He also saw the deceased coming in a cycle

in speed ahead of the said jeep. The jeep was following the

deceased in great speed. Then he saw the jeep dashing with

great force against the cycle on which the deceased was

riding, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the

ground. The jeep was in brake for a few second. 2 or 3

persons got down from the jeep and they were holding some

weapons resembling bedi. Within these few seconds these 2

or 3 person again boarded the jeep. The jeep was taken

backwards by reverse gear and then shot forward towards

Bhagirathi chhak side. He has further said that the left side

wheel of the jeep ran over the deceased who was lying on the

ground and then the jeep short forward.

13. That P.W.14 has stated that on the material date at 7.00 P.M.

as he reached the puja mandap, he saw the light of a jeep at

P.P. Academy chhak. He was riding on a cycle. At P.P.

Academy chhak he saw that the jeep was drawn backwards

by reverse gear and then it proceeded towards Bhatirathi

chhak in high speed. Then he saw that all on a sudden the

jeep was taken to the left hand side of the road, and he heard

a dashing sound. He got the impression that the jeep dashed

 against some stones stacked on the road side. The jeep was

drawn slightly backwards by the reverse gear, and again shot

forward, and he again heard a dashing sound. Then he came

to the spot and found the deceased and the cycle lying at the

spot.

14. That P.W.18 has stated that in the evening he was in this

book-stall. Finding the jeep in front of his shop on a few

occasions he became apprehensive about the impending

danger to the life of the deceased. He thereafter came to his

house, and not finding the deceased there, he came to

Tikarapada chhak with a view to go to Bhagirathi chhak in a

cycle. As he reached the P.P. Academy chhak he found the

congress jeep coming from the road and proceeding towards

Bhagirathi chhak. As he proceeded 20 to 30 cubits ahead of

P.P. Academy he saw the cyclist whom he could not identify

proceeding ahead of the jeep. The jeep came from behind and

dashed against the cyclist. The jeep halted for some time and

was drawn backwards by reverse gear. Then it was driven

forward and ran away. Then he went to the place and

identified the cyclist to be the deceased.

Thus three distinct theories have been set up by the

prosecution from the initiation of the prosecution till the trial

stage. In the initial stage when the F.I.R. was drawn up, it was

come of a single impact. In the subsequent complaint petition

it is clearly stated that the deceased was first knocked down

 by dashing of the jeep, and then done to death by severe

assaults by means of lethal weapons. At the trial stage it was

P.W.1 who initially spoke about the single impact, but the

subsequent witnesses P.Ws 12, 14 and 18, who have been

examined after the medical officer P.W.3, have all spoken

regarding the reverse gear theory.

15. That the Trial Court after considering the evidence of PW

1,12,14 and 18 held that “It would thus appear that three

distinct stories are available before the court regarding the

incident responsible for the death of the deceased. It is also

significant to note that the three stories are mutually

destructive of one another.” It was further held that “As a

matter of fact in a murder trial the evidence must be cogent,

reliable and in pointed as to what exactly the deceased died.

In such state of affairs the effect of putting forth different

stories by the prosecution cannot be lightly viewed.”

With regard to the identification of the accused by PW 12 and

18, the Trial Court observed “the inside of the jeep, as

common experience goes, ordinarily remains dark when it is

covered.” “In other words, it was not a jeep which was entirely

open, in which case the street light and moon light would have

fallen on the features of the persons or persons occupying the

jeep. The jeep was in a fairly good speed as stated by all the

four eye-witnesses.” In such speed, the jeep must have

passed by the side of P.W.12, in a split second while he was

standing by the road side. Except the solitary version of

P.W.12, there is no corroboration to his evidence that he was

standing by the side of the burning street light. Even if it is

accepted to be true, the version of P.W.12 about the

possibility to identification, even of known persons, in a

speeding vehicle is extremely difficult to be believed. Although

I do not propose to impute my own experience that in the

circumstances narrated above P.W.12 could not have possibly

identified any of the occupants of the jeep, except at best the

driver of the jeep, who would have been nearest to him

(P.W.12) while crossing of the jeep. Coming to the evidence of

P.W.14, it would be noticed that he has not identified nor

named any of the occupants of jeep. Coming to the evidence

of P.W.18 the informant, it would be noticed that he had also

not stated as to who were the occupants of the jeep at the

time of incident, or a little before or after the incident. His

evidence regarding identification relates to the time when he

was present in his book-stall, Apasara Book Agency between

6.30 P.M. and 7 P.M. According to him at that time the jeep in

question came from Samalei Mandir side and stopped in front

of his book-stall, when he found accused Premlal driving the

jeep and accused Tikaram, Prasanna Kumar and Artatran

Singh sitting on the front seat, and accused Dhobai, Jagyan

and Gunahidhi and 2 or 3 others sitting on the back seats.

Thereafter according to P.W.18, he went to his house in

search of the deceased and again came to Tikarapda chhak.

 According to him when the jeep a proceeded towards

Tikrapada chhak all the occupants of the jeep named above

were sitting in the jeep, but after that he has not specifically

said as to who were the occupants of the jeep. There cannot

be any surmise or conjecture that the same occupants were in

the jeep when actually the incident took place, may be some

10 or 15 minutes after.” “In the light of my foregoing

discussions, I would hold in conclusion that the evidence of

the P.Ws 1, 12 and 18 claiming to have identified some of the

accused persons a little before or just after the occurrence

does not inspire any confidence. I therefore entertain grave

doubts if these P.Ws would have really identified any of the

occupants of the jeep at the material time.”

16. That the Appellant Dhobai Podh has pleaded that he was only

a supporter of the congress party. He was supporting

accused Tikaram about the school construction in Sudhapada

area, to which belongs. For that reason the B.L.D. leader like

Sarbasri H.B. Swain and P.K. Bohidar and Durgacharan

Behera have falsely implicated him in this case. The P.Ws.

being the workers of B.L.D. party have at their instance falsely

deposed against him.

17. That the Trial Court vide judgment and order vide order dated

30.06.2008 held that :-

“40. In ultimate analysis, I would like to summarise my

 principal findings as under:

(i) The death of the deceased took place as a result

of hsad injury which might have been caused by

running over of a vehicle or by any other mode.

(ii) The previous hostile relationship between both

the political parties in general and between both

the parties in this in particular cannot be itself be

strong motive for the murder of the deceased.

(iii) The testimony of the four eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1,

12, 14 and 18 is unworthy of credit and does not

inspire any confidence.

(iv) The evidence and the circumstances on record

point out that the identification of the accused

persons in the jeep at the material time could not

have been possible.

(v) The jeep M.O.X. has not been proved to the hilt to

be the vehicle used for running over the

deceased.

(vi) The development of the prosecution story at three

different sages adversely affects the credibility of

the prosecution case.

(vii) Some of the circumstances and broad

probabilities as discussed, weigh in favour of the

accused persons.

(viii) The dialogue theory as spoken to by P.W.1 is

considered to be unworthy of any credit.

(ix) The police investigation cannot be said to be

wholly perfunctory, and at any rate no benefit

accrues to the prosecution thereby.

41. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the

facts, circumstances, and the evidence on record, the

interested and partisan nature of the testimony of the

witnesses examined by the prosecution and complete

absence of any corroborative evidence from

independent and untainted source, I would hold in

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish

the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable

doubts. The ingredients of the offences with which the

accused persons have been charges have not been

brought home to the accused persons beyond every

shadow of doubt. The accused persons are, therefore,

entitled to acquittal. In the result, all the accused

persons are found not guilty of the offences with which

they have been charged, and as such they are acquitted

and set at liberty.”

The trial Court thus acquitted all the nine accused

including the appellant herein of the charges under

sections 120-B, 147, 302/34 and 302/149 Indian Penal

Code so also the accused No.1 of the charge under

section 302 Indian Penal Code.

 Copy of order dated 30.6.1980 passed by The Sessions

Judge, Bolangir-Kalanhandi, Bolangir in S.C. No. 37-B

of 1976 S.C. No. 36-B of 1978 is annexed herewith as

Annexure P-1 (Page

18. That on 26.9.1980 the complainant respondents filed an

application under sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 378

Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal challenging the judgment

and order dated 30.06.1980 of the learned Sessions Judge,

Bolangir-Kalahandi, Bolangir passed in Sessions Case No.37-

B of 1976 and Sessions Case No.36-B of 1978 which was

registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.423 of 1980. The said

application was dismissed at the stage of admission on

12.01.1982against which the complainants preferred an

appeal by Special Leave before this Hon’ble Court which was

registered as Criminal Appeal No.711 of 1983. This Hon’ble

Court vide order dated 02.12.1983 granted leave under

Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. and directed the Court to hear the

appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with

law. After receipt of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court,

Criminal Misc Case No. 423 of 1980 vas reregistered as

Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1984.

19. That as accused No. 1-Premlal Suna, accused No.2-Jagyan

Puruseth, accused No.4-Gunanidhi Ghas @ Banchhor,

accused No.5-Prafulla Bhoi, accused No.6-Sugyan Sandh and

accused No.8-Tikaram Agrawalla had expired during the

 pendency of the appeal the Criminal Appeal stood abated as

against accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 6 and 8 in view of the

provisions under Section 394 (1)Cr.P.C.

20. That the Hon’ble High Court vide impugned order dated

4.5.2015 set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the

Trial Court and the appellant and two other accused were

found guilty of the offence under sections 302/149 IPC and

sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and in

default of payment of fine to serve additional imprisonment of

one year.

21. That the appellant has not filed any other similar petition either

before this Hon’ble Court or any other court against the

impugned order dated 4.5.2015.

GROUNDS

A. Because the view taken by the Trial Court was reasonable

and probable on the facts of the present case and the Hon’ble

High Court thus erred in setting aside the acquittal of the

appellant. The Hon’ble High Court while referring to the law

laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Basappa -v- State of

Karnataka reported in (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 497 and

Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC

415 proceeded to set aside the order of acquittal and convict

the appellant and two others while holding that Prosecution

has successfully brought home their guilt without any doubt

and learned trial Judge not only erred but also misread the
evidence and gave undue benefit to the respondents while

acquitting them. It is submitted that on an analysis of the

detailed judgment of the Trial Court it cannot be said that the

judgment of the trial Court is based on no material and it

suffers from any legal infirmity in the sense that there was

non-consideration or mis-appreciation of the evidence on

record.

In the case of Basappa -v- State of Karnataka reported (2014)

2 Supreme Court Cases (Cr1.) 497, it is held that the exercise

of the power under section 378 Cr.P.C by the court is to

prevent failure of justice or miscarriage of justice. There is

miscarriage of justice if an innocent person is convicted and if

the guilty let scot-free. If the judgment of the trial Court is

based on no material and it suffers from any legal infirmity in

the sense that there was non-consideration or mis-

appreciation of the evidence on record, only in such

circumstances, reversal of acquittal by the High Court would

be justified.

In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2013 Golbar Hussain and

Ors. Versus State of Assam and Anr. This Hon’ble Court while

considering the powers of appellate Court while dealing with

an appeal against an order of acquittal referred to the five

general principles in Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of

Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, wherein it was held as follows:

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the

following general principles regarding powers of

appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an

order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate

and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of

acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no

limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such

power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it

may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact

and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and

compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, very

strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions, glaring

mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive

power’s of an appellate court in an appeal against

acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of

‘flourishes of language’ to emphasize the reluctance of

an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to

curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence

and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in

case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour

 of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence

available to him under the fundamental principle of

criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be

presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a

competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having

secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence

is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the

trial Court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis

of the evidence on record, the appellate court should

not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial

court”.

In Kallu alias Masih and Ors. vs. State of M.P., (2006) 10

SCC 313, it was held that;

“While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of

the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised

while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of

appeals the power exists to review the entire evidence.

However, one significant difference is that an order of

acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court,

where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence

and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not

reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a

different view is possible. The appellate Court will also

bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in

 favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get

the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it

should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the

trial Court”.

B. Because from the evidence on record it is not proved beyond

doubt that appellant was present at the incident site or that he

shared the common object.

In Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana, (2014)5 SCC 753 this

Hon’ble Court held that

What is really required to be seen is that the member of the

unlawful assembly should have understood that the assembly

was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which

fall within the purview of Section 141 IPC. The core of the

offence is the word “object” which means the purpose or

design and in order to make it common, it should be shared by

all. Needless to say, the burden is on the prosecution. It is

required to establish whether the accused persons were

present and whether they shared the common object. It is also

an accepted principle that number and nature of injuries is a

relevant fact to deduce that the common object has developed

at the time of incident.

C. Because the Hon’ble High Court erred in not considering the

plea of the appellant. The Appellant Dhobai Podh has pleaded

that he was only a supporter of the congress party. He was

 supporting accused Tikaram about the school construction in

Sudhapada area, to which belongs. For that reason the

B.L.D. leader like Sarbasri H.B. Swain and P.K. Bohidar and

Durgacharan Behera have falsely implicated him in this case.

The P.Ws. being the workers of B.L.D. party have at their

instance falsely deposed against him.

D. Because it is submitted that the opinion evidence of the doctor

is hardly decisive and it is advisory in nature and not binding

upon the Court. The Court has to form its own opinion

considering the material data available on record. Moreover in

his cross-examination PW-3 has stated that the reasonings

given by him that the head injury on the deceased could not

have been caused due to accidental dash of a jeep are not as

medical expert but as a common man. The doctor has

admitted that although the cause and nature of the injury are

generally stated in the P.M. report, he had omitted to mention

the same due to inadvertence, though clarified by him later on

query.

E. Because with respect to the jeep which has been alleged to be

used in the incident P.W.6, the M.V.I., Bolangir, in cross-

examination has stated that no mark of any damage, injury or

assault was externally visible in the jeep and that there was no

scratch or violence either. He has opined that the vehicle is

bound to leave some scratch or mark on it if the vehicle

running in speed hits any hard substance.

F. It is submitted that the registration number of the jeep was not

mentioned in the FIR. The Trial Court has observed that If

P.Ws 1,12 and 18 had really seen the number of the jeep at

the material time, it is expected, having regard to the facts and

circumstances and previous relationship between the parties,

that the registration number of the jeep would not have been

omitted from the F.I.R. The station diary entry on the basis of

the telephonic message purported to have been

communicated by Shri H.B. Swain, Advocate, also does not

mention about the registration number of the jeep. P.W.18 the

informant has no where in his evidence offered any

explanation regarding the non-mention of the number of the

jeep in his F.I.R. The Trial Court thus held that “In the

circumstances two factual inferences can legitimately be

drawn. The first one is that P.Ws 1,12 and 18 did not actually

see the registration number of the jeep involved in the

incident. The second inference is that the jeep-M.O.X. was not

the jeep involved in the incident.”

Also there is absence of any mark of violence in the jeep,

particularly in its front side. If a jeep running at a fairly high

speed dashed against a speeding cyclist and the cycle was

severely damaged then the impact on the cycle must have

been quite heavy. There was mark of white colour on the back

side carrier and mudguard of the cycle which would certainly

refer to the colour of the jeep dashing against the cycle from
 behind. However no marks of damage, injury scratch or

violence were found externally on the jeep. The absence of

any such mark on the frontal portion of the jeep and the fact

that no hair or flesh is said to be sticking to the left rear wheel

of the jeep militates against the theory of dashing of this

particular Jeep against cycle and supports the contention that

the jeep was not used in the incident in question.

G. Because The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence

correctly held that considering the evidence of P.Ws.6, 9 and

19 about the features seen by them on the spot and taking the

documents Ext.8, 11, 5/6 and 5/9 into consideration, the oral

evidence regarding the manner in which the incident took

place, is rather unbelievable.

H. Because three distinct theories have been set up by the

prosecution from the initiation of the prosecution till the trial

stage. In the initial stage when the F.I.R. was drawn up, it was

come of a single impact. In the subsequent complaint petition

it is clearly stated that the deceased was first knocked down

by dashing of the jeep, and then done to death by severe

assaults by means of lethal weapons. At the trial stage it was

P.W.1 who initially spoke about the single impact, but the

subsequent witnesses P.Ws 12, 14 and 18, who have been

examined after the medical officer P.W.3, have all spoken

regarding the reverse gear theory. Thus the evidence is not

cogent and reliable and as such the testimony of these

witnesses did not inspire any confidence

I. Because in the night in question which was a night of lunar

eclipse identification was not possible with the existing street

light that was available, having regards to other

circumstances, such as, speeding vehicle and parking of

vehicle in the dark and seeing the jeep from the front when the

head light would be directly falling on the face.

The learned trial Court while discussing on the question of

identification of the accused persons inside the Jeep, has held

that though there were three electric light poles on the road,

there was bar light in one pole, electric bulb in another and the

third pole was without any bar light or bulb. The learned trial

Court further held that since there was lunar eclipse on the

date of occurrence, it would be very difficult for the passer-by

to identify the persons sitting in the speeding vehicle.

Thus the Hon’ble High Court erred in observing that “ it cannot

be said that there would have been any difficulty on the part of

the witnesses to identify the occupants of the open jeep.”

J. Because the evidence of P.W.12 indicates that the jeep was

coming from his front side with one head light burning, and it

is, therefore, quite natural that the light must be directly falling

on his face. As observed by the Trial Court “the inside of the

jeep, as common experience goes, ordinarily remains dark

when it is covered. The photographs under Ext.5/2 and 5/3

clearly go to show that the jeep was a covered jeep having

side and back purdahs and the top hood. In other words, it

was not a jeep which was entirely open, in which case the

street light and moon light would have fallen on the features of

the persons or persons occupying the jeep. The jeep was in a

fairly good speed as stated by all the four eye-witnesses. In

such speed, the jeep must have passed by the side of P.W.12,

in a split second while he was standing by the road side.

Except the solitary version of P.W.12, there is no

corroboration to his evidence that he was standing by the side

of the burning street light. Even if it is accepted to be true, the

version of P.W.12 about the possibility to identification, even

of known persons, in a speeding vehicle is extremely difficult

to be believed. Although I do not propose to impute my own

experience that in the circumstances narrated above P.W.12

could not have possibly identified any of the occupants of the

jeep, except at best the driver of the jeep, who would have

been nearest to him (P.W.12) while crossing of the jeep.

Coming to the evidence of P.W.14, it would be noticed that he

has not identified nor named any of the occupants of jeep.

Coming to the evidence of P.W.18 the informant, it would be

noticed that he had also not stated as to who were the

occupants of the jeep at the time of incident, or a little before

or after the incident. His evidence regarding identification

relates to the time when he was present in his book-stall,

Apasara Book Agency between 6.30 P.M. and 7 P.M.

According to him at that time the jeep inquestion came from

 Samalei Mandir side and stopped infront of his book-stall,

when he found accused Premlal driving the jeep and accused

Tikaram, Prasanna Kumar and Artatran Singh sitting on the

front seat, and accused Dhobai, Jagyan and Gunahidhi and 2

or 3 others sitting on the back seats. Thereafter according to

P.W.18, he went to his house in search of the deceased and

again came to Tikarapda chhak. According to him when the

jeep a proceeded towards Tikrapada chhak all the occupants

of the jeep named above were sitting in the jeep, but after that

he has not specifically said as to who were the occupants of

the jeep. There cannot be any surmise or conjecture that the

same occupants were in the jeep when actually the incident

took place, may be some 10 or 15 minutes after. The learned

P.P. has urged that in view of the provision of Sec.114(d) of

the Evidence Act it will be presumed that even at the time of

incident the same persons who were in the jeep and continued

to remain in the same jeep. I am afraid, I am unable to accept

this contention, as Sec.114(d) of the Evidence Act which

postulates presumption of continuity cannot be said to apply to

such a contingency.” Thus it would not have been possible for

PW 12 and PW 18 to see the appellant and they could not

have positively identified and deposed about the presence of

the appellant in the jeep at the time of the incident. The

impugned order therefore is liable to be set aside

K. Because merely because the deceased and accused

 belonged to different political parties it is wrong to infer that

the accused persons committed the murder of the deceased

due to political hostility.

L. Because as held by the Trial Court P.W.12 has made

substantial departures on material points from his previous

statements before the Police and the magistrate and has tried

to depose to a number of new facts to suit the prosecution

case. This itself is a ground to discard his testimony as

unworthy of credit and unreliable as enjoined in A.I.R. 1977

S.C. 381 and in several other authorities.

With respect to PW 14 the Trial Court has held that “The

credibility of this witness is also open to grave doubt, as he

has deposed to certain vital facts at the trial, though omitted

by him to state in his earlier statement before the I.O. Before

the I.O. in his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C., he has not stated

that the vehicle was started and taken back-wards by reverse

gear and then it was driven forward. He also did not state that

he heard a dashing sound for the second time. He had also

not stated that all on a sudden the jeep turned to the left of the

road. Although he had stated in his evidence that as he

reached the Pujamandapa, the light of the Pujamandap was

burning, and that the lights on the light-posts along the road

up to Bhagirathi chhak were also burning, that all of them were

bar lights, that at the Pujamandapa 2 or 3 such bar lights were

burning and that near the place where the injured was lying a

street light was burning, he did not state these facts before the
I.O. As to the burning of the light near the place of the lying of

the deceased, as discussed earlier, it is already found that no

light was actually burning although a post was there.

Regarding the burning of light he had stated before the I.O.

that since there was no light in the chhak, he could not say the

colour or number of the jeep or how many persons had

boarded the jeep. He had also stated that the light of the jeep

fell on him. He has however, denied to have made these

statements before the I.O. at the trial. But the I.O. has proved

these statements under Exts. V and V/1. About the failure of

the electricity in the palace line where he was residing the

witness also does not appear to be speaking the truth.

According to him there was no failure of electricity by the time

he reached home, that is, about 8.00 P.M. but according to the

I.O. P.W.20 there was interruption of electricity in the palace

line which is supplied by Feeder No.1 between 5.45 P.M. and

9.20 P.M. from the foregoing discussions it would appear that

the witness P.W.14 was trying to suppress certain facts and

he had also attempted to embellish and improve upon the

prosecution story. It is also urged that this witness was trying

to do so as he was under obligation to Police as one enquiry

regarding the death of his son was then pending with the

police. This fact finds support from his statement in the sub-

para-2 of para-5. Learned Defence counsel has also

commented on the unusual conduct of this witness, relying on

a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C.

1554. After seeing the incident this witness ran away from the

place without waiting to see what had happened or without

disposing the fact to any one or to any public authority,

although he was not chased or threatened by any of the

miscreants. Such a conduct was deprecated and considered

to be abnormal by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the

aforesaid decision. In the light of the foregoing decision, I

would hold that the credibility of this witness was at the lowest

ebb and as such it should be discounted.”

With respect to the evidence of PW18 the Trial Court has held

that “The net result is, the witness had therefore, not seen as

to which jeep or who of the persons were involved in the

incident. Moreover the version of this witness with regard to

the actual incident suffers from serious infirmities. He had not

given the number of the jeep in the F.I.R. Ext.12/2 although he

had himself lodged the F.I.R. at the spot after meeting P.Ws 1

and 12 and after lapse of some time after the incident. Insuch

circumstance, it cannot be said that by the time of loding of the

F.I.R. he was not aware of the number of the jeep. The

omission in such circumstance is very much significant. The

only inference that can be drawn from such omission is that

the informant did not know at the time of the loding of the

F.I.R. as to which jeep was involved in the incident. Another

fact which deserves consideration is that according to this

witness he was present when the complaint petition Ext.P was

prepared. As already discussed earlier, the facts alleged in the

complaint petition that the deceased was done to death by

assault by means of lethal weapons is in direct contraction of

the facts stated by the P.Ws at the trial. Although according to

the learned P.P. the complt petition Ext.P is not to be looked

into for appreciating the merits of this case, yet considering

the circumstance in which the complaint petition –Ext.P was

filed into court, I am unable to accept his contention. P.W.18

has deposed that the complt. Petition was filed as foul play

was suspected in the police investigation, that he told

regarding the occurrence to the complainant –Sitaram

Satpathy his brother, and that he was present when the

complt. Petition ws filed in court by Sitaram, and that the facts

alleged in the complaint petition were true. In such state of

affairs, the complaint petition in my opinion, has directed

bearing on the merits of the present case. Though it has also

based on the police case. That apart it would also appear in

pargraphs -11, 12 and 20 of his evidence that this witness

P.W.18 has omitted to state several vital facts before the I.O.

in his earlier statement and he had also made a number of

constructions. In para-II he had stated that he had not stated

the number of the jeep in which the accused persons named

by him in his written report were sitting. He also admits not to

have stated before the I.O. the number of the Congress jeep

when he related to him about his seeing the jeep halting in

front of his book shop and in which the accused person

named in his chief examination were sitting. It is pertinent to

mention at this state that in his chief examination he has

stated that between 5.00 and 7.00 P.M. the accused persons

in the Congress jeep moved in front of his Book-shop and

house thrice and he had further stated that in the front seat of

the jeep were sitting accused Artatrana, Prasanna and

Tikaram and on the back seat were sitting accused Dhobai

Podh, Jagyan Puruseth, Guna Ghashi and 2 and 3 others. In

para-12 it would appear from his evidence that he dit not state

before the I.O. or in his statement Ext.Q recorded U/s 202 Cr.

P.C. in the complaint case that the jeep came in reverse gear

from the road leading to the Cinema hall. He had also not

stated before the I.O. or in the F.I.R. (Ext. 12/2) that after the

jeep dashed the cyclist, it halted for some time, drawn back-

wards by reverse gear, and then driven forward and ran away.

He had also not stated the above fact in Ext.Q, although

asserted by him at the trial. He did not state before the I.O. or

in Ext.Q or in Ext.12/2 that Purdahs were not there in the

Congress jeep on either side, as well as on the back side.

Apart from what is discussed above, there is a lot of omissions

and contradictions in the statements of P.W.18, on various

aspects of the case.”

“A plain reading of the F.I.R. and the chronology of the event

narrated by P.W.18 read as a whole would go to show that

there is deviation in his version before the court and it also

 appears as though P.W.18 has not seen the actual incident. In

the light of my fore-going discussions regarding the evidence

of P.W.18, I am inclined to hold that he is not a witness who

can be implicitly believed.”

It is submitted that under the circumstances, the

uncorroborated testimony of eyewitnesses by some

independent eye witness could not be accepted to warrant the

conviction of the accused persons.

As held by the Trial Court “The I.Os P.W.20 and 22 have said

that they have examined fairly a large number of witnesses in

these areas. The non-examination of any of the independent

witnesses of these areas would entitled me to draw the

legitimate interference, that had they been examined, they

would not have supported the versions given by the four eye-

witnesses examined in this case. It would further be noticed

that one does not get a clear picture from any of the eye-

witnesses as to how the deceased actually received the

injuries on his person and dies as a result of the injuries. None

of the witnesses appear to have seen the actual running over

of the jeep although they claim to have seen it”

M. Because the route of the deceased was well known to the

accused persons. And therefore the evidence led by the

prosecution that the accused persons nine in number and

some others riding a jeep were parading and ransacking the

 area in search of the deceased appears to be highly

improbable.

N. Because the trial Court rightly discarded the evidence of PW1

as his conduct was not natural. He had not accompanied the

deceased to his place of destination and left him alone in a

cycle and also did not go to police to report about the incident

PRAYER

In the circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Admit and allow the Appeal and set aside Impugned

Judgement and final order dated 4.5.2015 passed by the High

Court of Orissa, Cuttack in CRLA No. 22 of 1984

b) Pass any other or further orders as may be deemed fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THE ABOVE ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPELLANTS AS

IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

FILED BY

Mr. MUKUL KUMAR

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT

Drawn on :
Filed on:
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ________ OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dhobai Podh …Appellant

VERSUS

State of Orissa & Ors. … Respondent

CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Criminal Appeal is confined only to the pleadings

before the court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and the other

documents relied upon in those proceedings. It is further certified

that the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the Criminal

Appeal are necessary to answer the questions of law raised in the

petition or to make out grounds urged in the Criminal Appeal for

consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This Certificate is given on the

basis of the instructions given by the Appellant/ person authorized

by the Appellant whose Affidavit is filed in support of the S.L.Ps.

FILED BY

Mr. MUKUL KUMAR

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT

Filed on:
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ________ OF 2015

(Against the final impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2015
passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in CRLA No. 22 of
1984.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dhobai Podh …Appellant

VERSUS

State of Orissa & Ors. … Respondent

WITH

CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2015

APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE

CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2015

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2015

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED
COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER

PAPER BOOK

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT: MR. MUKUL KUMAR

 INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Office Report on Limitation A

2. Listing Performa A1

3. Synopsis and List of Dates B–U

4. Impugned judgment and order dated 1 - 74

4.5.2015 passed by the High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack in CRLA No.22/1984.

5. Criminal Appeal with affidavit. 75 - 113

6. Appendix: 114 - 115

Copy of Section 378 Cr.P.C.

7. Annexure P-1: 116 - 209

Copy of order dated 30.6.1980 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Bolangir-Kalahandi
Bolangir in Sessions Case No.37-B of 1976.

8. Application for suspension of sentence. 210 – 211

9. Annexure P-2: 212 - 213

Copy of Medical Report dated 12.10.15
of the appellant alongwith typed copy.

9. Application for condonation of delay. 214 - 215

10. Application for exemption from filing 216 - 217

Certified Copy of impugned order.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2015

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :

Dhobai Podh …Appellant

Versus

State of Orissa & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the appellant has filed the accompanying criminal appeal

against the final impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2015

passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in CRLA No. 22 of

1984.

2. That the appellant is 70 years old and suffering from a number

of age related ailments. As per the medical examination report of

the appellant, he has a poor body built. There is gross hearing loss

and his vision is also poor. Copy of medical report dated 12.10.2015

is annexure here as Annexure P-2 (Pages

3. That the incident is of 29.11.1974 and since then more than

40 years have passed. The appellant has been on bail since

6.2.1985 and has not misused his liberty.

4. That co-accused namely Artatrana Singh Deo and Prasanna

Kumar Pal has already been granted benefit of bail by this Hon’ble

Court vide order dated

4. That it is respectfully stated that the appellant has been

sentence to undergo life imprisonment. However the appellant has

been facing agony and suffering of protracted trial for the last 40

years. It is submitted that the present case would take time for its

disposal, before this Hon’ble Court it would be in the interest of

justice that the sentence of the appellant be suspended during the

pendency of the present appeal.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to:

a) suspend the sentence of the appellant till final disposal of the

present Criminal Appeal;

b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

Filed on: Filed by :

(MUKUL KUMAR)
Advocate for the Appellant
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2015

IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :
Dhobai Podh …Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa & Ors. …Respondents

An Application for Condonation of delay in filing SLP.

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. That the appellant has filed the accompanying criminal appeal

against the final impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2015

passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in CRLA No. 22 of

1984.

2. That the facts stated, ground taken and legal submissions

made in the accompanying appeal may be read as the part of the

present appeal as those are not reproduced in order to avoid

repetition.

3. That after passing of the impugned order the appellant was

advised to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of Criminal Appeal.

4. That thereafter the pairokar of the appellant took some time in

arranging the relevant papers, for the purpose of filing appeal and

mobilizing the funds and met the undersigned with the record of the

case, thereafter the appeal was drafted and after typing of the

relevant annexures the appeal has been filed without taking any

further time.

5. That the delay in filing appeal thus had occurred due to such

unavoidable reasons. The delay in filing appeal is not intentional

and beyond the control of the petitioner. The delay thus caused is

for bonafide reasons.

6. That on the facts and circumstances stated above it is

therefore most respectfully stated that would be in the interest of

justice that delay in filing appeal be condoned.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to :

a) condone the delay of days in filing the present appeal

against the final impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2015

passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in CRLA No. 22

of 1984;

b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

Filed on : Filed by :

(MUKUL KUMAR)
Advocate for the Petitioner
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2015

IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :
Dhobai Podh …Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa & Ors. …Respondents

An Application for exemption from filing Certified Copy of impugned

order

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. That the appellant has filed the accompanying criminal appeal

against the final impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2015

passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in CRLA No. 22 of

1984.

2. That the pairokar of the appellant has applied for the certified

copy of the impugned order dated 4.5.2015 in the registry of the

Hon’ble High Court but the same not made ready till date. The

matter is being urgent, therefore the Appellant is filing the present

appeal with the ordinary copy of the impugned order.

3. That it is in the interest of justice that the appellant be

exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to :

a) exempt the appellant from filing certified copy of the impugned

order dated 4.5.2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa,

Cuttack in CRLA No. 22 of 1984;

b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

Filed on : Filed by :

(MUKUL KUMAR)
Advocate for the Appellant
 MEDICAL EXAM OF DHOBAI PODH

70 Yr.
Male
Convict

 Poor body built

 Bilateral gross hearing loss present

 Ear- (Rt) Tm perforated

 Vitiligs present

 Can able to take care of himself

 Orierta of T/B/P- normal

Sd/-
Mail Medical Officer
District jail, Balangir
12.10.15

TRUE COPY
 SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES

That the Petitioner is the long term mining lease holder with respect

to Dankari Stone Quarry, the lease having been legally granted by the

State of Orissa.

That for the purpose of operating the said mine, the Petitioner was

also granted Consent Order from the State Pollution Control Board

on 26.11.2012 and thereafter Agreement was executed by the

appropriate authority with the Petitioner on 5.12.2012. The same was

in terms of the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court of Orissa in W. P. ( C ) No. 10886 & 9876 of 2012. In the

interregnum, by way of abundant caution, the petitioner has also

applied for Mining Plan, which is essential for grant of Environmental

Clearance, before the appropriate authority in 2013. The application

by the petitioner was complete in all respects and the petitioner has

also paid the requisite fees of Rs. 1 Lakh.

Thereafter State Pollution Control Board further granted the

enhanced Consent Order in favour of the present petitioner vide letter

dated 17.1.2013, thereby increasing the production quantity to

1,20,200 M.T. per month in the mining leased area of the petitioner.

Petitioner has also been from time to time obtaining Environmental

Monitoring Reports and as per the Reports, the petitioner is strictly

complying with all the environmental requirement including

maintaining Air Quality and noise pollution and water pollution within

permissible limits. Petitioner, on his own initiative, in 2015 appointed

an Agency for preparation of Air Pollution Monitoring Report and

Water Pollution Monitoring Report. As per both the reports, the

petitioner is fully complying with the environmental requirements and

the air and water emissions are well within the permissible

environmental standards.

That it may be mentioned here that on 27.11.2015, Tahasildar had

issued a letter to the petitioner to stop the mining / quarry activities in

the Black Stone quarry forthwith. In pursuance thereto, the Petitioner

immediately stopped mining activities with relation to his Dankari

Stone Quarry, awaiting the requisite environmental clearances.

It is very much pertinent to mention here that thereafter the Joint

Director of Mines, Directorate of Mines, Odisha vide his letter dated

18.01.2016 has granted approval of the Mining Plan of the present

Petitioner with respect to his Dankari Granite Black Stone Quarry.

Subsequently, the Tahasildar, Dharmasala has, in his letter dated

22.01.2016 addressed to the State Environment Impact Assessment

Authority, Odisha (SEIAA), resubmitted the proposal for Dankari Black

Stone Quarry along with the duly approved Mining Plan and requisite

fees, for necessary environmental clearances.

That the Respondent No. 1- Applicant in the Original Application

before the Hon’ble NGT has been constantly moving against the

present Petitioner in different Forums including before the Hon’ble

High Court of Orissa, wherein, he had filed W.P.(C). No. 18589 of

2017 as a Public Interest Litigation seeking a relief of closure of the

mines at Dankari Hills whereas, the present Petitioner carries on

mining operations by exercising his legal rights under the mining

lease(s) granted by the State Government as per law. The Hon’ble

High Court of Orissa while finally disposing of the aforesaid Writ

Petition vide order dated 18.06.2018 was pleased to hold that the

mining activities in the area cannot be prohibited, if the Government

auctions the mining areas as per law. The relevant portion of the order

dated 18.06.2018 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

“4. Since the petitioner has not placed on record any

document to show that the Government Department / Revenue

Department has prohibited carrying on mining activities in the

said area, thus, in our view, under the garb of stopping illegal

mining, we cannot restrain the opposite parties from auctioning

the area where mining can be permitted as per law.”

That it further pointed out that the Respondent No. 1 had earlier filed

a Writ Petition bearing No. 23197 of 2015, wherein he had also made

similar claims, but had withdrawn the same. The order dated

03.05.2017, is quoted herein below for ready reference:

“Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed

a Memo praying for withdrawal of the writ petition with

liberty to file a better writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn

with liberty as prayed for. Memo be kept on record.”

Thus, having failed to obtain any order from the Hon’ble high Court,

the Respondent No. 1, approached the Learned NGT by way of OA

No. 604/2018.

That it further humbly submitted here that, there are many other

operators carrying on mining activities in and around the Dankari hill

region, however, the Respondent No. 1 is selectively targeting the

mining operations carried on by the present Petitioner by moving

several frivolous litigations against him in different Forums by

resorting to “Forum Shopping”.

That the Learned NGT was not apprised of the aforesaid factual

matrix and the Respondent No. 1 concealed material facts with a view

to prejudice the case of the Petitioner. The Learned NGT disposed of

the matter vide impugned order dated 31.8.2018 thereby constituting

the Inspection Team / Committee with further liberty granted to the

Original Applicant therein to submit “complete set of papers” to the

said Committee for compliance to the Order. However, no notice was

at all issued to the present Petitioner before the final Order disposing

of the same was passed and therefore the correct factual position

could not be brought on record before the Learned NGT.

The present Petitioner, even though being directly affected by the

Order dated 31.08.2018, was never noticed nor was he given the

opportunity to himself represent before the Learned Tribunal. The

directions of the Learned Tribunal directing formation of a Committee

and in addition permitting the Original Applicant to submit the

complete set of papers to the Joint Inspection Team / Committee for

compliance of the Order dated 31.08.2018 causes grave prejudice to

the present Petitioner.

Section 19 of the Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is as under:-

“19. Procedure and powers of Tribunal. –

1. The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the
principles of natural justice.
2. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Tribunal shall have
power to regulate its own procedure.
3. The Tribunal shall also not be bound by the rules of evidence
contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. The Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its
functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a
civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying
a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
a. summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person
and examining him on oath;
b. requiring the discovery and production of documents;
c. receiving evidence on affidavits;
d. subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requisitioning any public record
or document or copy of such record or document from any
office;
e. issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or
documents;
f. reviewing its decision;
g. dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte;
h. setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for
default or any order passed by it ex parte;
i. pass an interim order (including granting an injunction or
stay) after providing the parties concerned an opportunity to
be heard, on any application made or appeal filed under this
Act;
j. pass an order requiring any person to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violation of any enactment
specified in Schedule I;
 k. any other matter which may be prescribed.
5. All proceedings before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the
judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193, 219
and 228 for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal
Code and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for
the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.”

LIST OF DATES

That the present Petitioner had taken the quarry lease for

an area of Ac.41.50 decimals out of an area of Ac.773.60

decimals, pertaining to Plot No. 600, under Khata No. 221

of Village – Dankari in Abad AjogyaAnabadi status with

Kissam – Pahad.

13.6.2002 That as per the Government Order No. 17428 / R dated

10.4.1997, the source was put to annual auction vide

dated 13.6.2002 after observing all formalities; but the

said auction failed due to non- participation of bidders.

That even after 3 attempts when auction failed on

account of lack of bidders, the Tahasildar was directed by

the Sub Collector to take further action in the matter.

Accordingly the Tahasildar directed the R.I. to take steps

for the settlement of lease either on negotiation basis or

on long term basis and to contact the willing persons in

the locality and offer them to settle the said source. The

R.I. accordingly submitted his report, wherein he reported

that no one is willing to take the Sairat source on

negotiation basis. The R.I. also reported that the

 petitioner was willing to take the source on the long term

lease basis. Accordingly the Tahasildar recommended

for settlement of the source with the petitioner on lease

basis.

26.10.2002 That accordingly the Tahasildar on 26.10.2002

recommended to the Sub Collector for settlement of the

lease of the source in favour of Petitioner on a long term

basis for 3 years.

1.11.2002 That on 1.11.2002 the Sub Collector granted the lease for

a period of 3 years on a long term basis.

8.10.2002 That accordingly after complying with all the formalities

and other documents as envisaged under the then Rule-

5 of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990,

hereinafter, for short, to be referred to as the “1990

Rules”. The general notice was issued on 8.10.2002

inviting applications from the intending persons in this

regard. But no other application was received pursuant to

the said notice. Therefore, the Petitioner having applied

under Category – III of Sub – Rule – 6 of Rule – 6 of the

said 1990 Rules; hence as was permissible the Petitioner

was granted a long term lease as per the extant Rules

prevailing at that point of time. Therefore, the lease was

granted to him for a period of 3 years effective from the

date of sanction. The said quarry lease was sanctioned

 to the petitioner for a period of 3 years. The Lease

document specified that the term of lease was from

1.11.2002 to 31.10.2005.

2004 That, in the year 2004 the Orissa Minor Minerals

Concession Rules, 1990 were repealed and replaced

with a new set of rules known as Orissa Minor Minerals

Concession Rules, 2004, hereinafter, (for short, to be

referred to as the “2004 Rules”). The said rules also

provided for the settlement of Minor Mineral sources

through 3 modes: (1) Lease; (2) Permits and (3) Auction.

That subsequently, the lease in favour of the petitioner

fell for renewal and the same was renewed for a period

of 3 years i.e. from 1.11.2005 to 31.10.2008. That

subsequently, the lease fell due for renewal on

31.10.2008 and upon proper application the lease was

renewed for period of 3 years i.e. from 1.11.2008 to

31.10.2011.

4.7.2011 That the term of the Long Term Lease expired on 24th

October, 2011 and accordingly application was made on

4th on July, 2011 for renewal of the said lease under

Rule-26 of the 2004 Rules along with all accompanying

documents.
15.7.2011 That vide Order, dated 15.07.2011, the Tahasildar,

Dharmashala rejected the application for renewal of

lease.

That as transpired from the Order of the Tahasildar, the

only reason cited by the said Tahasildar for rejecting the

Renewal Application was the bar imposed by the Circular

No. 1470 dated 6.9.2008 issued by the Board of

Revenue, Cuttack.

That the said order of the Tahasildar including the

circular of the Member, Board of Revenue and vires of

Rules – 35 and 36 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 were

challenged on very many grounds in W. P. ( C ) No.

20799 of 2011.

28.3.2012 That the Hon’ble High Court after hearing the said matter

along with a batch of several other cases; passed the

Judgment, dated 28.3.2012 in W. P. ( C ) No. 5754 of

2011 , applicable to all the said cases. In the said

judgment, the Hon’ble High Court took note of the recent

judgment of this Hon’ble Court passed in the case of

Deepak Kumar- versus – State of Haryana and others in

I. A. Nos. 12 – 13 of 2011 , arising out of SLP ( C )

Nos.19628 – 19629 of 2009, held as follows :

“32. Therefore, the application of the petitioner, who is

already lessee may be considered by putting the sairat

 source to public auction. It is open for any category of

applicant referred to in Rule 27 including the petitioner to

participate in public auction of minor mineral and in case

the petitioner is not found to be the highest bidder, but

agrees to match with the price at which the bid is

knocked, preference shall be given to him even though

he is not the highest bidder. We make this observation

keeping in view the provision of Rules 27, 35 and 36 of

the OMMC Rules, 2004 vis – a – vis interest of the State

which really means the larger interest of the people of the

State. If the sairat is settled in favour of the petitioner,

then the same may be renewed at least for a period of

five years in terms of the observation made by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order in the case of Deepak

Kumar etc. ( supra ) subject to payment of consideration

money in each succeeding year which shall be fixed by

increasing 15% of the consideration money of the

immediate preceeding year.

33. With the above observations and directions, the

writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.”

3.10.2012 That thereafter, the Tahasildar, Dharmasala published

the Auction Notice, dt.08.2.12 & dt.12.6.12 thereby

violating the spirit of the judgment dated 28.3.2012

passed in W.P. (C) No. 20799 of 2011, for which,

challenging such illegal action of the said Tahasildar, the

present petitioner filed W. P. (C) No. 10886 of 2012. In

the interregnum, another writ petition had been filed by

one Sri Niranjan Behera bearing W. P. (C) No. 9876 of

2012, which has been withdrawn, but the intervention

petition in the said writ petition has been filed. The

Hon’ble High Court vide a common order, dated

3.10.2012 has been pleased to observe the interest of the

intervening petitioner as follows :

“The only interest of the intervening petitioners is to see

that environment and ecology shall be maintained in the

area in question by obtaining necessary consent from

the Pollution Control Board.”

The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 03.10.2012,

was pleased to pass the order, thereby directing the

petitioner to move the Pollution Control Board for

Consent Order. The relevant portion of the said order is

quoted herein below for ready reference of this Hon’ble

Court :

“ ............... the petitioners herein are also directed to

move the Pollution Control Board to get the consent order

as per the observation made at paragraph - 32 of the

judgment in WPC No. 20799 of 2011 referred to supra on

the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Deepak Kumar etc. Supra. The Pollution Control

 Board shall decide the matter within a period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of application filed by the

petitioners. While issuing the consent orders, the

Pollution Control Board shall see that environment and

ecology shall be maintained in the area in question.

Further , we direct that competent authority should

proceed with the matter and finalize the bid in respect of

stone sairat source which has already been leased out

upon the highest bid that would be offered by giving

certain benefits pursuant to the order of the Supreme

Court in the case of Deepak Kumar etc. Supra.”

9.10.2012 That on obtaining the said order, dated 03.10.2012, the

present petitioner communicated the copy of the same to

the Tahasildar, Dharmasala and also to the State

Pollution Control Board on 9.10.2012.

That it is important at this juncture to mention here that

the Tahasildar, Dharmasala published the Auction Sale

Notice in the Oriya local daily “Sambad ” on 13.10. 2012

and also served a notice to the present petitioner to that

effect.

That the present petitioner thereafter participated along

with other bidders and the present petitioner was also

declared as the highest bidder as per the order of the

Hon’ble High Court and the sairat source was settled in

 favour of the present petitioner. To that effect, the

Tahasildar, Dharmasala intimated to the present

petitioner to obtain the Consent Order from the State

Pollution Control Board as per the order passed in W.P.

(C) No. 10886 of 2012 and WP (C) No.9876 of 2012 vide

his letter, dated 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012.

1.11.2012 That in the mean while, the State Pollution Control Board

in reply to the letter dated 9.10.2012 of the present

petitioner, directed the present petitioner vide letter

dated 01.11.2012 to apply for the Consent Order with

requisite fees and document in the prescribed format.

26.11.2012 That for obtaining the Consent Order, the present

petitioner moved the application in the prescribed format

along with applications fee of Rs.250 / - and the Consent

Fee of Rs. 14,000/- in the shape of Bank Draft before

the State Pollution Control Board. On the said

application, the State Pollution Control Board examined

all the angles and granted the Consent Order vide letter

No. 3517/ SQ – 02, dated 26.11.2012 for production of

5000 MT per month in the mining leased area of the

present petitioner.

3.12.2012 That the petitioner submitted the said Consent Order

before the Tahasildar, Dharmasala as per the letter

dated 26.10.2012 of the said Tahasildar. On scrutinizing

 the same, the Tahasildar, Dharmasala intimated the

present petitioner for execution of the agreement, vide

letter No. 5589, dated 3.12.2012.

5.12.2012 That as per the said letter dated 3.12.2012, the Sub –

Collector, Jajpur executed the Agreement with the

present petitioner on 5.12.2012, for a period of 5 years

subject to renewal every year, thereby fixing increase of

15% consideration money along with the terms and

conditions mentioned therein.

That in the interregnum, by way of abundant caution, the

petitioner has also applied for Mining Plan, which is

essential for grant of Environmental Clearance, before

the appropriate authority in 2013. The application by the

petitioner was complete in all respects and the petitioner

has also paid the requisite fees of Rs. 1 Lakh and also

further the processing fees.

5.1.2013 That the present petitioner further submitted an

application on 5.1.2013 along with applications fee of

Rs.250 / - and the Consent Fee of Rs. 20,000/- in the

shape of Bank Draft before the State Pollution Control

Board, Odisha.

17.1.2013 The State Pollution Control Board after considering the

said application, further granted the enhanced Consent

Order in favour of the present petitioner vide letter No.

172, dated 17.1.2013, thereby increasing the production

quantity to 1,20,200 M.T. per month in the mining leased

area of the petitioner.

That it is important to mention here that the present

petitioner has been operating the said quarry from the

year 2002 and there has been renewal of the said quarry

from time to time. In the year 2011, when the renewal of

the said quarry was refused by the Tahasildar, the

present petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court

vide W.P. (C) No. 20799 of 2011 and as per the order

dated 28.3.2012 and the subsequent orders passed in

WPC No. 10886 of 2012, the lease of the said quarry was

granted in favour of the present petitioner and the present

petitioner also obtained the Consent Order from the

State Pollution Control Board from time to time since

from the year 2002 to 2011 and thereafter, lastly on

17.1.2013 and the present petitioner from time to time

examined the environmental aspects by the appropriate

agency and has obtained the Environmental Monitoring

Reports , the last being dated 04.1.2014. As per the

Environmental Monitoring Reports, the petitioner is

strictly complying all the environmental requirement

including strictly maintain the Air Quality and noise

pollution and water pollution within permissible units.

 That the Minor Minerals Concession Rule was amended

in December, 2014 and the said Rule came into force

from 16.9.2014. The said Rule provided that the

onus/responsibility of obtaining the Mining Plan was

squarely with the State Government and a fair

interpretation of the Rule provided that the Government

has to first apply for and obtain the Mining Plan and only

thereafter, the sairat sources would be put into auction.

At this point, it needs to be emphasized that the petitioner

is a lessee of the year 2012, for 5 years on the strength

of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, The lease was

granted almost 2 years before the amended Rules came

into force and the petitioner has still 2 more years of

Lease Period left.

That by way of abundant caution, after the new Rules

came into force, the petitioner again applied for the

Mining Plan with all the formalities completed. But the

authorities till date have not considered the same.

26.11.2015 That all on a sudden, vide order dated 26.11.2015, the

Pollution Board authorities issued a letter to the Collector

and District Magistrate to stop the operation of the quarry

of the petitioner. Pursuant to such letter by the Pollution

Board, the Tahasildar issued a letter to the petitioner on

27.11.2015 to stop the mining / quarry activities in the

Black Stone quarry forthwith.

 That however, the petitioner on his own initiative

appointed an Agency in the year 2015 and has got

prepared the Air Pollution Monitoring Report and Water

Pollution Monitoring Report. As per both the reports, the

petitioner is fully complying with the environmental

requirements and the air and water emissions are well

within the permissible environmental standards.

That it is reiterated at this point that the Petitioner had

stopped mining activities with relation to his Dankari

Stone Quarry immediately after receipt of letter dated

27.11.2015 issued by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala,

awaiting the requisite environmental clearances.

Petitioner proceeded in accordance with law and, applied

for the requisite environmental clearances and stopped

the mining activity pending such clearances.

18.1.2016 The Joint Director of Mines, Directorate of Mines, Odisha

vide his letter dated 18.01.2016 has granted approval of

the Mining Plan of the present Petitioner with respect to

his Dankari Granite Black Stone Quarry.

22.1.2016 Subsequently, the Tahasildar, Dharmasala has, in his letter

dated 22.01.2016 addressed to the State Environment

Impact Assessment Authority, Odisha (SEIAA),

resubmitted the proposal for Dankari Black Stone Quarry

 along with the duly approved Mining Plan and requisite

fees, for necessary environmental clearances.

31.8.2017 Respondent No. 1 filed W.P. (C) No. 18589/2017 before

the Hon’ble High Court with the following prayers:

“A. The advertisement vide Annexure-9 in respect of

S.No. 1 to 4 and Sl. Nos. 15-21 be declared illegal and

illegal operation of quarry in Dankari Hill may kindly be

enquired into by any independent agency.

B. The opposite parties be directed to recover the

loss sustained by the state from the persons including

officers found responsible for illegal extraction of ores.

C. The opposite parties be directed to preserve the

Dankari Hill and its surroundings for the proposed project.

D. The opposite parties be directed to produce all the

relevant/connected records for the satisfaction of this

Hon'ble Court as regards to steps taken to save the

people of the locality from air and water pollution and

diseases caused due to such pollution.”

That the Respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid Writ Petition

also made a statement that:

“The matter out of which this Writ Application arises was

never before this Hon'ble Court in its present form but a

 part of the claim was in form of W.P. (C) (PIL) No.23197

of 2015, disposed of on dt. 03.05.2017 as with drawn, as

per instruction obtained from the petitioner. Matters

involving illegal and unauthorized operation of quarry,

extraction of the minerals beyond the limit, violation of

terms and conditions of the lease, loss caused to the

state is pending before this Hon'ble Court in form of W.P.

(C) NO.13916/2014 and W.P. (C) No.19232/2015.”

18.6.2018 That the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dispose of

the W.P. (C) No. 18589/2017 with the following

observations, inter alia:

“4. Since the petitioner has not placed on record any

document to show that the Government Department /

Revenue Department has prohibited carrying on mining

activities in the said area, thus, in our view, under the

garb of stopping illegal mining, we cannot restrain the

opposite parties from auctioning the area where mining

can be permitted as per law.”

That the Respondent No. 1, unable to obtain any

favourable order, from the Hon’ble High Court, preferred

O.A. No. 604/2018 before the Hon’ble National green

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

 It was surprised before the Learned NGT that the Hon’ble

High Court had already disposed of the afore mentioned

writ petition.

31.8.2018 That the Hon’ble NGT, vide impugned order disposed of

the matter in the following terms:

“5. In view of the above, we direct the Secretary

Department of Forest and Environment, State of Orissa,

to constitute a joint inspection team with representatives

of State Pollution Control Board, Chairman of the State

Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Orissa and

the Collector, Jajpur and a representative from the Forest

Department to ascertain the facts by visiting the site and

take appropriate steps in accordance with law within one

month from today. A copy of this order be sent to

Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment,

Orissa by e-mail.

6. The report of action taken be furnished to this

Tribunal by email at filing.ngt@gmail.com by the

Secretary of Department of Forest and Environment,

State of Orissa.

The Applicant is also given liberty to serve complete set

of papers to the above committee for compliance.

7. The application is stand disposed of.”

Hence the present Civil Appeal.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF: POSITION OF PARTIES

Before the Before this

Tribunal Hon’ble Court

Sribash Jena Respondent Appellant

S/o Mauralidhara Jena No.11
R/o Saroi, P.S. Dharmasala,
Distt. Jajpur (Odisha).

Versus

1. Sarbeswar Behura Applicant Respondent

S/o Kangali Behura No.1
R/o Saroi, P.S. Dharmasala
Distt. Jajpur (Odisha).

2. Union of India Respondent Respondent

Through Secretary No.1 No.2
Ministry of Environment
Forest and Climate Change
Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj
New Delhi-110003.

3. Ministry of Petroleum and Respondent Respondent

Natural Gas No.2 No.3
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.

4. State of Odisha, Respondent Respondent

Through Secretary No.3 No.4
Department of Revenue
Secretariat Building,
Bhubaneswar,
Distt. Khurda (Odisha).

5. State of Odisha, Respondent Respondent

Through Secretary No.4 No.5
Department of Forest
and Environment,
At Secretariat Building
Bhubaneswar
Distt. Khurda (Odisha).
6. State Pollution Control Board Respondent Respondent
Nilakantha Nagar No.5 No.6
Bhubaneswar-12
Distt. Khurda (Odisha).

7. Chairman State Environment Respondent Respondent

Impact Assessment No.6 No.7
Authority (SEIAA),
Bhubaneswar,
Distt. Khurda (Odisha).

8. Revenue Division Commissioner Respondent Respondent

Central Zone, At-Revenue No.7 No.8
Building, Cuttack,
P.O. Chandni Chowk,
P.S. Lalbag, Town/Distt.
Cuttack, Odisha.

9. Collector & District Respondent Respondent

Magistrate-cum-District No.8 No.9
Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (DEIAA)
Jajpur, At Collectorate Building
Jajpur (Odisha).

10. Tehsildar, Dharmasala, Respondent Respondent

Dharmasala No.9 No.10
Distt. Jajpur (Odisha).

11. Deputy Director Mines Respondent Respondent

Jajpur Road, No.10 No.11
Distt. Jajpur (Odisha).

(All are Contesting Respondents)

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE NATIONAL

GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPEAL OF THE

ABOVE NAMED APPELLANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the appellant above-named respectfully submits this

Appeal against the final Order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the

Learned National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

in Original Application No.604 of 2018, whereby the Learned

Tribunal disposed of the application filed by the applicant.

2. That the appellant has not filed any other appeal/petition either

before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court against the

impugned order before this Hon’ble Court.

3. The issues involved in the present appeal are:

A. Whether constituting a Joint Inspection Team was warranted in

the facts of the present case where the Petitioner is carrying out

mining operations under the legal rights of the mining lease

after obtaining all the requisites clearances required by law in

force?

B. Whether by granting liberty to the Respondent No. 1 in the

Original Application to place additional documents / serve

complete set of papers to the said Joint Inspection Team /

Committee and not extending the same liberty to the Petitioner,

the Petitioner has been denied the opportunity of being heard

from the very beginning itself and presenting his case thereby

causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner?

C. Whether the Respondent No. 1 who had approached the

Hon’ble NGT with unclean hands and indulged in forum

 shopping ought to be severely dealt with and exemplary costs

ought to be imposed upon him?

D. Whether the Hon’ble NGT erred in passing the impugned order

without issuing notice to the Petitioner and first calling for his

response in violation of principles of natural justice?

4. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as

follows:

i) That the present Petitioner had taken the quarry lease for an

area of Ac.41.50 decimals out of an area of Ac.773.60

decimals, pertaining to Plot No. 600, under Khata No. 221 of

Village – Dankari in Abad Ajogya Anabadi status with Kissam

– Pahad.

ii) That as per the Government Order No. 17428 / R dated

10.4.1997, the source was put to annual auction vide dated

13.6.2002 after observing all formalities; but the said auction

failed due to non- participation of bidders.

iii) That even after 3 attempts when auction failed on account of

lack of bidders, the Tahasildar was directed by the Sub

Collector to take further action in the matter. Accordingly the

Tahasildar directed the R.I. to take steps for the settlement of

lease either on negotiation basis or on long term basis and to

contact the willing persons in the locality and offer them to settle

the said source. The R.I. accordingly submitted his report,

wherein he reported that no one is willing to take the Sairat

 source on negotiation basis. The R.I. also reported that the

petitioner was willing to take the source on the long term lease

basis. Accordingly the Tahasildar recommended for settlement

of the source with the petitioner on lease basis.

iv) That accordingly the Tahasildar on 26.10.2002 recommended

to the Sub Collector for settlement of the lease of the source in

favour of Petitioner on a long term basis for 3 years.

v) That on 1.11.2002 the Sub Collector granted the lease for a

period of 3 years on a long term basis.

vi) That accordingly after complying with all the formalities and

other documents as envisaged under the then Rule-5 of the

Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990, hereinafter, for

short, to be referred to as the “1990 Rules”. The general notice

was issued on 8.10.2002 inviting applications from the

intending persons in this regard. But no other application was

received pursuant to the said notice. Therefore, the Petitioner

having applied under Category – III of Sub – Rule – 6 of Rule

– 6 of the said 1990 Rules; hence as was permissible the

Petitioner was granted a long term lease as per the extant

Rules prevailing at that point of time. Therefore, the lease was

granted to him for a period of 3 years effective from the date of

sanction. The said quarry lease was sanctioned to the petitioner

for a period of 3 years. The Lease document specified that the

term of lease was from 1.11.2002 to 31.10.2005.

vii) That, in the year 2004 the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession

Rules, 1990 were repealed and replaced with a new set of rules

known as Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004,

hereinafter, (for short, to be referred to as the “2004 Rules”).

The said rules also provided for the settlement of Minor Mineral

sources through 3 modes: (1) Lease; (2) Permits and (3)

Auction.

viii) That subsequently, the lease in favour of the petitioner fell for

renewal and the same was renewed for a period of 3 years i.e.

from 1.11.2005 to 31.10.2008. That subsequently, the lease fell

due for renewal on 31.10.2008 and upon proper application the

lease was renewed for period of 3 years i.e. from 1.11.2008 to

31.10.2011.

ix) That the term of the Long Term Lease expired on 24th October,

2011 and accordingly application was made on 4th on July,

2011 for renewal of the said lease under Rule-26 of the 2004

Rules along with all accompanying documents.

x) That vide Order, dated 15.07.2011, the Tahasildar,

Dharmashala rejected the application for renewal of lease.

xi) That as transpired from the Order of the Tahasildar, the only

reason cited by the said Tahasildar for rejecting the Renewal

Application was the bar imposed by the Circular No. 1470 dated

6.9.2008 issued by the Board of Revenue, Cuttack.

xii) That the said order of the Tahasildar including the circular of

the Member, Board of Revenue and vires of Rules – 35 and 36

of the OMMC Rules, 2004 were challenged on very many

grounds in W. P. ( C ) No. 20799 of 2011.

xiii) That on 28.3.2012 the Hon’ble High Court after hearing the

said matter along with a batch of several other cases; passed

the Judgment, dated 28.3.2012 in W. P. (C) No. 5754 of 2011,

applicable to all the said cases. In the said judgment, the

Hon’ble High Court took note of the recent judgment of this

Hon’ble Court passed in the case of Deepak Kumar- versus –

State of Haryana and others in I. A. Nos. 12 – 13 of 2011 ,

arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19628–19629 of 2009, held as

follows :

“32. Therefore, the application of the petitioner, who is

already lessee may be considered by putting the sairat

source to public auction. It is open for any category of

applicant referred to in Rule 27 including the petitioner to

participate in public auction of minor mineral and in case

the petitioner is not found to be the highest bidder, but

agrees to match with the price at which the bid is

knocked, preference shall be given to him even though

he is not the highest bidder. We make this observation

keeping in view the provision of Rules 27, 35 and 36 of

the OMMC Rules, 2004 vis – a – vis interest of the State

which really means the larger interest of the people of the

 State. If the sairat is settled in favour of the petitioner,

then the same may be renewed at least for a period of

five years in terms of the observation made by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order in the case of Deepak

Kumar etc. (supra) subject to payment of consideration

money in each succeeding year which shall be fixed by

increasing 15% of the consideration money of the

immediate preceeding year.

33. With the above observations and directions, the

writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. “

Copy of order dated 28.3.2012 is annexed here as

Annexure A-1 (Pages

xiv) That thereafter, the Tahasildar, Dharmasala published the

Auction Notice, dt.08.2.12 & dt.12.6.12 thereby violating the

spirit of the judgment dated 28.3.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No.

20799 of 2011, for which, challenging such illegal action of the

said Tahasildar, the present petitioner filed W. P. (C) No. 10886

of 2012. In the interregnum, another writ petition had been filed

by one Sri Niranjan Behera bearing W. P. (C) No. 9876 of 2012,

which has been withdrawn, but the intervention petition in the

said writ petition has been filed. The Hon’ble High Court vide a

common order, dated 3.10.2012 has been pleased to observe

the interest of the intervening petitioner as follows :

 “The only interest of the intervening petitioners is to see

that environment and ecology shall be maintained in the

area in question by obtaining necessary consent from

the Pollution Control Board.”

The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 03.10.2012, was

pleased to pass the order, thereby directing the petitioner to

move the Pollution Control Board for Consent Order. The

relevant portion of the said order is quoted herein below for

ready reference of this Hon’ble Court :

“ ............... the petitioners herein are also directed to

move the Pollution Control Board to get the consent order

as per the observation made at paragraph - 32 of the

judgment in WPC No. 20799 of 2011 referred to supra on

the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Deepak Kumar etc. Supra. The Pollution Control

Board shall decide the matter within a period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of application filed by the

petitioners. While issuing the consent orders, the

Pollution Control Board shall see that environment and

ecology shall be maintained in the area in question.

Further , we direct that competent authority should

proceed with the matter and finalize the bid in respect of

stone sairat source which has already been leased out

upon the highest bid that would be offered by giving

 certain benefits pursuant to the order of the Supreme

Court in the case of Deepak Kumar etc. Supra.”

The copy of order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the High Court is

annexed here as Annexure A-2 (Pages

xvi) That on obtaining the said order, dated 03.10.2012, the present

petitioner communicated the copy of the same to the

Tahasildar, Dharmasala and also to the State Pollution Control

Board on 9.10.2012.

xvii) That it is important at this juncture to mention here that the

Tahasildar, Dharmasala published the Auction Sale Notice in

the Oriya local daily “Sambad ” on 13.10. 2012 and also served

a notice to the present petitioner to that effect.

xviii) That the present petitioner thereafter participated along with

other bidders and the present petitioner was also declared as

the highest bidder as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court

and the sairat source was settled in favour of the present

petitioner. To that effect, the Tahasildar, Dharmasala intimated

to the present petitioner to obtain the Consent Order from the

State Pollution Control Board as per the order passed in W.P.

(C) No. 10886 of 2012 and WP (C) No.9876 of 2012 vide his

letter, dated 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012.

xix) That in the mean while, the State Pollution Control Board in

reply to the letter dated 9.10.2012 of the present petitioner,

directed the present petitioner vide letter dated 01.11.2012 to

 apply for the Consent Order with requisite fees and document

in the prescribed format.

xx) That for obtaining the Consent Order, the present petitioner

moved the application in the prescribed format along with

applications fee of Rs.250 / - and the Consent Fee of Rs.

14,000/- in the shape of Bank Draft before the State Pollution

Control Board. On the said application, the State Pollution

Control Board examined all the angles and granted the

Consent Order vide letter No. 3517/ SQ – 02, dated 26.11.2012

for production of 5000 MT per month in the mining leased area

of the present petitioner.

xxi) That the petitioner submitted the said Consent Order before the

Tahasildar, Dharmasala as per the letter dated 26.10.2012 of

the said Tahasildar. On scrutinizing the same, the Tahasildar,

Dharmasala intimated the present petitioner for execution of the

agreement, vide letter No. 5589, dated 3.12.2012.

xxii) That as per the said letter dated 3.12.2012, the Sub – Collector,

Jajpur executed the Agreement with the present petitioner on

5.12.2012, for a period of 5 years subject to renewal every year,

thereby fixing increase of 15% consideration money along with

the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Copy of

Agreement dated 5.12.2012 is annexed here as Annexure A-

3 (Pages
xxiii) That in the interregnum, by way of abundant caution, the

petitioner has also applied for Mining Plan, which is essential

for grant of Environmental Clearance, before the appropriate

authority in 2013. The application by the petitioner was

complete in all respects and the petitioner has also paid the

requisite fees of Rs. 1 Lakh and also further the processing

fees.

xxiv) That the present petitioner further submitted an application on

5.1.2013 along with applications fee of Rs.250 / - and the

Consent Fee of Rs. 20,000/- in the shape of Bank Draft before

the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha.

xxv) The State Pollution Control Board after considering the said

application, further granted the enhanced Consent Order in

favour of the present petitioner vide letter No. 172, dated

17.1.2013, thereby increasing the production quantity to

1,20,200 M.T. per month in the mining leased area of the

petitioner.

xxvi) That it is important to mention here that the present petitioner

has been operating the said quarry from the year 2002 and

there has been renewal of the said quarry from time to time. In

the year 2011, when the renewal of the said quarry was refused

by the Tahasildar, the present petitioner approached the

Hon’ble High Court vide W.P. (C) No. 20799 of 2011 and as

per the order dated 28.3.2012 and the subsequent orders

passed in WPC No. 10886 of 2012, the lease of the said quarry
 was granted in favour of the present petitioner and the present

petitioner also obtained the Consent Order from the State

Pollution Control Board from time to time since from the year

2002 to 2011 and thereafter, lastly on 17.1.2013 and the

present petitioner from time to time examined the

environmental aspects by the appropriate agency and has

obtained the Environmental Monitoring Reports , the last being

dated 04.1.2014. As per the Environmental Monitoring

Reports, the petitioner is strictly complying all the environmental

requirement including strictly maintain the Air Quality and noise

pollution and water pollution within permissible units.

xxvii) That the Minor Minerals Concession Rule was amended in

December, 2014 and the said Rule came into force from

16.9.2014. The said Rule provided that the onus/responsibility

of obtaining the Mining Plan was squarely with the State

Government and a fair interpretation of the Rule provided that

the Government has to first apply for and obtain the Mining

Plan and only thereafter, the sairat sources would be put into

auction. At this point, it needs to be emphasized that the

petitioner is a lessee of the year 2012, for 5 years on the

strength of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, The lease was

granted almost 2 years before the amended Rules came into

force and the petitioner has still 2 more years of Lease Period

left.
xxviii) That by way of abundant caution, after the new Rules came

into force, the petitioner again applied for the Mining Plan with

all the formalities completed. But the authorities till date have

not considered the same.

xxix) That all on a sudden, vide order dated 26.11.2015, the Pollution

Board authorities issued a letter to the Collector and District

Magistrate to stop the operation of the quarry of the petitioner.

Pursuant to such letter by the Pollution Board, the Tahasildar

issued a letter to the petitioner on 27.11.2015 to stop the mining

/ quarry activities in the Black Stone quarry forthwith.

xxx) That however, the petitioner on his own initiative appointed an

Agency in the year 2015 and has got prepared the Air Pollution

Monitoring Report and Water Pollution Monitoring Report. As

per both the reports, the petitioner is fully complying with the

environmental requirements and the air and water emissions

are well within the permissible environmental standards.

xxxi) That it is reiterated at this point that the Petitioner had stopped

mining activities with relation to his Dankari Stone Quarry

immediately after receipt of letter dated 27.11.2015 issued by

the Tahasildar, Dharmasala, awaiting the requisite

environmental clearances.
 Petitioner proceeded in accordance with law and, applied for

the requisite environmental clearances and stopped the mining

activity pending such clearances.

xxxii) The Joint Director of Mines, Directorate of Mines, Odisha vide

his letter dated 18.01.2016 has granted approval of the Mining

Plan of the present Petitioner with respect to his Dankari

Granite Black Stone Quarry. Copy of letter dated 18.1.2016 is

annexed here as Annexure A-4 (Pages

xxxiii) That subsequently, the Tahasildar, Dharmasala has, in his

letter dated 22.01.2016 addressed to the State Environment

Impact Assessment Authority, Odisha (SEIAA), resubmitted the

proposal for Dankari Black Stone Quarry along with the duly

approved Mining Plan and requisite fees, for necessary

environmental clearances. Copy of letter dated 22.1.2016 is

annexed here as Annexure A-5 (Pages

xxxiv) That on 31.8.2017 the Respondent No. 1 filed W.P. (C) No.

18589/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court with the following

prayers:

“A. The advertisement vide Annexure-9 in respect of

S.No. 1 to 4 and Sl. Nos. 15-21 be declared illegal and

illegal operation of quarry in Dankari Hill may kindly be

enquired into by any independent agency.

 B. The opposite parties be directed to recover the

loss sustained by the state from the persons including

officers found responsible for illegal extraction of ores.

C. The opposite parties be directed to preserve the

Dankari Hill and its surroundings for the proposed project.

D. The opposite parties be directed to produce all the

relevant/connected records for the satisfaction of this

Hon'ble Court as regards to steps taken to save the

people of the locality from air and water pollution and

diseases caused due to such pollution.”

That the Respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid Writ Petition

also made a statement that:

“The matter out of which this Writ Application arises was

never before this Hon'ble Court in its present form but a

part of the claim was in form of W.P. (C) (PIL) No.23197

of 2015, disposed of on dt. 03.05.2017 as with drawn, as

per instruction obtained from the petitioner. Matters

involving illegal and unauthorized operation of quarry,

extraction of the minerals beyond the limit, violation of

terms and conditions of the lease, loss caused to the

state is pending before this Hon'ble Court in form of W.P.

(C) NO.13916/2014 and W.P. (C) No.19232/2015.”

Copy of W.P.(C) No. 18589/2017 dated 31.8.2017 is annexed

here as Annexure A-6 (Pages

xxxv) That on 18.6.2018 the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to

dispose of the W.P. (C) No. 18589/2017 with the following

observations, inter alia:

“4. Since the petitioner has not placed on record any

document to show that the Government Department /

Revenue Department has prohibited carrying on mining

activities in the said area, thus, in our view, under the

garb of stopping illegal mining, we cannot restrain the

opposite parties from auctioning the area where mining

can be permitted as per law.”

Copy of order dated 18.6.2018 is annexed here as Annexure

A-7 (Pages

xxxvi) That the Respondent No. 1, unable to obtain any favourable

order, from the Hon’ble High Court, preferred O.A. No.

604/2018 before the Hon’ble National green Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi. Copy of O.A. No. 604/2018 is annexed here

as Annexure A-8 (Pages

It was surprised before the Learned NGT that the Hon’ble High

Court had already disposed of the afore mentioned writ petition.

xxxvii) That the Learned NGT, vide impugned order dated 31.8.2018

disposed of the matter in the following terms:

“5. In view of the above, we direct the Secretary

Department of Forest and Environment, State of Orissa,

to constitute a joint inspection team with representatives

 of State Pollution Control Board, Chairman of the State

Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Orissa and

the Collector, Jajpur and a representative from the Forest

Department to ascertain the facts by visiting the site and

take appropriate steps in accordance with law within one

month from today. A copy of this order be sent to

Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment,

Orissa by e-mail.

6. The report of action taken be furnished to this

Tribunal by email at filing.ngt@gmail.com by the

Secretary of Department of Forest and Environment,

State of Orissa.

The Applicant is also given liberty to serve complete set

of papers to the above committee for compliance.

7. The application is stand disposed of.”

GROUNDS:

A. Because constituting a Joint Inspection Team was not

warranted in the facts of the present case where the Petitioner

was carrying out mining operations under the legal rights of the

mining lease after obtaining all the requisites clearances

required by law in force.

That the Petitioner is the long term mining lease holder with

respect to Dankari Stone Quarry, the lease having been legally

granted by the State of Orissa.

That for the purpose of operating the said mine, the Petitioner

was also granted Consent Order from the State Pollution

Control Board on 26.11.2012 and thereafter Agreement was

executed by the appropriate authority with the Petitioner on

5.12.2012. The same was in terms of the order dated 3.10.2012

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W. P. ( C ) No.

10886 & 9876 of 2012. In the interregnum, by way of abundant

caution, the petitioner has also applied for Mining Plan, which

is essential for grant of Environmental Clearance, before the

appropriate authority in 2013. The application by the petitioner

was complete in all respects and the petitioner has also paid

the requisite fees of Rs. 1 Lakh.

Thereafter State Pollution Control Board further granted the

enhanced Consent Order in favour of the present petitioner vide

letter dated 17.1.2013, thereby increasing the production

quantity to 1,20,200 M.T. per month in the mining leased area

of the petitioner.

Petitioner has also been from time to time obtaining

Environmental Monitoring Reports and as per the Reports, the

petitioner is strictly complying with all the environmental

requirement including maintaining Air Quality and noise

pollution and water pollution within permissible limits.

Petitioner, on his own initiative, in 2015 appointed an Agency

 for preparation of Air Pollution Monitoring Report and Water

Pollution Monitoring Report. As per both the reports, the

petitioner is fully complying with the environmental

requirements and the air and water emissions are well within

the permissible environmental standards.

That it may be mentioned here that on 27.11.2015, Tahasildar

had issued a letter to the petitioner to stop the mining / quarry

activities in the Black Stone quarry forthwith. In pursuance

thereto, the Petitioner stopped mining activities with relation to

his Dankari Stone Quarry, awaiting the requisite environmental

clearances.

It is very much pertinent to mention here that thereafter the Joint

Director of Mines, Directorate of Mines, Odisha vide his letter

dated 18.01.2016 has granted approval of the Mining Plan of

the present Petitioner with respect to his Dankari Granite Black

Stone Quarry. Subsequently, the Tahasildar, Dharmasala has,

in his letter dated 22.01.2016 addressed to the State

Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Odisha (SEIAA),

resubmitted the proposal for Dankari Black Stone Quarry along

with the duly approved Mining Plan and requisite fees, for

necessary environmental clearances.

B. Because by granting liberty to the Respondent No. 1 in the

Original Application to place additional documents / serve

complete set of papers to the said Joint Inspection Team /

Committee and not extending the same liberty to the Petitioner,

 the Petitioner has been denied the opportunity of being heard

and presenting his case thereby causing serious prejudice to

the Petitioner.

C. Because the Respondent No. 1 who had approached the

Hon’ble NGT with unclean hands and indulged in forum

shopping ought to be severely dealt with and exemplary costs

ought to be imposed upon him.

That the Respondent No. 1- Applicant in the Original

Application before the Hon’ble NGT has been constantly

moving against the present Petitioner in different Forums

including before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, wherein, he

had filed W.P.(C). No. 18589 of 2017 as a Public Interest

Litigation seeking a relief of closure of the mines at Dankari Hills

wherein, the present Petitioner carries on mining operations by

exercising his legal rights under the mining lease(s) granted by

the State Government as per law. The Hon’ble High Court of

Orissa while finally disposing of the aforesaid Writ Petition vide

order dated 18.06.2018 was pleased to hold that the mining

activities in the area cannot be prohibited, if the Government

auctions the mining areas as per law. The relevant portion of

the order dated 18.06.2018 is reproduced herein below for

ready reference:

“4. Since the petitioner has not placed on record any

document to show that the Government Department / Revenue

Department has prohibited carrying on mining activities in the

said area, thus, in our view, under the garb of stopping illegal
 mining, we cannot restrain the opposite parties from auctioning

the area where mining can be permitted as per law.”

That it further pointed out that the Respondent No. 1 had earlier

filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 23197 of 2015, wherein he had

also made similar claims, but had withdrawn the same. The

order dated 03.05.2017, is quoted herein below for ready

reference:

“Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a

Memo praying for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to

file a better writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with

liberty as prayed for. Memo be kept on record.”

Thus, having failed to obtain any order from the Hon’ble high

Court, the Respondent No. 1, approached the Hon’ble NGT by

way of OA No. 604/2018.

D. Because the Hon’ble NGT erred in passing the impugned order

without issuing notice to the Petitioner and first calling for his

response in violation of principles of natural justice.

That the Hon’ble NGT was not apprised of the aforesaid factual

matrix and the Respondent No. 1 concealed material facts with

a view to prejudice the case of the Petitioner. The Hon’ble NGT

disposed of the matter vide impugned order dated 31.8.2018

thereby constituting the Inspection Team / Committee with

further liberty granted to the Original Applicant therein to submit

“complete set of papers” to the said Committee for compliance

 to the Order. However, no notice was issued to the present

Petitioner before the final Order disposing of the same was

passed and therefore the correct factual position could not be

brought on record before the Hon’ble NGT.

E. Because there are many other operators carrying on mining

activities in and around the Dankari hill region, however, the

Respondent No. 1 is selectively targeting the mining operations

carried on by the present Petitioner by moving several frivolous

litigations against him in different Forums by resorting to “Forum

Shopping”.

F. Because the present Petitioner, even though being directly

affected by the Order dated 31.08.2018, was never noticed nor

was he adequately represented before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

The directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal permitting the Original

Applicant to submit the complete set of papers to the Joint

Inspection Team / Committee for compliance of the Order dated

31.08.2018 causes grave prejudice to the present Petitioner.

G. Because the petitioner has been operating the said quarry from

the year 2002 and there has been renewal of the said quarry

from time to time. In the year 2011, when the renewal of the

said quarry was refused by the Tahasildar, the present

petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P. ( C )

No. 20799 of 2011 and as per the order dated 28.3.2012 of this

Hon’ble Court and the subsequent orders passed in WPC No.

10886 of 2012, the lease of the said quarry was granted in

favour of the present petitioner and the present petitioner also

 obtained the Consent Order from the State Pollution Control

Board from time to time since from the year 2002 to 2011 and

thereafter, lastly on 17.1.2013 and the present petitioner from

time to time examined the environmental aspects by the

appropriate agency and has obtained the Environmental

Monitoring Reports which also show that the petitioner is strictly

complying with all the environmental requirements.Joint

Director of Mines, Directorate of Mines, Odisha vide his letter

dated 18.01.2016 has granted approval of the Mining Plan of

the present Petitioner with respect to his Dankari Granite Black

Stone Quarry.Thus, the Petitioner is carrying out the mining

operation legally after following all procedures and therefore the

OA of the Respondent No. 1 seeking a direction to close down

illegal mining activities would not cover the case of the

Petitioner and incorrect averments were made by the

Respondent No. 1 before the Hon’ble NGT.

PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to:

a) admit and allow the appeal and set aside the final Order dated

31.08.2018 passed by the Learned National Green Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No.604 of

2018.
b) Pass such order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Drawn by : FILED BY:

(Subir Palit) ( )
Advocate ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT

DRAWN ON:

FILED ON:
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A.NO._______ OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO._________OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sribash Jena …Appellant

VERSUS

Sarbeswar Behura & ORS. …Respondents

AN APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM

EX-PARTE STAY

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPEAL OF THE

ABOVE NAMED APPELLANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the appellant above-named respectfully submits this

Appeal against the final Order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the

Learned National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

in Original Application No.604 of 2018. The facts leading to the

present application has been fully set out in the accompanying

 Civil Appeal and for the sake of brevity the same may be read

as part and parcel of this application.

2. The Tribunal by the impugned order has disposed of the matter

in the following terms:

“5. In view of the above, we direct the Secretary

Department of Forest and Environment, State of Orissa,

to constitute a joint inspection team with representatives

of State Pollution Control Board, Chairman of the State

Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Orissa and

the Collector, Jajpur and a representative from the Forest

Department to ascertain the facts by visiting the site and

take appropriate steps in accordance with law within one

month from today. A copy of this order be sent to

Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment,

Orissa by e-mail.

6. The report of action taken be furnished to this

Tribunal by email at filing.ngt@gmail.com by the

Secretary of Department of Forest and Environment,

State of Orissa.

The Applicant is also given liberty to serve complete set

of papers to the above committee for compliance.

7. The application is stand disposed of.”

3. The appellant has prima facie good case on merits. That the

appellant will suffer irreparable loss in case the operation of the

impugned order is not stayed.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to:

(a) stay the operation of the final Order dated 31.08.2018 passed

by the Learned National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in Original Application No.604 of 2018.

(b) pass any other or further orders as may be deemed fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPELLANT AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:

( )
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT

FILED ON:
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. No. OF 2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sribash Jena ……..Petitioner

VERSUS

Sarbeswar Behura & Ors. …..Respondents

An Application for exemption from filing Certified Copy

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying Civil Appeal

against the final impugned judgment and order dated 31.8.2018

passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in

Original Application No. 604 of 2018.

2. That the petitioner has applied for the certified copy of the

impugned order dated 15.5.2015 in the registry of the Tribunal but the

same not made ready till date. The matter is being urgent, therefore
the petitioner is filing the present special leave petition with the

ordinary copy of the impugned order.

3. That it is in the interest of justice that the petitioner be exempted

from filing certified copy of the impugned order.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to :

a) exempt the petitioner from filing certified copy of the impugned

order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the National Green Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 604 of

2018;

b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Filed on : 26.9.2018 Filed by :

( )
Advocate for the Appellant
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO._________OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sribash Jena …Appellant

VERSUS

Sarbeswar Behura & ORS. …Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/ are within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of ………days

in filing the same against order dated ……………. and appellant

for condonation of ………….days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of ………….day in refiling the appellant and

petition for condonation of …………..days delay in refiling has

been filed.

Place: New Delhi

Date:

SECTION OFFICER
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO._________OF 2018

(Against the final order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Learned

National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original
Application No.604 of 2018)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sribash Jena …Appellant

VERSUS

Sarbeswar Behura & ORS. …Respondents

I.A.NO.______ OF 2018
AN APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE STAY

I.A.NO.______ OF 2018
AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED
COPY

PAPER BOOK

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT :

 INDEX

Sl. No. Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to which Remarks

it belongs

Part II Part II
(Contents of (Contents
Paper Book) of file
alone)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

1. Court Fees

2. Office Report on Limitation A

3. Listing Performa A1

4. Cover Page of Paper Book A2

5. Index of Record of Proceeding A3 A3

6. Limitation Report prepared by A4 A4

the Registry

7. Defect List A5

8. Note Sheet NS1 to …

9. Synopsis and List of Dates B–V

10. Copy of the final Order dated 1–3

31.08.2018 passed by the
Learned National Green
Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi in Original
Application No.604 of 2018.

11. Civil Appeal with Affidavit 4 – 31

13. ANNEXURE A-1 32 - 56

Copy of order dated 28.3.2012
passed by the High Court in
W.P.(C) No.5754/2011.

14. ANNEXURE A-2 57 - 60

Copy of order dated 3.10.2012
passed by the High Court in
W.P.(C) No.10886/2012.
15. ANNEXURE A-3 61 - 69
Copy of Agreement dated
5.12.2012.

16. ANNEXURE A-4 70 - 72

Copy of letter dated 18.1.2016.

17. ANNEXURE A-5 73

Copy of letter dated 22.1.2016.

18. ANNEXURE A-6 74 - 89

Copy of W.P.(C) No.
18589/2017 dated 31.8.2017
filed by the Respondent No.1
before the High Court.

19. ANNEXURE A-7 90 - 91

Copy of order dated 18.6.2018
passed by the High Court in
W.P.(C) No.18589/2017.

ANNEXURE A-8 90 – 105

Copy of O.A. No. 604/2018
dated nil filed by the
Respondent No.1 before the
National Green Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.

20. Application for Ad-Interim Ex- 106-108

Parte Stay

21. Application for exemption from 109-110

filing certified copy.

22. Letter
23. Memo of Parties

24. Filing Memo

25. Vakalatnama & Appearance

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._________OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sribash Jena …Appellant

VERSUS

Sarbeswar Behura & Ors. …Respondents

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the civil appeal is confined only to the pleadings

before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and the other

documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts,

documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the

civil appeal. It is further certified that the copies of the

documents/annexures attached to the civil appeal are necessary to

answer the questions of law raised in the petition or to make out

grounds urged in the civil appeal for consideration of this Hon’ble

Court. This certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given

by the petitioner/person authorized by the petitioner whose affidavit is

filed in support of the civil appeal.

FILED BY:

( )
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT

FILED ON:
 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Original Application No. 604 of 2018

(M.A. No. 1286/2018)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarbeswar Behura Vs. Union of India &Ors.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. WANGDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER

Present: Applicant: Ms. Isha Arora, Adv.

Item No. 03

August 31, 2018

1. This application seeks direction to close down illegal mining

activities in and around Dankari Hills Forest Area in Orissa.

2. According to the applicant, one Shri Sribash Jena is allowed to

operate black stone quarry on 41.50 acres of forest land of the

aforementioned hilly forest land from the years 2002 to 2011 (on

negotiation basis and without any auction) and from the years 2012 to

2017 (on the basis of auction and execution of lease).

3. According to the applicant, no Environmental Clearance or Forest

Clearance was granted for functioning of the quarry. The Tehsildar,

Dharmasala vide a letter dated 25.10.2011 directed that no quarry

holder shall operate any wagon blasting in the interest of safety of the

people. The Collector Jajpur, vide letter dated 03.10.2015, sought a

team of doctors to take steps against the diseases in the area due to

unsafe drinking water and pollution. The Tehsildar wrote a letter dated

27.11.2015 to respondent no. 11 – Shri Sribash Jena not operate

stone quarry without Environmental Clearance and consent to

operate. The Government of India vide letter dated23.03.2017

addressed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue State of Orissa stated

that strategic petroleum reserve is to be constructed at Chandikhol in

Orissa and no quarry activities should be permitted within a zone of

500 meters around the site. In terms of the said letter, the Revenue

Department of Government of Orissa vide letter dated 2.2.2017 asked

the Collector, Jajpur to stop illegal mining in the above buffer zone.

The Revenue Inspector was directed to demarcate the area of

Dankari Hills from 500 meters buffer zone surrounding the mountains.

4. The applicant made a representation to the State Government

dated 27.08.2017 pointing out the above facts but no action has been

taken.

5. In view of the above, we direct the Secretary Department of

Forest and Environment, State of Orissa, to constitute a joint

inspection team with representatives of State Pollution Control Board,

Chairman of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,

Orissa and the Collector, Jajpur and a representative from the Forest

Department to ascertain the facts by visiting the site and take

appropriate steps in accordance with law within one month from

today. A copy of this order be sent to Secretary, Department of Forest

and Environment, Orissa by e-mail.

6. The report of action taken be furnished to this Tribunal by email

at filing.ngt@gmail.com by the Secretary of Department of Forest and

Environment, State of Orissa.

The Applicant is also given liberty to serve complete set of

papers to the above committee for compliance.

7. The application is stand disposed of.

List for consideration of report on 07.12.2018

..…..……………………………...,CP
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)

..…..……………………………..,JM
(Dr. Jawad Rahim)

...…..…………………………….,JM
(S.P. Wangdi)

...…..…………………………….,EM
(Dr. Nagin Nanda)

31.08.2018

TRUE COPY
 AGREEMENT BOND
(See Rule-53 of OMMC Rule 2004)
SAIRAT SOURCE NO. 91/2012-13
This agreement is made the 5th day of December 2012
BETWEEN
The Governor of Orissa represented by Sub-collector, Jajpur,

District- Jajpur (here in after called the Competent Authority)

And

Sri Sribash Jena aged about 49 years S/o Late Muralidhar Jena

Village:- Saroi P.O. Haridaspur P.S. Dharmasala in the District of

Jajpur by caste khandayat occupation business, (hereinafter referred

to as the auction holder) which expressed shall where the context so

admits be deemed to include his heirs, executors, administrators and

permitted assignees of the other part.

WHERE AS the auction holder has taken the above Sairat

source from Competent Authority in accordance with the provisions of

the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rule-2004 and as per order

passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 20799 of 2011, W.P.(C)

10886/2012 & W.P.(PIL) No. 9876 of 2012 in respect of the lands

described in Part-I of the Schedule and has deposited a sum of

Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only towards bid amount.

Now this agreement witness as follows:-

The Auction holder here by demises to the auctioned Sairat and

the land described in Part-I of the Schedule here under written and

delineated in the Map hereunto annexed. The auction holder shall

hold the said demises pieces of Land from 26.11.2012 to 25.11.2017

subject to the terms covenants, conditions herein proved. In witness

where of these presents have been executed in manner here under

appearing the day and year first above written.

The Schedule above referred to:

PART-I

LOCATION AND AREA OF THE AUCTIONED SAIRAT SOURCE

Mouza Khata No. Plot No. Kisam Area

Dankari 221 600 PAHADA Ac.41.50

PART-II

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AUCTION

This lease is subject to the conditions laid down in Rule-56

along with all other conditions pertaining to auction sale of Sairat

source as provided in OMMC Rule 2004. Besides, terms and

conditions laid down in Office Memorandum of State Pollution Control

Board vide letter No. 3517/SQ-02 dt. 26.11.2012 along with order

passed in W.P.(C) 20799 of 2011, W.P.(C) 10886/2012 & W.P.(PIL)

No. 9876 of 2012.

Terms and conditions as per Rule 56 of OMMC Rule 2004

(I) The auction agreement is not transferable.

(II) The minor mineral other than for which auction is confirmed

shall not be removed from auctioned area.

(III) If any major mineral is found during the quarrying operation, the

auction holder shall report the matter to the competent authority

and the Director forthwith shall not work or remove the same.

(IV) The auction holder shall immediately report all accidents to the

Competent Authority and the Collector of the District.

(V) The auction holder shall have no right over the quarried material

and other properties lying in the auction area after expiry of the

term of auction and shall deemed to be the Properties of

Government and may be disposed of by public auction.

(VI) The auction holder shall not under take any operation in any

forest area without obtaining prior permission from the

concerned authority of the Forest Department.

(VII) The auction holder shall pay to the occupier of the surface of

the land just a reasonable compensation as may be agreed up

on by the auction holder and owner of the land.

(VIII) The auction holder shall not carry on quarrying operation within

a distance of 50 meters from any public road, public building,

temple, reservoir, dam, play ground, railway track etc.

(IX) The auction holder shall, at his own expense, erect and at all

time maintain and keep in good condition boundary mark and

pillars necessary to delineate the auction area.

(X) The auction holder shall abide by the provisions of Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Mines Act,

1952; Explosive Act, 1884; Explosive substances Act, 1908 and

rules made there under and all other laws the time being in force

relating to the working of quarries and matters affecting safety,

 health, and conveniences of persons working for quarrying

operation public.

(XI) The auction holder shall obey all existing rights of way, water

and other case mention.

(XII) The auction holder shall keep correct monthly account of minor

minerals quarried and dispatched and furnish a monthly return

in Form-Y to the competent authority by 15th of succeeding

month. He shall furnish an annual return in Form-Z to the

competent authority and the Director, Odisha for the financial

year or part there of within a week of the close of the financial

year or expiry of the terms of the auction.

(XIII) The auction holder shall allow the Director, Controlling authority

and competent authority or any officer authorized by any of

them to inspect the quarrying operation and to check the

accounts of production and dispatches from the register

maintained by him.

(XIV) The auction holder shall not remove any minor form the area

without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority

or any other officer authorized by him. No minor mineral shall

be dispatched from the area without valid transit pass issued by

such officer.

(XV) In case of literate quarry, the auction holder shall not use power

cutter or any such machinery for excavation of literate.

(XVI) The auction holder shall take all possible precaution for

protection of environment and control of pollution including

reclamation of the quarried out area.

(XVII) If in any event the orders of the competent authority is revised,

reviewed or cancelled by the concerned controlling authority or

the auction holder fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of the

auction sale due to force Majeure such as act of God, War,

insurrections, riot, civil commotion, strike, earth quake, storm,

tidal wave, flood, lighting, explosion fire and any other

happening beyond control of auction holder, delay in

development of infrastructure, acquiring of land for quarrying

operation and for use of land for public purpose, the auction

holder shall not claim for any compensation.

(XVIII) The auction holder shall not use explosive in any manner

without obtaining an explosive license from the appropriate

authority.

(XIX) The auction holder shall pay a wage no less than the minimum

wage prescribed by the State Government from time to time

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(XX) Competent authority may impose such further condition as he

may think necessary in the interest of mineral development.

Terms and conditions as per Office Memorandum of State Pollution

Control Board issued vide letter No. 3517/SQ-02 dated 26.11.2012

1. This consent to establish is valid for the product, quantity

manufacturing process and raw materials as mentioned in the

application for a period of five years from the date of issue of

proposed project has not taken place in the meantime.

2. If the stone quarry fails to start operation of the project but

substantial physical progress has been made then renewal of

this consent shall be sought by the proponent.

3. If the stone quarry fails to initiate construction of the project and

no significant physical progress is made then, the stone quarry

has to apply for consent to establish afresh after expiry of 05

years from the date of issue of this order.

4. Adequate effluent treatment facilities are to be provided such

that the quality of sewage and mine drainage water satisfies the

standards as prescribed under Environment protection Rule,

1986 or as prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board

and/or State Pollution Control Board or otherwise stipulated in

the special conditions.

5. All emissions from the stone quarry as well as the ambient air

quality and noise are to conform to the standards as laid down

under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or as prescribed by

Central Pollution Control Board or otherwise stipulated in the

special conditions.

6. Adequate method of disposal of soild waste is to be adopted to

avoid environmental pollution.

7. The stone quarry is to comply to the provisions of

Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and the Rules made

thereunder with their amendments from time to such as the

Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989,

Hazardous Chemical Rules/Manufacture, Storage & Import of

Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 etc. and amendment there

 under. The quarry is also to comply to the provisions of public

liability Insurance Act, 1991, if applicable.

8. The quarry is to apply for grant of consent to operate under

section 25/26 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,

1974 & Air (Prevention & control of Pollution) Act, 1981 at least

03 (three) months before operation of the stone quarry and

obtain consent to operate from this Board.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

1. This consent to establish is granted subject to execution of

Dankari Black Stone Quarry lease in favour of Sri Sribash Jena

at Saroi, Post Haridaspur in the district of Jajpur.

2. Domestic wastewater shall be discharged to soak pit via septic

tank constructed as per BIS specification.

3. Blasting shall be adopted as per the specification of the

explosive license from the authorized department.

4. Drilling machines shall be fitted with proper dust collection,

suppression and disposal arrangement.

5. Workers shall be provided with ear muffs and noise mask as

safe guards against environmental hazards.

6. Water sprinkling arrangements shall be provided at all haul

road, transportation roads, quarry areas, stock yard and other

dust generating points to control fugitive dust emission.

7. Ambient air quality shall be maintained in order to meet the

prescribed standard as per National Ambient Air Quality

Standard.
8. Rejected stones shall be disposed off on low lying area inside

the mine leasehold area in proper manner without causing any

environmental pollution.

9. No stone crusher shall be installed inside the lease hold area

without obtaining clearance from appropriate authority.

10. After the completion of the mining operations or on expiry of

lease period, the mine authority shall fill and level the quarry

area in order to make safe for the inhabitants.

11. The unit shall abide by the provisions under E.P. Act, 1986 and

other rules framed there under.

12. The Board may impose further conditions or modify the

condition as stipulated in this order during installation and/or at

the time of obtaining consent to operate and may revoke this

order in case the stipulated conditions are not implemented

and/or information are found to have been suppressed/wrongly

furnished in application form.

Terms and Conditions in W.P.(C) 20799 of 2011

The period of auction may be renewed at least for a period of 5

years in terms of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in its order in the case of Deepak Kumar etc. (supra) subject to

payment of consideration money in each succeeding year which shall

be fixed by increasing 15% of the consideration money of the

immediate preceding year pending framing of rules.

IN WITNESS WHERE OF the parties have signed this deed on the

dates respectively.

Witness Signature with seal of

the Competent authority

1.

2.

Auction holder

TRUE COPY
 DIRECTORATE OF MINES, ODISHA

BHUBANESWAR

No.MXXXI(b)-13/13-598/D.M. Dt. 18.1.2016

From

Sri S.K. Das,

Joint Director of Mines,
Directorate of Mines, Odisha
Bhubaneswar.

To

Sri Sribash Jena

Vill. & Post. Saroi,
P.O. Haridaspur,
Dist-Jajpur, Odisha.

Sub.:- Approval of Mining Plan in respect of Dankari Granite

Black Stone Quarry over an area of 16.8 hects. in Village

Dankari, Post Mahisara, Tahasil Dharmasala under

Jajpur District in favour of Sri Sribash Jena.

Sir,

In exercise of powers conferred under Govenrment in Steel and

Mines Department Notification No. 5311/SM dt. 11.06.2015. The

Mining Plan in respect of Dankari Granite Black Stone Quarry over an

area of 16.8 hects. in Village Dankari, Post Mahisara, Tahasil

Dharmasala under Jajpur District in favour of Sri Sribash Jena is

hereby approved. This approval is subject ot the following conditions:

1. The mining plan is approved without any prejudice to any other

law applicable to the mine from time to time whether made by

the Central Govt. or State Govt. or any other authority.

2. The mining plan is approved without prejudice to any order, or

direction from court of competent jurisdiction.

3. The approval of aforesaid mining plan does not in any way

imply approval of Govt. in terms of any other law in force.

4. The approval of mining plan is subject to the clearances under

the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Rules

made thereunder and other statutory orders & guidelines issued

by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India which

may be applicable to the lease area from time to time.

5. The approval is subject to strict compliance by the lessees in

respect of the observations made during field visit by the

competent authority.

6. Forest growth if any available in the area shall not be cut or

cleared during mining operation without prior approval of Forest

Authorities.

7. Provision of the Mines act, 1952 and Rules & Regulations made

there under including submission of notices of opening,

appointment of managers and other statutory personnel as

required by the Act, shall be complied with and if anything is

found to be concealed in the contents of the mining plan this

approval shall be deemed to have been withdrawn with

immediate effect.

8. The boundary pillars shall be maintained in good order

throughout the tenure of the mining lease.

9. The future exploration programme approved in the mining plan

shall be strictly adhered to by the applicant and mineral content

in the area should be established during the plan period.

Special Conditions

1. Since the area could not be verified through any visit to the site,

this approval is being accorded relying on the information

furnished by the Recognised Qualified Person in the mining

plan. Therefore, in case any information/document is found to

be concealed or wrongly furnished or false or fabricated, this

approval shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

2. The authenticity of the area details, as furnished in the mining

plan, will be verified by the Competent Authority before the

applicant is allowed to carry out mining operation as per the

provisions of this approved mining plan.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- 18.1.16
JOINT DIRECTOR OF MINES, ODISHA

Encl:- one copy of approved mining plan.

TRUE COPY
 OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, DHARMASALA

No. 273 Date 22.1.2016

To

The Chairman, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,

Odisha Qr. No. 5RF-2/1, Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar-751022

Sub.:- Re-submission of proposal for Dankari Black Stone

Quarry over an area Ac. 41.50 (16.8 ha.) at Village
Dankari, Tahasil Dharmasala Dist. Jajpur of Sribash Jena
vide Sairat Case No. 91/12-13.
Sir,

With reference to the letter on the subject cited above, I am to

re-submit herewith the proposal in Form-I as per Appendix-I under EIA

Notification, 2006 along with Annexure-I (Check list for Minor Mineral

Mining Project), Mining Plan duly approved by the Authorised Officer

and scrutiny fees of Rs.1,00,000/- vide Manager’s Cheque bearing

No. 044270 dated 08.03.2013 which has already been deposited on

dated 19.3.2013 for necessary environment clearance in respect

Dankari Black Stone Quarry over an area Ac. 41.50 dec. (16.8 ha.) at

Vilalge Dankari, Tahasil Dharmasala Dist. Jajpur of Sri Sribash Jena

vide Sairat Case No. 91/12-13 after due countersigned by the

Tahasildar, Dharmasala.

This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action.

Enclosures: As above

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- 22.1.16
Tahasildar, Dharmasala.

TRUE COPY
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 604 OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sabeswar Behura …Applicant

Versus

Union of India & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 14, 15 READ WITH SECTIONS

18(1) & (2) OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010

TO

THE HON'BLE CHAIRMAN AND HIS LORDSHIPS COMPANION

JUDGES FO THE HON’BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL AT

NEW DELHI.

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION FO THE ABOVE NAMED

APPLICANT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

I. That the address of the applicants counsel is stated above for

the service of notice in the present application.

II. That the addresses of the Respondents are given above for the

purpose of service of notices of this Original Application.

III. That the present Original Application is filed under sections 14

and 15 read with sections 18(1) and (2) of the National Green

Tribunal Act, 2010 in order to draw attention of this Hon'ble

Tribunal to the issue of unrestrained illegal extraction of minor

 minerals and its transportation in Jajpur District Dharmasala

Tehsil, Odisha which is adversely affecting the flora and fauna

spread across six thousand acres of the hilly forest area.

IV. That the Applicant herein is a resident of Jajpur district, a law

abiding citizen of India and enjoy good reputation within the

society. He seeks your lordships indulgence to file the present

Application for the benefit/betterment of the people of Village

Dankari and other adjacent villages.

V. That regardless of the continuous endeavor of the Applicant to

protect the environment and safeguard the innocent villagers

from the harmful consequences of illegal quarrying activities the

concerned Government Departments and the authorities have

failed to take any action in furtherance of the representations

and complaints and also failed to inform about any

update/action being taken on the said complaints and

representations forwarded to them.

VI. Accordingly being aggrieved the applicant is constrained to file

the present Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal for seeking

appropriate directions to the concerned Government

Departments, Authorities and Respondents Industries to stop

continuous unlawful extraction of minor mineral resources and

its transportation in Jajpur district Dharmasala Tehsil in Odisha.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That Dankari village of Jajpur District Tehsil Dharmasala is

covered with six thousand acres of hilly forest area containing

medicinal plants and minor mineral resources like granite and

black stone. Map showing Dankari village of Jajpur district

Dharmasala Tehsil covered with hilly forest area is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-1.

2. That the State Government and other concerned

authorities/Departments allowed one Shri Sribash Jena to

operate Blackstone quarry on 41.50 Acres of forest land of the

aforementioned hilly forest land from the years 2002 to 2011

(on negotiation basis and without any auction) and from the

years 2012 to 2017 (on the basis of auction and execution of

lease).

3. That the said quarrying activities sustained without obtaining

the mandatory permissions from the State Government and

Central Government Departments. Neither Environmental

Clearance nor Forest Clearance was submitted by the lessee

during any time of the functioning of the quarry. Moreover,

illegal wagon blasting technique also used for excavation of

minerals which resulted in severe vibration, cracks in the walls

of the surrounding village houses and diminishing of the

mountain. Except giving instructions only once by Tehsildar,

Dharmasala no efficacious step has been taken in this regard

 till date. Copy of the letter dated 25.10.2011 communicated by

Tahasildar, Dharmasala to R.I. Dankari/Aruha/Balarampur-II is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-2.

4. That illegal operation of quarries, stone crushers, wagon drilling

etc. in the Dankari Village of Dharmasala Tehsil has led to

death of many poor villagers due to kidney related ailments

caused by contamination of drinking water accompanied with

severe pollution, groundwater depletion, etc. All these

occurrences have been reported in several newspapers articles

in different newspapers. Copy of the newspapers articles

published in different newspapers is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-3.

5. That the Additional District Magistrate, Jajpur District vide letter

dated 3.10.2015 requested the Chief District Medical Officer to

depute a team of the Doctors and take steps to prevent the

spread of kidney affected diseases and T.B. in the area so as

to stop the incidents of deaths of poor villagers. Copy of the

letter dated 3.10.2015 forwarded by the Additional District

Magistrate is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4.

6. That the District administration and the concerned Government

Authorities have been highly inactive and callous towards the

well-being of the villagers and the alarming unlawful activities in

the area in question which compelled the helpless people of the

 villages to bear the undue hardship in their daily life and lose

their life.

7. That in 2015 surprisingly the Tahasildar, Dharmasala issued

instructions to Shri Sirbash Jena, lessee to stop mining

activities of Dankari quarry till the receipt of the Environmental

Clearance. Copy of the letter dated 27.11.2015 communicated

by Tahasildar, Dharmasala to Shri Sribash Jena is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-5.

8. That the applicant has obtained information through RTI that

government of India, has chose Dankari Hill at Chandikhol in

Jajpur District, Odisha for its Phase-II Strategic Petroleum

Reserves Project and accordingly the Joint Secretary

accordingly issued instructions/directions to the concerned

Principal Secretary Revenue of State Government to take

necessary measures to stop quarrying activities within Dankari

Hill and area within 500 meter of the Buffer Zone. The said

instructions were issued in order to facilitate the project. Copy

of the information obtained by RTI i.e. letter dated 23.03.2017

issued by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-

6.

In pursuance of the instructions issued by the Joint Secretary,

the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of State

 Government and Tahasildar, Dharamasala vide letters dated

02.05.2017 and 08.06.2017 informed the Collector and

Revenue Inspector to demarcate the total area of Dankari hill

and the surrounding 500 meter buffer zone and take steps to

immediately stop the illegal quarrying activities and the crusher

units existing on the Government land for proper execution of

the Phase-II Strategic Petroleum Reserves Project. Copy of the

letters dated 2.5.2017 and 8.6.2017 issued by the Revenue and

Disaster Management Department of State Government and

Tahasildar, Dharamasala are annexed and marked herewith as

Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8 respectively.

9. That it is pertinent to mention that recently the Tahasildar,

Dharmasala issued notice/advertisement No. 3601 (3599)

dated 09.08.2017 in an Odia Daily Newspaper for inviting

applications to participate in an auction to lease out 22 quarries

on long term basis. Out of the 22 quarries 7 quarries are

located within the Dankari Hill (proposed site for reserve

project) and 5 quarries are located within the Buffer Zone of the

project. Copy of the notice/advertisement No. 3601 (3599)

dated 9.8.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure

P-9.

10. That the Applicant has approached the concerned State

Government Departments through a representation addressed

to them with a request to stop the auction for leasing out

 quarries till any suitable action is taken to safeguard the public

and property while highlighting grievances faced by the local

people and damage being caused to the environment due to

unauthorized operation of such quarries and crushers within

and around Dankari Hills forest area.

However, it is sad that the representation and all the requests

made therein by the Applicant met with a deafening silence.

There is a complete avoidance on the part of all the State

Government instrumentalities. Copy of the representation

dated 27.8.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure

P-10.

11. That a Writ Petition (C) No. 18589/2017 was filed before the

Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack challenging the

notice/advertisement No. 3601 (3599) dt. 09.08.2017 issued by

Tahasildar, Dharmasala in an Odia Daily Newspaper for holding

auctions to lease out the quarries and seeking directions to

produce all the relevant material w.r.t. erring personnel

responsible for illegal quarrying and extraction of minor

minerals. The Petition is awaiting final adjudication. However,

the subject matter of the present Application pertains to the

environment loss and loss of life of the villagers.

12. Therefore, the applicant is filing the present Application before

this Hon'ble Tribunal to save the lives of the innocent villagers

 and natural environment and its valuable resources from

importunate cutting of trees and unauthorized mining

operations without obtaining mandatory permissions.

GROUNDS

A. Because the quarrying activities have been undertaken

continuously without obtaining the mandatory clearances by the

Central Government and the State Government authorities.

B. Because the continuance of operation of the quarry without

adopting the requisite safety measures will result into causing

serious health hazards which may eventually develop epidemic

leading the situation out of control.

C. Because of use of wagon blasting the houses in the village and

nearby villages generated severe vibration, cracks and are

likely to be damaged.

D. Because the authorities though well are aware of the same

being in connivance with the miscreants deliberately avoided to

perform their duties.

E. Because the Tehsildar has misused his official power to

exonerate the lessees. Hence the attempt to lease out the

quarries as afore mentioned is nothing but a preplanned

attempt to wipe out the evidences.

F. While the secretary of the Union and Stats instructed not to

operate any quarry at the site the advertisement issued by the

Tehsildar cause insubordination. The notice inviting tender for

auction suffers irregularities, against the provisions of law and

settled principles.
G. Because the Environment Impact Assessment Notification

dated 14th September 2006 was issued by Ministry of

Environment and Forests with a mandatory requirement of

having an environment impact assessment being conducted for

mining of minerals under the Environment (Protection) Act,

1986.

H. Because the provisions of the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the rules framed

thereunder are required to be mandatorily followed for the

purpose of undertaking any mining operation, be it a minor

mineral or a major mineral. It is also necessary that the

proposed lease holders shall follows other legal provisions and

relating to environment protection.

I. Because it is necessary to obtain prior Environmental

Clearance under the EIA Notification 2006 from the Central

Government before undertaking any mining activities as per the

approved mining plan. Copy of the EIV Notification 2006 is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P11.

J. Because the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.

19628-19629 of 2009 Deepak Kumar V. State of Haryana vide

order dated 27th February 2012 has examined all the

environmental aspects related to mining of minerals. The

Hon'ble Court has inter-alia directed that “the mining lease for

minor minerals including sand, gravel, clay, marble and other

minerals even in an area having less than five hectares would

be granted only after EC is obtained by the Applicant.”

13. Because the Hon'ble High Court of Lucknow in Writ Petition

9416 (MB) of 2010 titled as Mohd. Kausar Jah Vs. Union of

India & Ors. vide its order dated 29th April, 2011 with the

directions that it was mandatory to obtain EC in relation to

mining lessees whose lease period had expired after coming

into force of the Notification of 2006 and for the new leases

which would be granted thereafter.

14. Because this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.123 of 2014 Himmat

Singh Shekhawat V. State of Rajasthan and Others vide order

dated 13th January, 2015 specifically directed that no mining

should be permitted without obtaining Environmental

Clearance.

15. Because this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.184 of 2013 Gurpreet

Singh Bagga v. MoEF and others vide order dated 18th

February, 2016 after going through all the intricacies involved

in the case inter-alia directed that Mining activities should be

strictly carried out in an environmental friendly manner after

getting mandatory clearances and relevant consent from the

concerned Government Departments and levied payment of

heavy environmental compensation for carrying out illegal,

unauthorized and unscientific mining operations.

16. Because as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India, read as

“No person shall be deprived his life and personal liberty except

according to the procedure established by law” thereby, under

this article every person has the right to health, right to pollution

free environment, including right to pollution free air, water and

 right to live with human dignity which we are devoid of as the

consuming polluted water leads to unhealthy environment.

17. Because under Article 48 (A) of the Constitution of India, the

State shall endeavour of protect and improve the environment

and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. The

Respondents authorities have an obligation to ensure

protection and improvement of the Environment. The inaction

of the Respondent State Authorities, even after filing of several

complaints, the Respondent States Authorities have failed to

take any effective action has resulted in violation of the

Directive Principles of State Policy.

18. Because under Article 51-A (g) of the Constitution of India, it is

the duty of every citizen of this country to protect and improve

the natural environment, which the Respondents have

hopelessly neglected.

19. Because the pollution free environment is important to health

and it is the fundamental right of the entire population to have

safe and healthy environment at residence /living area and not

only the applicant but all concerned including the respondents

are bound to improve and maintain the same.

20. Because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhas Kumar V/s

State of Bihar and Ors. (1991 SC 420) held that right to pollution

free environment is a fundamental right to every citizen of India

and is included in the ‘right of life’ guaranteed under Article 21

of the Constitution of India.

21. Because Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi V/s Union

of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) held that Article 21 guarantees

fundamental right to life, right to environment, free of danger of

disease and infection is inherent in it. Right to healthy

environment is an important attribute of right to live with human

dignity in a proper environment.

22. Because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Vs Union

of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086) treated the right to live in pollution

free environment as a part of fundamental right to life under

Article 21 of the Constitution.

23. Because Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompass that

shelter for a human being is not a mere protection of his life and

limb. It is however where he has opportunities to grow

physically, mentally, intellectually, spiritually and therefore right

to shelter includes safe and decent structure clean and decent

surrounding and pure air. The right to shelter, therefore does

not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head, but right to all

the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and

developed as a human being.

LIMITATION

The Application is being filed within the limitation period as per

section 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The

Mining activities are continuing day and night on a recurrent

basis. There is a continuous cause of action in the instant case.

INTERIM PRAYER
 In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove

it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be

pleased to kindly allow the present application and;

a) Pass an ad interim ex-parte order to immediately stop the

authorized mining/quarry operations within and around the

Dankari Hills forest area in Jajpur District, Odisha.

b) Pass an ad interim ex-parte order directing stoppage of

transpiration of mined minerals within and around the Dankari

Hills forest area in Jajpur District, Odisha.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble

Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:

1) Pass an order to direct closure of all the mining/quarrying

operations in and around the Dankari Hill Forest Area.

2) Pass an order to direct for enquiry into the matter including the

illegal operation of quarry in Dankari Hill from the period 2002

till date by any independent agency.

3) Pass an order to frame strict guidelines to fix accountability of

the concerned statutory authorities under the laws enumerated

in Schedule 1 to the NGT Act, 2010 in order to safeguard the

environment from the damage caused by unauthorized mining.

4) Pass an order to direct respondents to recover the loss

sustained by the State from the persons including Government

officers found responsible for illegal extraction of minerals.

5) Pass an order to provide relief and compensation for the

restitution of the damaged environment and to preserve the

Dankari Hill and its surroundings for the proposed project.

6) Pass any such or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may

deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Applicant

Through

Filed
 In the High Court of Orissa: Cuttack

(Original Jurisdiction Case)

W.P. (C) No. 8589 /2017

Code NO.219900

In the matter of: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India

And

In the matter of: An application challenging the illegal

advertisement No-3601 dt. 09.08.2017 (Annexure

-9) issued by the Tahasildar Dharmasala (O.P.

No.8) for holding auction to lease out the Sairats

(Stone quarry) in and around Dankari Hills in the

district of Jajpur, i.e. the site marked and selected

for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve –II Project

ignoring the letter/instruction issued by Union of

India not to take any quarry operation in the area;

And

In the matter of: An application seeking for a direction to opposite

parties to produce all the relevant materials for the

satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court as regards to

action taken against the erring personnel and

extraction minor mineral like Black stone, blasting

of hills using explosives, taking quarry activities

beyond the leased out area for the period 2003 to

2015, to recover the loss sustained by the state

and measures taken to safe guard the life and

 property of the local people /inhabitants, historical

monuments, medicinal plants/environment prior to

issuance to advertisement for auction of the quarry

in Dankari hills;

And

In the matter of: Sarbeswar Behura aged about 48 years S/o

Kangali Behura at-Saroi, P.S.- Dharmasala, Distt.

Jajpur.

….Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India represented though it’s

secretary to in Department of Petroleum and

Natural gases.

2. State of Odisha, represented through its

Secretary to Government Department of

Revenue, Secretariat Building,

Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda.

3. State of Odisha represented through its

Secretary to Government, Department of

Forest and Environment, at- Secretariat

Building, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda.

4. State of Odisha represented through its

Secretary to Government, Department of

Health and Family Welfare, At-Secretariat

Building, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda.

 5. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central

Zone, At-Revenue Building, Cuttack, PO-

Chandinchowk, P.S. Lalbag, Town/Dist.

Cuttack.

6. Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur,

At-Collectorate Building, Jajpur,

PO/PS/Dist. Jajpur

7. Sub-Collector, Jajpur, At-Collectorate

Building, Jajpur, PO/PS/Dist. Jajpur.

8. Tahasildar, Dharmasala, At PO/PS-

Dharmasala, Dsit. Jajpur.

9. Member Secretary, State Pollution Control

Board, At/PO Bhubaneswar - 12, Khurda.

10. Deputy Director Mines, At/PO Jajpur Road,

Dsit. Jajpur

11. Director General Vigilance, Odisha, AT/PO-

Buxibazar, Distt. Cuttack

12. Sribash Jena, S/o Muralidhara Jena, At-

Saroi, P.S.- Dharmasala, Dsit. Jajpur.

….Opposite Parties.

The matter out of which this Writ Application arises was never

before this Hon'ble Court in its present form but a part of the claim

was in form of W.P. (C) (PIL) No.23197 of 2015, disposed of on dt.

03.05.2017 as with drawn, as per instruction obtained from the

petitioner. Matters involving illegal and unauthorized operation of

quarry, extraction of the minerals beyond the limit, violation of terms

and conditions of the lease, loss caused to the state is pending before

this Hon'ble Court in form of W.P. (C) NO.13916/2014 and W.P. (C)

No.19232/2015.

To

The Hon'ble Sri Justice Vineet Saran, LL.B, Chief Justice of

Orissa High Court and His Lordship’s other companion Justices of the

said Hon'ble Court.

The humble petition of the petitioner

above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of

India is being filed by way of public interest litigation and the

petitioner has no personal interest. The petition is being filed in

the interest of the people of Village Dankari in the district of

Jajpur.

2. That the petitioner is a resident of village Sarol in the district of

Jajpur, within the Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and prefers

this writ petition for the benefit of the villagers of village Dankari

and nearby villages. It also involves the interest of the State.

The petitioner has filed other PIL prior to this petition.

3. That the petitioner is filing this petition on his own and not at the

instance of someone, for betterment of the village Dankari and

some adjacent village. The litigation cost, including the

advocate’s fees and the travelling allowance of the lawyer, are

being borne by the petitioner himself.

4. That the facts of the case in brief are as follows:

 4.1 That Dhankari Village in the district of Jajpur under

Dharmasala Tahasil is having natural resources like six

thousand acres of Hill area, forest containing medicinal

plants, medicinal plants and minor resources like granite

and black stone. The Revenue authorities have allowed

the persons for extraction of minor resources and its

transportation either by negotiation or lease. But they did

not ensure the safety of the local people and their

property. The chronological material events in respect of

the Dankari Hill Sariats, involved in the present case.

29.01.2003 The Black stone quarry in Dhankari Hills to the extent of

an area Ac-41.50 decs was leased out in favour of one

Sribash Jena on long term basis for the period dt.

01.11.2002 to dt.31.10.2005, of three years as per

provisions of Mines and Mineral concession rules 1990,

on negotiation basis.

22.12.2005 The lease granted in favour of Sribash Jena was

renewed for the Period dt. 01.11.2005 to dt. 31.10.2008,

without any auction.

24.10.2008 The lease in respect of the quarry was renewed for the

second time in favour of Sribash Jena for the period dt.

01.11.2008 to dt.31.10.2011 and no auction was made.

15.07.2011 The application for renewal of the lease submitted by

Sribash Jena was rejected in view of the circular No.

1470 dt. 06.09.2008, of the Board of Revenue, Odisha,

Cuttack.
05.12.2012 The auction of the Dankari hill mining quarry/Sairat was

knocked down in favour of Sribash Jena and lease

agreement was executed in his favour for the period

26.11.2012 to 25.11.2017.

18.08.2014 The State Pollution Control Board intimated Sribash

Jena, lessee to submit Environmental clearance.

26.11.2015 The State Pollution control Board issued instruction t the

Collector Jajpur to stop mining activities of Dankari

quarry of Sribash Jena for non submission of

Environment clearance, forthwith.

23.03.2017 The Central Government of department of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, intimated the Principal Secretary of the

Revenue Department of the state and Collector Jajpur

that Dankari Hill has been chosen for underground

unlined rock cavern Project, in Strategic Petroleum

Reserve Project, Phase-II and requested to stop any

short of quarrying activity at the identified location and

within 500 meters, Bufer Zone around the site.

09.08.2017 The Tahasildar, Dharmasala (O.P. No-8) issued

advertisement No.3601(3599) dt. 09.08.2017 inviting

applications for tender of 22 nos of quarry in the

jurisdiction of the Tahasil including 12 quarries in any

around Dankari.

4.2 That during the period from 2003 to 2017 the following circulars

/instructions has been issued and changes in legal provisions

was made by the Government.

2004 The Orissa Mines and Mineral Concession Rules 2004

came in to operation repealing the earlier Orissa Mines

and Mineral Concession Rules 1990.

2008-2011 Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government issued

circulars/letters for monitoring the quarry/Sairat sources

detecting illegal and unauthorized quarry activities. The

copies of circulars dt. 25.11.2008, dt. 07.04.2009, dt.

25.01.2011 and dt. 21.06.2011 are filed herewith and

marked as Annexure -1 Series.

2014 The Government Amended the Orissa Minor Mineral

Concession (OMMC) Rules, amending the provision for

granting long term lease of Sairats through public auction

/tender only, mentioning procedure for the same.

2016 The Government Further amended the Orissa Minor

Mineral Concession OMMC Rules.

4.3 That while the quarry is operated by Sribash Jena in view of the

lease granted or renewed since 2002 to 2011 and as the

highest bidder in the year 2012 the following events took place.

a. Excess mineral has been extracted illegally and

unauthorized beyond the quarry area causing severe

loss to the state Revenue.

b. Due to use of wagon blasting the houses in the village

and nearby villages generated cracks. The Tahasildar,

Dharmasala instated of taking any effective action sit idle

only issuing an instruction /order to R.I. to stop illegal

 blasting. A copy of the letter dt. 25.10.2011 is filed

herewith and marked as Annexure -2.

c. The quarry operation continued without any valid

Environmental clearance and clearance from the Forest

Department causing severe air and water pollution in

violation of Air (PCP) Act and Water (prevention and

control of Pollution) Act. The Tahasildar as per instruction

of the State Pollution Control Board issued order dt.

27.11.2015 to stop operation of the mining Quarry by

Sribash Jena. A copy of the order dt. 27.11.2015 is filed

herewith and marked as Annexure-3.

d. Serious health hazards like Kidney diseases and T.B.

spread in the locality due to dust pollution and

contamination of water resources. The ADM Jajpur

advised the CDMO to enquiry about the matter no

effective steps were/are being taken till date of protect

the people from the said disease. A copy of the letter dt.

03.10.2015 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4.

e. In view of the inaction and callous attitude of the

authorities who are competent to take care of the

situation in view of the legal provision, circulars and guide

lines of government and higher authority, the people of

the locality were/are compelled to bear undue hardship

in their day to day life. The said news came time and

again in the different News papers of the state. Copies of

 News items published in different News papers are filed

here with and marked as Annexures-5.

f. The authorities though well are aware of the same being

in connivance with the miscreants deliberately avoided to

perform their duties.

g. Challenging the illegal action of the authorities’ different

approached this Hon'ble Court, seeking appropriate

relief.

h. This Hon'ble Court while considering the W.P. (C)

No.715/2012, involving similar facts, after perusal of the

report of the S.P. Vigilance, Cuttack, was pleased to

direct the State Vigilance to take necessary criminal

action against the persons involved in the offence. The

order dt. 16.5.2012 is quoted below for kind reference of

this Hon'ble Court.

“in this view of the matter, the Collector (O.P. No.3) is

requested to consider the report of the Vigilance

Department, examine the same and take necessary

action for the alleged violation of the provisions of the

OMMC Rules. It is open for the Vigilance Department to

examine the report and take necessary criminal action

against the persons who are involved in the offence by

investigating into the matter.”

Now Vigilance Department has charge sheeted six

persons. The Writ Petition is awaiting final adjudication.

i. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court took notice of a similar

matter and initiated suo-moto PIL which is numbered as

W.P. (C) No.13916/2014 and directed for filing of

affidavits by the Collector Jajpur, S.P. Jajpur and

Tahasildar Dharmasala. The order dt. 30.07.2014

passed in the writ petition is reproduced below for

reference of this Hon'ble Court.

“Perused the news items published in the daily news

paper “Dharitri” dated 28.07.2014 regarding unrestricted

mining activities and destruction of hills and mountains

resulting in revenue loss to Government.

The aforesaid said news reveals that without any auction,

illegal supply to stone from Baghua mountain of

Dharmasala continues unabated. The local

administration is in slumber and is not taking any steps

for protecting the same. It further reveals that recently a

huge stone sliding occurred due illegal blasting in

Dankari Mountain. From one mining spot, 41 acres of

area has been encroached by an influential person and

the illegal supply of stone is continuing. More than rupees

20 lakhs of monthly revenue of the government is being

lost by the illegal supply of sand from Panturi to

Imamnagar and Raghunathpur sand supply Zone for

years. The mountains of Dharmasala of Jajpur district are

diminishing day-by-day due to unlawful basting.

 Considering the gravity of the news items as stated

above, this Court directs the Collector, Jajpur,

Superintendent of Police, Jajpur and the Tahsaildar,

Dharmasla to file affidavits individually on or before

05.08.2014.”

The matter is awaiting final adjudication after receipt of

the affidavits.

j. The Writ Petition filed W.P. (C) No.23197 of 2015

assailing the illegality in respect of Dankari Hills and

same was withdrawn with liberty to file better Writ

Petition, on dt. 03.05.2017.

k. The Tahasildar issued a demand of fine of

Rs.58,62,79,633.50/- to Sribash Jena due to illegal,

excess extraction of the stone form quarry against the

allotted quantity, return filed and lease granted. The said

demand notice was set-aside/quashed by the Hon'ble

Orissa High Court in W.P. (C) No.9885/2016, preferred

by Sribash Jena on the ground that he has not been

provided any prior notice to defend the same with liberty

to take appropriate action afresh. Copies of the order dt.

28.05.2016 of the O.P. No.8, is filed herewith and marked

as Annexure -6.

l. That the Tahasildar, Dharamasala took up the matter

pursuant to order of Government and dropped the

proceeding on the finding that the fact of illegal extraction

is based on assumption. Fresh auction proceeding can

 only be initiated after receipt of toposheed of the quarry

as on 222-2003. From the Director Geological Survey of

India unlawful activity is established. He declined to take

any coercive action against the lessee Sribash Jena on

plea that no unlawful activity is established.

m. The petitioner has obtained information under R.T.I. Act

that it has been proposed to take disciplinary action

against the erring of government Officials, such as ten

numbers of R.I., ten numbers of Tahasildar and Six

numbers of Sub-Collector. Copies of the information is

filed herewith and marked as Annexure -7.

n. The Union of India after survey chose Dankari Hill at

Chandikhol of Odisha for its Phase-II Strategic Petroleum

Reserves Project and its Secretary accordingly issued

instruction to state authorities to stop quarry activities in

Dhankari Hill and area within 500 meters buffer zone,

with further instruction that any quarrying activity will be

detrimental to the cavern rock project. It has also been

intimated that the land would be acquired soon after

approval of the Cabinet which was duly intimated by the

Secretary of the State to the Collector Jajpur and the

Tahasildar Dharmasala. Tahasildar Dharmasala has also

directed the RI to inspect filed and take appropriate

action. Copies of the letters issued by Secretary Union of

India, Secretary State and the Tahasildar are filed

herewith and marked as Annexure -8 series.

 4.4 That recently Tahasildar issued advertisement

No.3601(3500) dt/ 09.08.2017 in Odia daily News Paper

and upload the same in website of the district inviting

bidders to participate in auction for 22 numbers of sairats

in the district where in the Sairats mentioned in serial

No.1 to 4 and Sl. No.15-21 are coming within proposed

Reserve project site and its buffer zone. A copy of the

advertisement is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-

9.

5. That the source of information of the facts pleaded is based on

personal knowledge, heard from people of locality and news

published in news papers, data available in the web site of the

district.

6. That the petitioner has approached the opposite parties for the

said purpose. Since the date for opening of the tender as

aforesaid has been fixed to be dt. 30.08.2017, in view of the

urgency the petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon'ble

Court without awaiting any further. A copy of the representation

filed by the petitioner is filed herewith and marked as Annexure

-10.

7. That to the best of knowledge of the Petitioner no other Public

Interest Petition raising the same issued is filed before this

Hon'ble Court or before any other Court.

8. That the present petition has been filed on the following

amongst other;
 GROUNDS

a. Continuance of operation of the quarry without taking safety

measures to save the people from disease may turn to

epidemic leading the situation out of control.

b. Due to operation of the quarry the houses of the local people

are likely to be damaged.

c. Most astonishingly, when in view of the circulars vide Annexure-

1 series Tahasildar is accountable and responsible for illegal

quarry activities, he himself is conducting the proceeding

against the lessee. Thereby misusing his official power to

exonerate the lessees and himself. Hence the attempt to lease

out the sairats as afore mentioned is nothing but a preplanned

attempt to wipe out the evidences.

d. While the Secretary of the Union and State instructed not to

operate any quarry at the site the advertisement issued by the

Tahasildar causes insubordination.

e. As it has already been mentioned in the letter of the Secretary

of the Union vide Annexure-8 that any quarry activity will be

detrimental to craven rock, the act of the Tahasildar to lease the

quarry for mining is against the establishment of project, as

such goes against the interest of the State as well as the Union.

f. The notice inviting tender for auction suffers irregularities,

against the provisions of law and settled principles.

g. That since life and property of the inhabitants and the interest

of the state is in danger from the side of the executive, this

Hon'ble Court should interfere into the matter, in order to protect

the interest of the state and public, deprecate such action and

pass necessary orders for the ends of justice.

9. That the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble

Court may be pleased to pass following order(s):

A. The advertisement vide Annexure-9 in respect of S.No. 1 to 4

and Sl. Nos. 15-21 be declared illegal and illegal operation of

quarry in Dankari Hill may kindly be enquired into by any

independent agency.

B. The opposite parties be directed to recover the loss sustained

by the state from the persons including officers found

responsible for illegal extraction of ores.

C. The opposite parties be directed to preserve the Dankari Hill

and its surroundings for the proposed project.

D. The opposite parties be directed to produce all the

relevant/connected records for the satisfaction of this Hon'ble

Court as regards to steps taken to save the people of the locality

from air and water pollution and diseases caused due to such

pollution.

PARYER
 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be

pleased to admit this writ petition, issue RULE NISI calling upon the

opposite parties to show cause, and if the opposite parties fail to show

cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule be made absolute in

granting the relief prayed for;

And may further be pleased to pass any other order (s) as deem

fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound

shall ever pray.

Cuttack By the petitioner through

Date: 31.08.2017 Advocate

TRUE COPY
 SECTION: PIL(W)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

IA No. of 2021
IN

Writ Petition (C) No.522 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mamta Sharma Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. Respondent(s)

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Youth Bar Association of India Intervener/Applicant

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

SL.NO. Copies Court Fee

1. Application for intervention with affidavit.

2. Annexures A-1 to A-9.

3. Application for exemption from filing notarized affidavit.

4. Vakalatnama & Memo of Appearance.

Mrs. Mamta Sharma Petitioner-in-Person

Email: kaushikmamta7@gmail.com

Mr. Sandeep Devashish Das, AOR

Email: sandeepdas@daslaw.co.in

______________________
TOTAL RS.
___________________________________________________________________

FILED ON: 31.5.2021 FILED BY:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

29, Lawyers Chamber, Advocate for the Intervener/Applicant
Supreme Court of India, Code No.1642
New Delhi-110001 E-mail: charumilind@gmail.com
Mob: 9868009602
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 522 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mamta Sharma …Petitioners
Versus
Central Board of Secondary
Education and Ors. ...Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Youth Bar Association of India … Intervener/Applicant

WITH

I.A. No. of 2021

(Application for Intervention)

AND
I.A. No. of 2021
(Application for exemption from filing notarized affidavit)

PAPER – BOOK
(FOR INDEX: PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE INTERVENER: DR. CHARU MATHUR

 INDEX

Sl. No. Particulars Pages

1. Application for intervention with affidavit. 1-9

2. Annexure A-1: A true copy of the list comprising of 10-21

the names of these student representative.

3. Annexure A-2: A true copy of the circular dated 22

14.04.2021 issued by CBSE.

4. Annexure A-3: A copy of the CBSE Circular dated 23-39

01.05.2021.

5. Annexure A-4: A copy of the CBSE Circular 40-45

numbered ACED-11/19.

6. Annexure A-5: A true copy of the newspaper report 46-47

dated 24.05.2021.

7. Annexure A-6: A true copy of newspaper articles. 48-51

8. Annexure A-7: A true copy of the Order dated 52-64

26.06.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Amit
Bathla vs. Union of India & Ors.

9. Annexure A-8: A true copy of the newspaper articles 65-66

dated 25.05.2021.

10. Annexure A-9: A true copy of the newspaper articles 67-68

dated 24.05.2021.

11. Application for exemption from filing notarized 69-70

affidavit.

12 Vakalatnama & Memo of Appearance. 71

 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.522 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mamta Sharma …Petitioners
Versus
Central Board of Secondary
Education and Ors. ...Respondents
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
Youth Bar Association of India … Intervener/Applicant
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION
TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE INTERVENTION APPLICATION
OF THE ABOVENAMED APPLICANT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -
1. That the Petitioner filed present Writ Petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India thereby challenging the conduct of offline
examination of Class XII students.
2. That the present Applicant is the society registered under the
Society Registration Act, 1860 bearing registration no. 24/2013-
2014 and have Registered Office at: 2nd Floor, Savitri City Center,
Jail Road Chauraha, Haldwani, District- Nainital, Uttarakhand and
correspondence address at, B-3, LGF, Jangpura Extension, New
Delhi-110014. The present application is being filed through its
National President, Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani. The office bearers
of the Applicant had been approached by multiple students and
since the Applicant seeks to promote and protect the interest of the
 2

students, it is espousing this cause on behalf of the students before

this Hon’ble Court.
3. That a group of 521 students had approached the Applicant seeking
appropriate legal aid to espouse the cause relating to the students
regarding the cancellation of board examination.
A true copy of the list comprising of the names of these student
representative is annexed and marked as “Annexure A-1”.
4. That on 14.04.2021, C.B.S.E. vide notification numbered
CBSE/CE/Exam 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “Notification”)
inter alia provided for :
a. Cancellation of Class X exam to be held from 04.05.2021 to
07.06.2021. It was notified that the results will be based on an
“objective criterion”.
b. Postponement of Class XII exam scheduled to be held from
04.05.2021 to 14.06.2021. It was notified that the exams will
be held afterwards and that the situation will be reviewed on
01.06.2021 by the Board. It was further provided that a notice
of atleast 15 days will be given before the start of examinations.
In light of the above, it is most humbly submitted that the decision
of the CBSE to conduct examination for Class XII is in utter
disregard to its own decision concerning the Class X students,
wherein the exams were cancelled, in view of the rising number of
Covid-19 cases. It is submitted that both Class X and XII students
form part of one homogenous group and that the right to life (which
includes Right to health) is equally provided for both and therefore
any distinction whatsoever is unjust, arbitrary and malafide.
A true copy of the circular dated 14.04.2021 issued by CBSE is
annexed herewith and marked as “Annexure A-2”.
5. That on 01.05.2021, CBSE announced a policy for tabulation of
marks for Class X students. As per the said policy, 20 marks were
devoted for internal assessment and 80 marks will be calculated on
 3

basis of the students performance in various tests or exams

throughout the year. The internal assessment was provided to be
on the basis of an earlier Circular numbered ACED-11/19.
A copy of the CBSE Circular dated 01.05.2021 is annexed
herewith and marked as “Annexure A-3”
A copy of the CBSE Circular numbered ACED-11/19 is annexed
herewith and marked as “Annexure A-4”.
6. That a national consultation was arranged on 23.05.2021 by the
Ministry of Education, Government of India with the Education
Ministers and Administrators of all States and Union Territories.
The consultation was chaired by the Union Defence Minister was
attended by Union Education Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal, Union
Minister for Women and Child Development and Textiles, Smriti
Zubin Irani, among other ministers. The newspaper reports suggest
that in terms of the discussion in the meeting, there is a likelihood
that the board examination will be physically conducted between
July 15 and August 26.
A true copy of the newspaper report dated 24.05.2021 is annexed
herewith and marked as “Annexure A-5”.
7. That the Applicant most humbly submits that the country is
witnessing a medical catastrophe and that the decision to conduct
offline examination will be irrational, unjust and unfair, in view of
the following, among other, reasons:
a. It will be a sheer violation of the Right to Life and Personal
Liberty as guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which includes within its ambit, Right to
Health. This Hon’ble Court in Assn. of Medical
Superspeciality Aspirants & Residents v. Union of India,
(2019) 8 SCC 607 has in clear and categorical terms held that
Right to Life includes Right to health.
 4

b. That such a decision is even contradictory to Governments own

decision wherein in view of the rising cases of Covid-19,
examination of Class X students were cancelled on 14.04.2021.
Therefore, any decision regarding the conduct of exam in
offline mode will fail to meet the test of proportionality and
reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution. This
Hon’ble Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) v. Union of
India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 held that

“Proportionality is an essential facet of

the guarantee against arbitrary state action
because it ensures that the nature and quality
of the encroachment on the right is not
disproportionate to the purpose of the law...”

c. That the decision to conduct offline examination will be

“manifestly arbitrary” as per the standards laid down by this
Hon’ble Court from time to time. In Shayara Bano v. Union
of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 (@Para 95-97 and 100-01), this
Hon’ble Court held that:

“And a constitutional infirmity is found in Article 14

itself whenever legislation is “manifestly arbitrary”
i.e. when it is not fair, not reasonable, discriminatory,
not transparent, capricious, biased, with favouritism
or nepotism and not in pursuit of promotion of healthy
competition and equitable treatment. Positively
speaking, it should conform to norms which are
rational, informed with reason and guided by public
interest, etc.
d. That decision to hold offline exams will completely be an
unjust and arbitrary step as it will be in contradiction to CBSE’s
own decision to cancel Class X exam on 14.04.2021.
 5

e. That decision to conduct offline exam will be in contradiction

to CBSE’s own notification dated 14.04.2021, which inter alia
provided that:
“Looking at the present situation of the pandemic and
school closures and also taking into account the safety and
well-being of the students”
It is therefore most respectfully submitted that when in view of
the pandemic, examination of Class X are cancelled, there is no
reason that we can afford to take a risk and expose Class XII
students to this enormous and life threatening health hazard.
f. Not only the students but also their families will be a great risk
if the students are exposed to the virus. It is a proven fact that
the senior citizens are most vulnerable to the virus. Therefore,
the physical conduct of exam will totally be a mindless
exercise.
g. That no vaccination for the age group below 18 years is yet
effected. The country is facing acute shortage of vaccines and
there is yet no update for vaccination for the age group below
18 years. Therefore, to organize the physical examination for
lacs of student without vaccination will expose them to
enormous risk, which can be life threatening.
h. There is already apprehension of third wave and a fear that it
will affect the children. Having no development regarding
vaccination for the children, physical conduct of exam will cost
heavily on life of lacs of students.
i. That several schools have been converted into Covid health
care centres and also vaccination centres. Therefore, conduct of
exams in the Covid hotspots will be a threat to life and safety
of lacs of students.
A true copy of newspaper articles in this regard is annexed
herewith and marked as “Annexure A-6”.
 6

j. That the conduct of physical examination will not take into

account the condition of the Covid positive students, who will
not be in a position to appear in the examination.
8. In view of the above it is most humbly submitted that the
postponement of Class XII examination has created a cloud of
uncertainty in the minds of the students and that a timely decision
is required in order to protect the interest of the students. It is
submitted that due to the postponement of exams, the students will
loose opportunities applying in the foreign universities and also
appear for the scheduled examination for these foreign
universities, which require the Class XII marksheet as a pre-
requisite.
9. It is most humbly submitted that an alternative assessment must be
considered for evaluation of the students. In this regard reference
is made to Amit Bathla vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No.
566 of 2020) wherein an assessment scheme was issued by the
CBSE. The assessment scheme provided for the evaluation on the
basis of internal/practical project assessment.
A true copy of the Order dated 26.06.2020 passed by this Hon’ble
Court in Amit Bathla vs. Union of India & Ors. is annexed
herewith and marked as “Annexure A-7”.
10. That Chief Ministers from the State of Delhi and Jharkhand have
raised concerns regarding the conduct of offline examination, in
the middle of the present health crisis.
A true copy of the newspaper articles dated 25.05.2021 is annexed
herewith and marked as “Annexure A-8”.
A true copy of the newspaper articles dated 24.05.2021 is annexed
herewith and marked as “Annexure A-9”.
11. That, the Applicant has not filed any other application for seeking
similar relief before this Hon’ble Court.
 7

12. That the Applicant has no other remedy except to approach this
Hon'ble Court by way of the present application.
13. The Applicant crave leave to add, amend, delete, modify the memo
of the present Application as when required and so advised in
future. The Applicant craves leave to file and submit the notarized
affidavit in support of the present application subsequently.
14. That therefore considering the above said aspects and, the present
Writ Petition may be allowed by this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER
That the Applicant above named was respectfully prays that:
a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be allowed the present Application
for Intervention in the above captioned matter and permit the
Applicant to appear and participate in the proceedings in the above
Writ Petition in the interest of justice;
b) pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
Drawn by: Tanvi Dubey
FILED BY

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Intervener/Applicant
29, Lawyers Chamber,
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi-110001
Mobile: 9868009602
Email: charumilind@gmail.com

Filed On: 30.05.2021

Place: New Delhi
8
9
 10
11

1. Siddharth Singh
2. Vishal Chaudhary
3. Aditya Kr Singh
4. Tanushri Rai
5. Siddhant Rai
6. Arunava Banerjee
7. Santosh Singh
8. Soumyadeep Chakraborty
9. Diparghya Das
10. Alapan Bandopadhyay
11. Siddharth Yadav
12. Aaisha Sharma
13. Anurag Palod
14. Anzila Kumar
15. Manish Singh
16. Harsh Agarwal
17. Ujjal Amardeep Singh
18. Aindrila Dey
19. Yuvraj Sharma
20. Devansh Singh
21. Adarsh Ranjan Choudhury
22. Abhinav Baburaj
23. Chandranshu Kumar Bari
24. Satya Prakash Behera
25. Mangalam Sultania
26. SUPRABHAT NANDI
27. Chetan Singh
28. Amiya Saha
29. Arka Chatterjee
30. Soumyadeep Saha
31. Lakshay Sharma
32. Smruti Shakti jena
33. Vishal Agrawal
34. Pritam Mukherjee
35. Krishna Yadav
36. Pratham Goswami
37. Tarun Sharma
38. sudip Maji
39. Piyush Khede
40. Yuvraj Singh
41. Manoj Gupta
42. Ronit Mishra
43. Samridh Jain
 11
12

44. Christopher John

45. Sayan Banerjee
46. Nikhil Biswal
47. Meghna Thakur
48. Ankita Das
49. Debish Debbarma
50. Pradip kumar yadav
51. Sayyam Agrawal
52. Atin Baran Ghosh
53. Rashmi Singh
54. Sreyas Singh
55. Pranab Mishra
56. INJIZABUL HAQUE
VAZHAYIL
57. Aryan Sharma
58. Goku Kisna
59. Nanditha Bharte
60. Srihari Kumar
61. Aayush Singh
62. Rituparna Banik
63. Raghuraj Singh
64. Khushi Agrawal
65. Rahul Sharma
66. Yash Jain
67. Souvick Roy
68. Priyan Alag
69. KARAN singh
70. Rachit Kumar
71. Aziz Chowdhury
72. Debidatta Acharya
73. Diya Saha
74. Kirti Agrawal
75. Bhavya Ganglani
76. Ansh Singh
77. Mehul Mittal
78. Shresth Sharma
79. Divyendu Avinash Mund
80. Arunava Acharya
81. Poudyal Basudev
82. Md.Musaddique Hussain
83. BISHWAJEET KUMAR
84. Harsh Verma
85. Saptadeep ghosh
86. Bibhushree Behera
 12
13

87. Aslam Khan

88. Mohammed humraz
89. NIKITJAIN
90. Vipin Kumar
91. Gargi Pathak
92. Sridhar Mohanty
93. Somen Misra
94. Jasmine Patnaik
95. Prajna Suthar
96. Jyoti Prakash
97. Amrit Sahoo
98. Dibyanshu Suthar
99. Soumya Sourav Sahoo
100. Lichi Prabha Mohapatra
101. Anurag Singh Sodhi
102. Naman Saraswat
103. Prince Raj
104. Swayamshu
105. Ananya Mondal
106. Abhijeet Mondal
107. Sayantan Kashyap
108. Raaj Shekhar
109. Maghiya Pila
110. Chup Balaw
111. Ayush Tripathy
112. To Bou Bia
113. Sonu Singh
114. Abhishek Kar
115. Dinesh sahoo
116. Animesh Barik
117. Sagnik Roy
118. Tania Mirja
119. Saugata Banerjee
120. Shreyan Yadav
121. Amit Mohapatra
122. Sushruta Das
123. Sayan Bohra
124. Mustakim khan
125. Rajeev Acharya
126. Amrit Sahoo
127. Gopal Agarwal
128. Soham Mukherjee
129. Amit Singh
130. Kripa Dhandhania
 13
14

131. Bund Did

132. Gaurav Sahu
133. Anchal Jain
134. Aum Padhi
135. Aftab Ansari
136. Ayush Kumar
137. sonali Behera
138. Ashutosh Pradhan
139. Anisha Prasad
140. Devansh Poddar
141. Binayak Bag
142. Stiti Gupta
143. Satyam Kumar karn
144. Swapnil Sreemani
145. Swagatika Patra
146. Ashish Kumar
147. Shadmaan Ahmad
148. Tanaya Acharjee
149. Soham Dev
150. Satya Swarup Das
151. Jyoti Jain
152. Satya Ranjan Mahali
153. Somesh Gupta
154. Aditi Pathak
155. Pratik Pujhari
156. Sripad Kamal Behers
157. Debarpita Nayak
158. Ayan Khan
159. Shouvik Das
160. Sidhartha Mohapatra
161. Barsha baishnabi das
162. Samarth Singh
163. T Rohit Kumar
164. Anshuman Sahu
165. Dibyans Sahu
166. Aditya Singh
167. Debasish Bisoi
168. Sai Sanket Rout
169. Mahesh kumar patra
170. Anshuman Rath
171. Sahil Ali
172. Avyakth Kumar
173. Sanmath Roshan Pradhan
174. Vivek Kumar Gupta
 14
15

175. Purna Pragnya Biswal

176. Ankita Mondal
177. Manmit Singh
178. Sumant Singh
179. Pratap keshari Mishra
180. Dibya Darshan Sinha
181. Ajay Raj Bhoi
182. Harshu Agarwal
183. Priya Sarma
184. Himanshu Singh
185. Ashis Kumar Sahoo
186. Kumar Krishnakant Sahu
187. Khan Abdul Basit
188. Adyasha Nanda
189. Jag Mohan Jha
190. Armaan Sihra
191. Aanjal Tak
192. Tithirupa Bohidar
193. Aryan Raj
194. Saransh Sharma
195. Meera Mishra
196. Lovepreet Kaur
197. Sanjita Panda
198. Ankita Nandi
199. Shibyan Mukharjee
200. Harshad Mehta
201. Taher Ali Khan
202. Barsha Panda
203. Maggi Dokania
204. Anubhav Bindra
205. Jeevan Panigrahi
206. Anish Kumar Rai
207. Biswajit Ghosh
208. Pulkit Agrawal
209. Sukhbir Singh
210. Seeladitya Rout
211. Kunal Kumar
212. Rajlaxmi Agarwal
213. Tushika Rani
214. Sumit Singh
215. Shibo Kumar
216. Ishmeet Maharana
217. Kirti Vasan
218. Nilesh Bansal
 15
16

219. Dipak Ranjan Sahu

220. Soumya Ranjan Sethi
221. Amarjit Samal
222. Prince Dubey
223. Ansh Sharma
224. Kiran Pradhan
225. Arnab Chakraborty
226. Prince Dubey
227. Sampan Kumar
228. Asray Kumar
229. Aum Atman Behera
230. Diyasha Paul
231. Sunita Sahu
232. Prasant Sharma
233. Tapan Singh
234. Mohammad Awesh
235. Susruta Banerjee
236. Sangita Pradhaan
237. Suttapa Yadav
238. Saurav Swain
239. Bikun Dandasena
240. Yusha Abbas
241. Rahul Suthar
242. Debasmith Mohanty
243. Nivesh Desai
244. Pulkit Gehlot
245. Devjeet Jena
246. Binaya Bhupathi
247. Vinit Gulia
248. Anshika Sodani
249. Nazzal Khan
250. Soumojit Roy
251. Shantanu Saha
252. Sameer Singh
253. Sujal Thapa
254.
255. Pranjal Patra
256. Ak Mohapatra
257. Deba Jyoti Sahu
258. Nandini Mittal
259. Ashutosh Panda
260. Shipun Meher
261. Saksham Shaw
262. Dibyans Sahu
 16
17

263. Suvik Swain

264. Chaitanya Durga
265. Kailash Deshmukh
266. Bapun Suna
267. Ashutosh Pattanayak
268. Sudhansu Bala Prusty
269. Sreyan Pattnaik
270. Rabi Sankar Sahu
271. Tarana Parida
272. Prateek Singhal
273. Diksha Nagarkoti
274. Ansul Dash
275. Ashutosh Sharma
276. Swayam Pratik
277. Smrutirekha panda
278. Babu Vishwakarma
279. Pratyush Ranjan Sarangi
280. Hami Jadav
281. Priyanshu Singh
282. M.Flora
283. Priyanshu Behera
284. Aditya Kumar
285. Vishal dev hota
286. Prayas Tomar
287. Rani Kumar
288. Aniket panda
289. Aditya Sankar Suna
290. Bikash Roy
291. Saunak Biswal
292. Himani Ukey
293. Nikita Sharma
294. Rishita Kashiva
295. Radhika Mondal
296. Subhankar Banerjee
297. Sonu mondal
298. Siddharth Singh
299. Aman Acharya
300. Devansh Kapoor
301. Gurjeet Singh
302. Pruthak Pruthibi
303. Rajat Kumar Khillar
304. Trisha Jain
305. Siddthart Kumar
306. Shubham Sharma
 17
18

307. Aditya Raysamant

308. Ankita Bharadwaj
309. Sushree Sanjeevani
310. Siddheswari Sahoo
311. Navdeep Ghosh
312. Bodhisattakumar
313. Shibu Joseph
314. Saroj Kumar Das
315. Sushit Sekhar Nayak
316. Ayush Kumar Sharma
317. Rohan Behera
318. Dibyarajsendh
319. Bibhasish Yadav
320. Abhideepan Patra
321. Abhijeet Naik
322. Bhabesh Kumar
323. Priyam Sahoo
324. Suman Kalyan
325. Shivendu Dubey
326. Arnab Chakraborty
327. Siddhant Pandey
328. Abhijit Sahoo
329. Naushin Nisha
330. Pratyush pranab mohanty
331. Tirtharaj Mahanta
332. Tushar Dhangadamajhi
333. Arman Khan
334. Suksham Singh
335. Bhavya Sharma
336. Samiksha Gupta
337. Adarsh Pradhan
338. Vishal Mishra
339. Rajib Kumar Sahii
340. Rangita Gupta
341. Debapriya Rout
342. Dushyant Singh
343. Dhanush M
344. Jitendra Singh
345. Saurav Swain
346. Dhruv Sharma
347. Rajnandini Jain
348. Sandipan Adhikari
349. Harshal Jain
350. Sailendra Biswal
 18
19

351. Vishal Chaudhary

352. Pritish Padhan
353. Ankit Kumar Sahoo
354. Maduguri Hrudai Sai
355. Binayak Sahoo
356. Himanshu Soni
357. Sanskriti Agrawal
358. Sandeep Kumar
359. Varun Gandhi
360. Biswajit Ghosh
361. Mrittika Mondal
362. Koyel Banerjee
363. Tina chakraborty
364. Achuth CS
365. Bryan Lahote
366. Abhinand Yadav
367. Subham Chattaraj
368. Aditya Kumar Singh
369. Anushka Umate
370. Cheeranjeebi Biswal
371. Mohd Farooq
372. Anurag Jaiswal
373. Satyam Tripathi
374. Anoop Pandey
375. Md.Shoaib Ansari
376. Anish Sisodia
377. Akash Yadav
378. saurav Patel
379. Komal Gupta
380. Pawan Guragai
381. Pawan Gulati
382. Aakash Kumar
383. Aarushi Singh
384. Shivang Tripathi
385. Nitin Singh
386. Ayush Pandey
387. Shiksha Singh
388. Atul Kumar
389. Ajeet Aggrawal
390. Karan Mishra
391. Aman Yadav
392. Shivansh Mathur
393. Abinash Pati
394. Sonu Kusha
 19
20

395. Ashish Rana

396. Anant Mishra
397. Dev Yadav
398. Abhinav Baburaj
399. Bhawana Kumari
400. Jaisal Desai
401. Harjeet Singh
402. Siddharth Sachdeva
403. Akash Gaur
404. Himanshu Choudhary
405. Arun Sharma
406. Shivam Jindal
407. Shruti Sharma
408. Sayan Singh
409. Arman Singh
410. Karan Mondal
411. Dhruv Mittal
412. Abhay Singh
413. Syed Abuzar Rizvi
414. Shivam singh
415. Shreeksha Kashyap
416. Rojaa Ranee Pratap
417. Ayush Paliwal
418. Rishita Mondal
419. Manik Shukla
420. Harsh Verma
421. Mohit Sharma
422. Siddharth Tomar
423. Kunal Gupta
424. Ravi Mann
425. Bharat Sharma
426. Khushu Bhardwaj
427. Shaadiya Ali
428. Piyush Verma
429. Ananya Agarwal
430. Gogia Singh
431. Anshul Shukla
432. Abhinav Verma
433. Pratik Sharsha
434. Himanshu Gupta
435. Nitin Yadav
436. Ravi Raina
437. Nishanth Mehta
438. Sharuti Shamla
439. Kushagra
440. Mavel Tripathi
441. Udit Gupta
 20
21

442. Ayush Bora

443. Saksham Mishra
444. Kashvir Kaur
445. Karthik Kumar
446. Mahi Jindal
447. Dhruv Sharma
448. Bittu Kumar
449. Khushi Narula
450. Pratham Oberoi
451. Prakrutik Kaur
452. Shreya Malik
453. Shiva Kalra
454. Shashank Verma
455. Sacchi Shukla
456. Rashi Modi
457. Kunj Gulati
458. lakshay Sharma
459. Aayush Singh
460. Aditya Rana
461. Anushka
462. mahak Dahiya
463. Shri Ram Verma
464. Khushi Arora
465. Ashish Khatri
466. Shivani Mathur
467. Vani Mittal
468. Luv Barira
469. Piyush Yadav
470. Vansh Malik
471. Gautam Sharma
472. Kritika Malhotra
473. Sonu Kashyap
474. Amin Khan
475. Fanney Khan
476. Mirza Khan
477. Garvit Soni
478. Ranjitha boli
479. Sarath Kumar
480. Sasangan Singh
481. Girija Baby
482. Sagar Malhotra
483. Manish Singh
484. Siddharth Roy
485. Satyam Tripathi
486. Harshit Choubey
487. Aditya Lala
488. Aditya Singh
489. Alok Singh
490. Satyam Mishra
491. Champak Patel
 21
22

492. Alok Singh

493. Shivam Mishra
494. Ritesh Shukla
495. Shivam Mishra
496. Amar Tiwari
497. Kartikey Shukla
498. Pratham Mishra
499. Anurag Singh
500. Anupam Singh
501. NadexAntaryami
502. Chotu Singh
503. Akash Shukla
504. Nigam Shukla
505. Ankit Mishra
506. Aman Tiwari
507. Vaibhav Shukla
508. Ritesh Shukla
509. Piyush Singh
510. Diwakar Sharma
511. Aman Yadav
512. Sushil Dubey
513. Vikas Patel
514. Vikas Dubey
515. Singh lavkush
516. Pranav Sarkar
517. Sonu Yadav
518. Prince Kumar
519. Akash Sharma
520. Sangeet Choudhary
521. Amit Tiwari
 22
23
 23
24
 24
25
 25
26
 26
27
 27
28
 28
29
 29
30
 30
31
 31
32
 32
33
 33
34
 34
35
 35
36
 36
37
 37
38
 38
39
 39
40
 40
41

F.1001/CBSE/Dir(Acad)/2019 March 6, 2019

Circular No. Acad-11/2019

All Heads of CBSE affiliated schools

Subject: Strengthening Assessment and Evaluation Practices of the Board.

As we focus our attention on ‘what our students are learning’ alongwith ‘the skill sets they
are acquiring’, it becomes imperative to strengthen current Assessment and Evaluation
Practices and align them to the future requirements of the learners. The Board has always
stressed that its students must acquire the skills of critical thinking, problem solving,
analyzing information, collaboration, effective communication, developing curiosity and
imagination as part of the learning process. You are also aware that the Board continues to
make small changes in the assessment and evaluation practices almost every year to
eventually reach the goal of achieving the aforementioned skills for all its students.
Report card of the National Assessment Survey (2017-18) has indicated that the
performance of CBSE class X students in Mathematics, Science, Social Science, English
and Modern Indian Language is 52%, 51%, 53%, 58% and 62% respectively. Although this
competency-based survey places the CBSE students above the national average, it
indicates that there is ample scope for improvement in their performance.
Further, the decision by MHRD to participate in PISA (Programme for International Student
Assessment) in 2021, has given even more impetus to the requirement of aligning the
Board’s assessment system to future requirements. It may also be mentioned here, that
since the Board has made it mandatory for all its affiliated schools to adopt the Learning
Outcomes vide circular dated 18.01.2019, it is a necessity now that ‘assessment of learning’
must be augmented with ‘assessment as learning’ and ‘assessment for learning’.
In view of above, countrywide consultations were held with CBSE stake holders including
teachers, students, heads of Institutions and experts in the field to suggest ways to
strengthen the Assessment and Evaluation Practices of the Board. It was agreed upon that
the School Based /Internal Assessment needs to be strengthened by incorporating more
diverse strategies. Further, there is need of exposing the students to different types and
formats of questions in the year end/Board examination, so that a large range of learning
outcomes can be assessed. Based on this, following few changes are proposed in the
Assessment and Examination practices for the year 2019-20 onwards. As the next
academic session (2019-20) is going to start from April 2019 onwards, hence a summary
view of the proposed changes in Internal Assessment and Year End/ Board Examinations
are hereby informed in advance.

1|P ag e
 41
42

The changes proposed for IX-X (2019-20) are as under:

Classes IX- X
Existing Proposed

Maximum marks
100 No Change
per subject :
Types of  Internal Assessment
assessment  Year End/Board Examination
 School Based Assessment of Co-
scholastic Areas (Art Education,
No Change
Health and Physical Education
including Work Experience ,
Discipline)
Marks Internal Assessment : Year End/Board
distribution Examination No Change
20:80

Internal Assessment
Existing Proposed
Periodic Test Periodic Assessment
Periodic Test 10 marks Pen Paper Test 5 marks
(Pen Paper Test) Multiple
Assessment
strategies to be 5 marks
used.
(quizzes, oral test,
concept map, exit
cards, visual
Components of expression etc.)
Internal Notebook 5 marks Portfolio 5 marks
Assessment (Class work) (Classwork plus
peer assessment,
self -assessment,
achievements of
student in the
subject,
reflections,
narrations,
journals, etc)
Subject 5 marks Subject 5 marks
Enrichment - enrichment
consisting of  Social Science
aspects like Project Work
Practical work for  No changes in
Science; other subjects
Labwork for
2|P ag e
 42
43

Mathematics;
Map work &
Project Work for
Social Science
and Listening
and Speaking
skills for
languages, etc.

Board Examination/ Year-end Examination

Board Existing Proposed
Examination
Marks Marks 80 No change
Duration 3 hours No change
Internal Choice 33% No change
Components of Short Answer/Long Answer Objective type 20 marks
Board (Objective as well as Subjective) including Multiple (This is
examination Choice Questions already
paper incorporated
in 2019
Board Exams
in many
subjects)
Subjective – 60 marks
number of
questions will be
reduced to enable
student to have
enough time to
give analytical and
creative
responses.
School Based Assessment of Co-scholastic Areas (Work Experience, Art Education, Health &
Physical Education Discipline)
Assessment of Existing Proposed
Co-scholastic
areas  Internally Assessed No change
 On a 5-point scale

3|P ag e
 43
44

The changes proposed for XI-XII (2019-20) are as under:

Classes XI- XII

Existing Proposed
Maximum 100 marks No Change
marks per
subject:
Types of  Internal Assessment/ Practical
assessment  Board Examination No Change
 Assessment of Co-scholastic areas
(Health and Physical Education
including Work Education, General
Studies)
Marks Internal Assessment / Practical: Board
distribution Exam/ Year end Exam
 0:100 (Mathematics, Languages, Compulsory portion of Internal
Political Science, and Legal Studies) Assessment/ Project work/
 20:80 (Humanities / Commerce Based Practical in all subjects of at
Subjects and some other subjects) least 20 marks
 30:70 (Science based subjects and
some other subjects )
 70:30 (Fine Arts and some other
subjects)
Board Examination/ Year-end Examination
Board Existing Proposed
Examination/
year end
examination
Marks Maximum Marks 100/80/70/30  80 Marks in Mathematics,
As per nature of subject Languages, Political Science
and Legal Studies.
 No change in other subjects
Duration 3 hours 3 hours for all subjects of
100/80/70
Marks and 2 hours for papers with
less than 70 marks theory portion.
Components of Short Answer/Long Answer Objective type Minimum 25%
Board (Objective as well as Subjective) including Multiple marks in Year
examination Choice End/ Board
paper Questions Exam
Subjective – Maximum
number of 75% marks in
questions will be Year End/
reduced to Board Exam
enable student to
have enough
4|P ag e
 44
45

time to give
analytical and
creative
responses
Internal Assessment/ Project work/ Practical
Internal Existing Proposed
Assessment/
Project/  0 marks (Mathematics, Languages,  20 marks (Mathematics,
Practical Political Science) Languages, Political Science
 20 marks (Humanities / Commerce and Legal Studies )
Based Subjects and some other
subjects )  No change in remaining
 30 marks (Science based subjects subjects
and some other subjects)
 70 marks (Fine Arts and some other
subjects)
School Based Assessment of Co-scholastic Areas (Work Education, General Studies,
Health & Physical Education)
Assessment of Existing Proposed
Co-scholastic
areas
 Internally Assessed Internally Assessed

It may be noted that the changes introduced in 2019 Board Exams – that is, 33% internal
options and section wise format – shall continue henceforth for all subjects. The details of
the Year End-Board Examination/ Internal Assessment/School Based Assessment for the
academic year 2019-20, shall be reflected in the Curriculum document to be published by
the Board. The curriculum document shall be made available to all the schools by April
2019. This circular is being issued in advance to enable schools to prepare for
implementing the few proposed changes from next academic session (2019-20) onwards.

Schools are also hereby informed that the Board is preparing detailed guidelines on how
Art can be integrated with the teaching learning process at all levels. This is a part of the
Board’s thrust on innovative pedagogy, that will go a long way in achieving the process of
‘assessment as learning’. These guidelines are being issued separately.

(Dr. Joseph Emmanuel)

Director (Academics)

5|P ag e
 45
46

Copy with a request to respective Heads of Directorates/KVS/NVS/CTSA as indicated below to also

disseminate the information to all concerned schools under their jurisdiction:

1. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18-Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, ND-16
2. The Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15, Sector-62, Institutional Area,Noida-201309
3. The Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110 054
4. The Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Union Territory Secretariat, Sector 9,
Chandigarh-160 017
5. The Director of Education, Govt. of Sikkim, Gangtok, Sikkim –737101
6. The Director of School Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar –791 111
7. The Director of Education, Govt. of A&N Islands, Port Blair – 744101
8. The Director of Education, S.I.E., CBSE Cell, VIP Road, Junglee Ghat, P.O. 744103,A&N Island
9. The Director, Central Tibetan School Administration, ESSESS Plaza, Community Centre, Sector 3, Rohini
10. The Additional Director General of Army Education, A – Wing, Sena Bhawan, DHQ, PO, New Delhi
11. The Secretary AWES, Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), FDRC Building No 202,ShankarVihar
(Near APS), Delhi Cantt-110010
12. All Regional Directors/Regional Officers of CBSE with the request to send this circular to all the Heads of
the affiliated schools of the Board in their respective regions
13. All Heads of COEs of CBSE
14. All Joint Secretaries/ Deputy Secretaries/ Assistant Secretaries, CBSE
15. In charge IT Unit with the request to put this circular on the CBSE Academic website
16. The Sr. Public Relations Officer, CBSE
17. PPS to Chairperson, CBSE
18. SPS to Secretary, Controller of Examinations, Director (Information Technology), Director (Edusat &
Research), Director (Skill Education & Training), Director (Professional Exams), Director (CTET), CBSE.

Director (Academics)

6|P ag e
 46
47

CBSE Class 12 board exams 2021 dates to be out on this date: Check latest CBSE board
exam updates here

India Today Web Desk

New Delhi
May 24, 2021
UPDATED: May 24, 2021 08:47 IST
CBSE Class 12 Board Exam 2021: The CBSE Class 12 Board Exam 2021 dates
will be announced next month. Students heaved a sigh of relief on Sunday after
Union Education Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal 'Nishank' in a high-level meeting
said that the CBSE Class 12 board exam dates will be released on June 1.
On Sunday, a national consultation was arranged by the Ministry of Education,
Government of India with the Education Ministers and Administrators of all
States and UTs.
The consultation was chaired by the Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and
was attended by Union Education Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal, Union Minister
for Women and Child Development and Textiles, Smriti Zubin Irani and other
ministers.
As per reports, the meeting was called to enable Central and State Boards and
other examination agencies to be able to examine various options available in the
present challenging circumstances through a consultation process.
The discussions were held around two themes, i.e., board exams to be conducted
for Class 12 by the Central Board of Secondary Education and other State Boards
and the All-India Entrance examinations for various higher education institutions
and professional courses.
While commenting on the conduction of the CBSE 12th Board Exams 2021, the
Union Education Minister said, ''The meeting was extremely fruitful as we
 47
48

received immensely valuable suggestions. I have requested the state governments

to send me their detailed suggestions by May 25. I am confident we will be able
to arrive at an informed, collaborative decision regarding the exams and remove
the uncertainty among student's and parent's minds by informing them of our final
decision at the earliest.''
''I want to reiterate that both students' and teachers' safety, security, and future are
supremely important to us. While a broad consensus was there among the states
and UTs about conducting the exams, they have been asked to examine the matter
further and send their feedback,'' he added.
CBSE 12th Board Exam 2021: States asked to send feedback by May 25
In the meeting, Rajnath Singh requested states and UTs to submit other
suggestions, if any, to the Ministry of Education by tomorrow, May 25.
Meanwhile, states like Maharashtra said that the “non-examination route” for
Class 12 students should be actively examined and Delhi and Kerala governments
suggested vaccinating students before the exams.
CBSE likely to conduct exams from July 15:
According to sources, CBSE has proposed conducting exams between July 15
and August 26 and the result to be declared in September. “The board also
proposed two options: conducting regular exams for 19 major subjects at notified
centres or conducting shorter-duration exams at respective schools where
students are enrolled,” as reported by PTI.
 48
49

COVID vaccination centres to be set up at 77 govt schools in Delhi

ANI | Updated: May 02, 2021 12:30 IST
By By Amit Pandey

New Delhi [India], May 2 (ANI): Government schools in the national capital will
now serve as COVID-19 vaccination centres for people between 18-44 years who
have recently been made eligible for the inoculation, said a Delhi government
official on Sunday.

The move comes a day after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal informed that
large-scale vaccination against COVID-19 for people between 18 and 44 years
will start from Monday.

The government official also said that preparations for the vaccination drive are
underway.

"77 government schools in Delhi are being prepared for vaccination drive
scheduled to begin on Monday," the official added.

"Schools are being converted into vaccination centres in Delhi so that even if a
lot of people show up to get their jabbed, the transmission of the disease is
curtailed," said the official.

As all the listed hospitals on the CoWIN website, who are administering COVID
vaccines, will continue to do the same to the people aged 45 years and above, the
vaccination for people below that age group will be done at the nearby
government school.

All the listed schools would be coordinating with the nearby hospital and getting
assistance in terms of COVID vaccines and medical attention.

Some of the schools officially listed in the document include KV Air Force
Tughlakabad Sangam Vihar, Shaheed Hemu Kalani GSBV Lajpat Nagar, Govt.
Girls Sr. Sec. School, 2 Uttam Nagar, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhyala, Basaidarapur,
 49
50

Sarvodaya Vidhyala, Mansarovar Garden, Sarvodaya Bal Vidhyala, West Patel

Nagar, Ishani Govt Girls School, Saket, Sarvodaya Vidhyalaya Sector 3 Rohini
and many more.

According to the Union Health Ministry, Delhi administered the first dose of
COVID vaccine to 1,472 beneficiaries falling between the age group of 18-44
years. (ANI)
 50
51

100-bed COVID care centre set up at Delhi's Mount Carmel School

Written By
Press Trust Of India
Last Updated: 10th May, 2021 21:40 IST
New Delhi, May 10 (PTI) In a first, a prominent private school in the national
capital has been converted into a 100-bed dedicated COVID care centre.
Set up at Mount Carmel School in southwest Delhi's Dwarka, The Vijay Williams
COVID Care Centre has a team of 75 volunteers, including doctors, nurses and
paramedics, said school dean Michael Williams, who recovered from COVID-19
days ago and has lost family members to the viral disease, on Monday.
"Almost six weeks ago, our group of church friends started planning this. Almost
100 churches across Delhi have come together for this," Williams told PTI.
While many government schools are functioning as vaccination and COVID care
centres, this is probably the first instance of a private school taking such an
initiative.
All beds at the centre are equipped with oxygen concentrators and cylinders. The
school's oxygen generation plant is also likely to be functional within a week's
time, Williams said.
The plant will be able to fill 1,500 cylinders with a capacity of 100 litres each, he
said.
Williams said the centre will admit coronavirus patients whose condition is not
very serious.
"We will cater to those patients whose oxygen levels can be maintained above 90
with oxygen and will be giving them all medicines and steroids. We have also
tied up with a local diagnostic lab to help in platelet count and blood sugar
testing," he said.
The COVID centre has been named after Williams' father, who succumbed to the
disease on Sunday.
 51
52

"I recovered from the infection two days ago. I even lost my younger brother to
the virus a few months back. My mother is still battling the disease. The centre
has been named as 'The Vijay Williams COVID Care Centre' as a tribute to my
father," Williams said.
Williams' sister Joanna Gokavi and brother-in-law Sunil Gokavi are both doctors
and will be working at the centre.
Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who visited the centre, said, "We may be
able to link this COVID care centre with to one of our big hospitals in the city
after assessing the needs and requirements of the centre." "This Covid centre,
started under the aegis of Mount Carmel School Society, is a mark of humanity
and generosity. The availability of beds and other facilities gives us confidence
that we have the resources to fight this deadly crisis," he said.
Sisodia further said, "We are seeing that nations across the world are experiencing
one of the worst crises ever. The period from April 22 to May 5 was the most
challenging for Delhi. We recorded the highest number of cases and the city had
a staggering infection rate." "We responded immediately by increasing hospital
beds in the city. However, the scarcity of oxygen has been one of the most
challenging problems we have faced. The decreasing positivity rate shows that
we are slowly coming out of the crisis and all the credit goes to the doctors and
the corona warriors," he said.
Delhi's COVID-19 caseload stands at 13,36218 while the disease has claimed
19,663 lives so far, according to official data.
 52
53
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 566/2020

AMIT BATHLA & ORS. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

CENTRAL BOARD OF
SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.584/2020

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.590/2020

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.596/2020

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.583/2020

TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.674/2020

O R D E R

1. The core issue involved in these matters

is about conducting examinations for classes X and

XII of the Central Board of Secondary Education

(CBSE) and the Indian Certificate of Secondary

Education (ICSE) respectively.

2. As regards CBSE examinations, the CBSE

has presented a draft notification for our

consideration.

3. After perusing the same and taking into

account the suggestions given by the counsel

 53
54
2

appearing for the concerned parties, we see no

difficulty in permitting the CBSE to issue the

said notification forthwith. The draft

notification reads thus:

NOTIFICATION

Keeping in view the requests received

from various State Governments and the
changed circumstances as on date,
following has been decided:-

1. Examinations for classes X and XII

which were scheduled from 1st July to
15th, 2020 stand cancelled.

2. Assessment of the performance of

students in the cancelled
examinations will be done based on
the assessment scheme as suggested
by competent committee of the CBSE
for declaration of result for both
class-X and class-XII. The said
scheme is mentioned in Para-7 below.

3. Results based upon the aforesaid

assessment scheme will be declared
by 15th July, 2020 so that candidates
can apply and seek admissions in
Higher Education Institutions in
India and abroad, based thereon.

4. However, for Class-XII, CBSE will

conduct an optional examination in
the subjects whose examinations were
scheduled to be conducted from 1st
July to 15th July, 2020 as soon as
conditions are conducive, as
assessed and decided by the Central
Government. Candidates whose results
will be declared based on the
assessment scheme will be allowed to
appear in these optional
examinations to improve their
performance, if they wish so.
 54
55
3

However, the marks obtained by a

candidate in these optional
examinations will be treated as
final for those who have opted to
take these examinations.

5. For candidates in Class X, no

further examinations will be
conducted and the result declared by
CBSE on the basis of assessment
scheme will be treated as final.

6. For class-XII, the result declared

by the CBSE under Sl. No. (2) above
will be considered as final unless
the students opt for Sl. No. (4)
above.

7. Assessment Scheme:-

(a) For the students of both

classes-X and XII, who have
completed all their
examinations, their results
will be declared based on their
performance in the
examinations.

(b) For students who have appeared

in the examinations in more
than 3 subjects, the average of
the marks obtained in best
three performing subjects will
be awarded in the subjects
whose examinations have not
been conducted.

(c) For students who have appeared

in the examinations in only 3
subjects, the average of the
marks obtained in the best two
performing subjects will be
awarded in the subjects whose
examinations have not been
conducted.

(d) There are very few students of

class-XII, mainly from Delhi,
who have appeared in the
 55
56
4

examinations in only 1 or 2
subjects. Their results will
be declared based on
performance in the appeared
subjects and performance in
internal/practical project
assessment. These students
will also be allowed to appear
in the optional examinations
conducted by CBSE to improve
their performance, if they
desire to do so. Result of
these students will also be
declared along with other
students.

4. Resultantly, all these petitions

pertaining to CBSE examinations pending in this

Court or any other Court shall be deemed to be

disposed of in terms of the proposed notification

to be issued by the CBSE.

5. Accordingly, if any other petition is

pending in this Court or any other Court

concerning the subject of conducting examinations

for Classes X and XII by the CBSE scheduled from

1st July, 2020 to 15th July, 2020, the same will be

governed by this order and the notification

approved by this Court.

6. As regards ICSE, the counsel appearing

for the said Board, on instructions, stated that

ISCE in principle would issue similar notification

with additional aspects referred to in the

 56
57
5

affidavit filed by them. To wit, paragraph 6 of

the affidavit reads thus:

“6. In the light of the aforesaid, the

Respondent has taken the following decisions
with regard to the ICSE (Class 10) and ISC
(Class 12) Year 2020 Examinations:

i) The remaining papers in the ICSE and

ISC Year 2020 Examinations as scheduled
from 1st July to 14th July 2020 as per
press release/notification dated
22.05.2020 shall stand cancelled.

ii) Results of all the candidates for the

remaining papers in the ICSE and ISC Year
2020 Examinations will be declared as per
methodology decided and adopted by
Respondent i.e. CISCE.

iii) If the situation is deemed conducive,

in the near future, CISCE may give an
option to candidates to write any or all
of the remaining papers of the ICSE/ISC
Year 2020 Examinations at a later date
whereby the marks so obtained by the
candidate in that written examination(s)
shall be considered as their final
marks.”

7. Two aspects have been highlighted during

the hearing by the counsel for the ICSE, as

follows:

(i) ICSE may consider of conducting

optional examination for Class X as well and

abide by the same terms as regards the

optional examination regarding Class XII

referred to in the draft notification of

CBSE, reproduced above.

 57
58
6

(ii) The Assessment Scheme of ICSE is

different, which would be notified within

one week from today on the website of the

ICSE.

Rest of the stipulations in the draft notification

of CBSE, referred to above, are acceptable to ICSE

in principle, which would be reflected in the

proposed notification to be issued by the ICSE in

that behalf.

8. In terms of this order, all

proceedings/petitions pertaining to the subject

matter of conducting examinations for classes X

and XII by ICSE for Academic Year 2019-2020

pending in this Court or any other Court shall be

governed by this order and deemed to be disposed

of accordingly.

9. We make it clear that this order does not

deal with any other issue which may arise for

consideration in some other proceedings pending

before the High court or this Court except the

subject matter of conducting examinations for

classes X and XII for Academic Year 2019-2020 by

the CBSE and ICSE respectively.

 58
59
7

10. The writ petitions, transfer petition and

pending applications shall stand disposed of in

the above terms.

....................,J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)

....................,J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI)

....................,J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
NEW DELHI
JUNE 26, 2020.
 59
60
8

*REVISED
ITEM NO.1+2+3 Virtual Court 2 SECTIONS X/PIL(W)/XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 566/2020

AMIT BATHLA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION IA No. 54475/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT

IA No. 54492/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM PAYING COURT FEE, IA No.
57064/2020 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 54473/2020 - STAY
APPLICATION)

WITH

W.P.(C) No. 584/2020 (X)

IA No. 56068/2020 - EX-PARTE STAY
IA No. 56070/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)

W.P.(C) No. 590/2020 (X)

IA No. 56835/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)

W.P.(C) No. 596/2020 (PIL-W)

IA No. 56973/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)

W.P.(C) No. 583/2020 (X)

FOR ADMISSION and IA No.56005/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT

Transfer Petition(s)(C) No(s).674/2020 (XVI-A)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.57356/2020-EX-PARTE STAY and IA
No.57357/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT

Date : 26-06-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR

Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv.

Ms. Vanita Bhargava, AOR
Ms. Trishala Trivedi, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Jindal, AOR

 60
61
9

Mr. Siddharth, In-person

Mr. Rajat Sabu, Adv.

Mr. Mriganga Dutta, Adv.

Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR
Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.

Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, Adv.
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Pravar Veer Misra, Adv.
Mr. Vageesh Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G.

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv.

Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR

Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv.

Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, Adv.
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Pravar Veer Misra, Adv.
Mr. Vageesh Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, Adv.

Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR

Mr. Rahul G. Tanwani, Adv.

Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., AOR

Mr. Yuvraj P. Narvankar, Adv.

Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR

*Mr. Karl Tomboly, Adv.

Mr. Malcolm Siganporia, Adv.
Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. A.S. Aman, adv.
Mr. Kartik Bhatnagar, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, adv.
 61
62
10

Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.

Mr. Vardaan Wanchoo, Adv.
For M/s. Karanjawala & Co.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The writ petitions, transfer petition and

pending applications are disposed of in terms of

the signed order.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) (VIDYA NEGI)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed order is placed on the file.)

* (For the purpose of appearance)

 62
63
11

ITEM NO.1+2+3 Virtual Court 2 SECTIONS X/PIL(W)/XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 566/2020

AMIT BATHLA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION IA No. 54475/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT

IA No. 54492/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM PAYING COURT FEE, IA No.
57064/2020 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 54473/2020 - STAY
APPLICATION)

WITH

W.P.(C) No. 584/2020 (X)

IA No. 56068/2020 - EX-PARTE STAY
IA No. 56070/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)

W.P.(C) No. 590/2020 (X)

IA No. 56835/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)

W.P.(C) No. 596/2020 (PIL-W)

IA No. 56973/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)

W.P.(C) No. 583/2020 (X)

FOR ADMISSION and IA No.56005/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT

Transfer Petition(s)(C) No(s).674/2020 (XVI-A)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.57356/2020-EX-PARTE STAY and IA
No.57357/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT

Date : 26-06-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR

Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv.

Ms. Vanita Bhargava, AOR
Ms. Trishala Trivedi, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Jindal, AOR

Mr. Siddharth, In-person

 63
64
12

Mr. Rajat Sabu, Adv.

Mr. Mriganga Dutta, Adv.

Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR
Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.

Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, Adv.
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Pravar Veer Misra, Adv.
Mr. Vageesh Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G.

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv.

Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR

Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv.

Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, Adv.
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Pravar Veer Misra, Adv.
Mr. Vageesh Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, Adv.

Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR

Mr. Rahul G. Tanwani, Adv.

Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., AOR

Mr. Yuvraj P. Narvankar, Adv.

Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The writ petitions, transfer petition and

pending applications are disposed of in terms of

 64
65
13

the signed order.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) (VIDYA NEGI)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed order is placed on the file.)

 65
66

Vaccination or cancellation: Delhi govt's suggestion to Centre on class 12

board exams
PTI / Updated: May 25, 2021, 18:29 IST

NEW DELHI: Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia Tuesday reiterated his
demand of "vaccination or cancellation" in his suggestions sent to the Central
government on conducting class 12 board exams.
Sisodia, also Delhi's education minister, recommended the tabulation of results
taking into account the marks students scored in class 10, class 11 and assessment
during class 12 so far.
In a letter to Union education minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank, Sisodia said
if experts suggest against giving Covishield or Covaxin jabs to class 12 students,
the central government should procure Pfizer vaccine which has been approved
for children above the age of 12 years.
"If Centre and state government get on the task together all class 12 students and
teachers involved in the examination process can be vaccinated within three to
four weeks," he added.
"If the government feels it's not feasible to vaccinate students at present then I
strongly advocate that the exams should be cancelled and results should be
tabulated as per scores obtained in last three years by students -- class 10, 11 and
12.
Sisodia has also noted in his letter that the government should call a high-level
meeting next month to start discussing the examination format for the 2022
exams.
"We should start preparations already for next year keeping all circumstance in
mind," he said.
The Central government had sought detailed suggestions from all state and Union
Territories by May 25 following a high-level meeting on conducting the class 12
board exams which were postponed in view of the second wave of Covid-19
 66
67

pandemic.
The CBSE has proposed conducting the exams between July 15-August 26 and
the result to be declared in September.
The board also proposed two options: conducting regular exams for 19 major
subjects at notified centres or conducting shorter duration exams at respective
schools where students are enrolled.
Sisodia said in his letter on Tuesday, "The two options proposed by the centre are
not an answer to the challenges posed by the new strain of coronavirus. To ask
students to be ready to write exams is not only insensitive but also fatal. Hence,
we should consider either vaccination or cancellation."
He has made this demand on earlier occasions as well.
According to the ministry of education, there is broad consensus among states
about conducting the examination and a final decision will be announced by June
1.
 67
68

CBSE Class 12 Exam 2021: Jharkhand CM against holding Class 12 board

examination amid the COVID-19 surge
If the suggestions received from the stakeholders are considered, there is a
consensus on the postponement of the examination, Soren said after participating
in a meeting convened by the Centre on the Class 12 board exams.
By: PTI | Ranchi |
Updated: May 24, 2021 8:21:05 pm

Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren said that holding the class 12 board
examinations in the state would not be appropriate in the wake of the
present COVID-19 situation.

“If the suggestions received from the stakeholders are considered, there is a
consensus on the postponement of the examination. People feel that maintaining
social distance will not be possible if the exams are conducted and children can
get infected,” Soren said after participating in a meeting convened by the Centre
on the Class 12 board exams.

Many students and their families are going through mental stress, while several
children have lost their near and dear ones, he said, and adding further he stated
that conducting the examinations under such circumstances would be
inappropriate.

The chief minister said that the proposals for holding the exams online have also
been received. “Many such points are very important like reducing exam time,
changes in the subject, home centre. Keeping all these things in mind, I have
suggested that the date of all upcoming examinations should be fixed only after
the pandemic comes under control,” Soren said.
 68
69

“I will send my detailed suggestion in writing to the Central Board of Secondary

Education within two days,” he added.
In New Delhi, after over-two-hour meeting chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath
Singh, Union Education Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank said that states and
union territories have been asked to submit their detailed suggestions on the
matter by May 25.
 69

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.522 OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mamta Sharma …Petitioners
Versus
Central Board of Secondary
Education and Ors. ...Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Youth Bar Association of India …Intervener/Applicant

APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM

FILING DULY AFFIRMED AFFIDAVIT

TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

OF THE ABOVENAMED PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. The Petitioner has filed the present application seeking

Intervention in the above captioned writ petition.

2. That the Applicant has filed the present application before this
Hon’ble Court in public interest.
 70

3. That due to the lockdown induced reasons it is difficult for the

Applicant to file the notarized affidavit.

4. That it is prayed that in the prevailing circumstances, exemption

from filing duly affirmed affidavit be granted, for the time
being.

5. That the Applicant undertakes to file a notarized affidavit, once

the situation normalizes.

PRAYER

In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, it is most

humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court, may be pleased to:

a. Grant exemption from filing duly affirmed affidavit, in

the prevailing circumstances;

b. Pass any other Order (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit

Drawn by: Tanvi Dubey

FILED BY:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Intervener/Applicant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOBILE: 9868009602

Filed On: 30.05.2021

Place: New Delhi
 71

DR CHARU MATHUR
 SECTION:PIL (W)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

IA No. of 2021
IN

Writ Petition (C) No.522 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mamta Sharma Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. Respondent(s)

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Youth Bar Association of India Intervener/Applicant
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

SL.NO. Copies Court Fee

1. Application for directions with affidavit.

2. Application seeking exemption from filing
notarized affidavit.

Mrs. Mamta Sharma Petitioner-in-Person

Email: kaushikmamta7@gmail.com

Mr. Sandeep Devashish Das, AOR

Email: sandeepdas@daslaw.co.in

______________________
TOTAL RS.
___________________________________________________________________
FILED ON: 31.5.2021 FILED BY:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

29, Lawyers Chamber, Advocate for the Intervener/Applicant
Supreme Court of India, Code No.1642
New Delhi-110001 E-mail: charumilind@gmail.com
Mob: 9868009602
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.522 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mamta Sharma …Petitioners
Versus
Central Board of Secondary
Education and Ors. ...Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Youth Bar Association of India … Intervener/Applicant

INDEX

Sl. Particulars Pages

No.

1. Application for directions with affidavit. 1-9

2. Application seeking exemption from filing 10-11

duly affirmed affidavit.

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT: DR. CHARU MATHUR

 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 522 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mamta Sharma …Petitioners
Versus
Central Board of Secondary
Education and Ors. ...Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Youth Bar Association of India … Intervener/Applicant

APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE

APPLICANT

TO

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF

INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

HUMBLE APPLICATION

OF THE ABOVENAMED APPLICANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the above captioned Writ Petition is filed under Article 32 of

the Constitution of India thereby challenging the conduct of offline
examination of Class XII students.
 2

2. That a group of 521 students had approached the Applicant seeking

appropriate legal aid to espouse the cause relating to the students
regarding the cancellation of board examination.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present application are
enlisted as under:
a. That on 14.04.2021, C.B.S.E. vide notification numbered
CBSE/CE/Exam 2021 (hereinafter referred to as
“Notification”) inter alia provided for:
I. Cancellation of Class X exam to be held from 04.05.2021
to 07.06.2021. It was notified that the results will be
based on an “objective criterion”.
II. Postponement of Class XII exam scheduled to be held
from 04.05.2021 to 14.06.2021. It was notified that the
exams will be held afterwards and that the situation will
be reviewed on 01.06.2021 by the Board. It was further
provided that a notice of atleast 15 days will be given
before the start of examinations.
b. That on 01.05.2021, CBSE announced a policy for tabulation
of marks for Class X students. As per the said policy, 20 marks
were devoted for internal assessment and 80 marks will be
calculated on basis of the students performance in various tests
or exams throughout the year. The internal assessment was
provided to be on the basis of an earlier Circular numbered
ACED-11/19.
c. That a national consultation was arranged on 23.05.2021 by the
Ministry of Education, Government of India with the Education
Ministers and Administrators of all States and Union
Territories. The consultation was chaired by the Union Defence
Minister was attended by Union Education Minister Ramesh
Pokhriyal, Union Minister for Women and Child Development
and Textiles, Smriti Zubin Irani, among other ministers. The
 3

newspaper reports suggest that in terms of the discussion in the

meeting, there is a likelihood that the board examination will
be physically conducted between July 15 and August 26.
4. That the Applicant most humbly submits that the country is
witnessing a medical catastrophe and that the decision to conduct
offline examination will be irrational, unjust and unfair, in view of
the following, among other, reasons:
a. It will be a sheer violation of the Right to Life and Personal
Liberty as guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which includes within its ambit, Right to
Health. This Hon’ble Court in Assn. of Medical
Superspeciality Aspirants & Residents v. Union of India,
(2019) 8 SCC 607 has in clear and categorical terms held that
Right to Life includes Right to health.
b. That such a decision is even contradictory to Governments own
decision wherein in view of the rising cases of Covid-19,
examination of Class X students were cancelled on 14.04.2021.
Therefore, any decision regarding the conduct of exam in
offline mode will fail to meet the test of proportionality and
reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution. This
Hon’ble Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) v. Union of
India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 held that
“Proportionality is an essential facet of
the guarantee against arbitrary state action because
it ensures that the nature and quality
of the encroachment on the right is not
disproportionate to the purpose of the law...”

c. That the decision to conduct offline examination will be

“manifestly arbitrary” as per the standards laid down by this
Hon’ble Court from time to time. In Shayara Bano v. Union
of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 (@Para 95-97 and 100-01), this
Hon’ble Court held that:
 4

“And a constitutional infirmity is found in Article 14

itself whenever legislation is “manifestly arbitrary”
i.e. when it is not fair, not reasonable, discriminatory,
not transparent, capricious, biased, with favouritism
or nepotism and not in pursuit of promotion of healthy
competition and equitable treatment. Positively
speaking, it should conform to norms which are
rational, informed with reason and guided by public
interest, etc.
d. That decision to hold offline exams will completely be an
unjust and arbitrary step as the same is in utter disregard to
CBSE’s own decision concerning the Class X students, wherein
the exams were cancelled, in view of the rising number of
Covid-19 cases. It is submitted that both Class X and XII
students form part of one homogenous group and that the right
to life (which includes Right to health) is equally provided for
both and therefore any distinction whatsoever is unjust,
arbitrary and malafide.
e. That decision to conduct offline exam will be in contradiction
to CBSE’s own notification dated 14.04.2021, which inter alia
provided that:
“Looking at the present situation of the pandemic and
school closures and also taking into account the safety and
well-being of the students..”
It is therefore most respectfully submitted that when in view of
the pandemic, examination of Class X are cancelled, there is no
reason that we can afford to take a risk and expose Class XII
students to this enormous and life threatening health hazard.
f. Not only the students but also their families will be a great risk
if the students are exposed to the virus. It is a proven fact that
the senior citizens are most vulnerable to the virus. Therefore,
 5

the physical conduct of exam will totally be a mindless

exercise.
g. That no vaccination for the age group below 18 years is yet
effected. The country is facing acute shortage of vaccines and
there is yet no update for vaccination for the age group below
18 years. Therefore, to organize the physical examination for
lacs of student without vaccination will expose them to
enormous risk, which can be life threatening.
h. There is already apprehension of third wave and a fear that it
will affect the children. Having no development regarding
vaccination for the children, physical conduct of exam will cost
heavily on life of lacs of students.
i. That several schools have been converted into Covid health
care centres and also vaccination centres. Therefore, conduct of
exams in the Covid hotspots will be a threat to life and safety
of lacs of students.
j. That the conduct of physical examination will not take into
account the condition of the Covid positive students, who will
not be in a position to appear in the examination.
5. That postponement of Class XII examination has created a cloud
of uncertainty in the minds of the students and that a timely
decision is required in order to protect the interest of the students.
It is submitted that due to the postponement of exams, the students
will loose opportunities applying in the foreign universities and
also appear for the scheduled examination for these foreign
universities, which require the Class XII marksheet as a pre-
requisite.
6. It is most humbly submitted that an alternative assessment must be
considered for evaluation of the students. In this regard reference
is made to Amit Bathla vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No.
566 of 2020) wherein an assessment scheme was issued by the
 6

CBSE. The assessment scheme provided for the evaluation on the

basis of internal/practical project assessment.
7. That Chief Ministers from the State of Delhi and Jharkhand have
raised concerns regarding the conduct of offline examination, in
the middle of the present health crisis.
8. That the present application is made bonafide and in the interest of
justice and no prejudice will be caused to the Respondents if the
same is allowed.
9. That, the Applicant has not filed any other application seeking
similar relief before this Hon’ble Court.
10. That the Applicant has no other remedy except to approach this
Hon'ble Court by way of the present application.
11. The Applicant crave leave to add, amend, delete, modify the memo
of the present Application as when required and so advised in
future. The Applicant craves leave to file and submit the notarized
affidavit in support of the present application subsequently.
12. That therefore considering the above said aspects and, the present
Writ Petition may be allowed by this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER: -
That the Applicant above named was respectfully prays that:
a) Pass an order/direction restraining the Respondents from
conducting Class XII examination in physical/offline/in
campus mode.
b) Pass an order/direction to the Respondents to enable conduct of
Class XII examination through internal assessment;
c) Pass an order/direction to the Respondents to issue a time
bound decision regarding the mode of conduct of Class XII
examination.
d) pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
 7

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn by: Tanvi Dubey

FILED BY

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Intervener/Applicant
29, Lawyers Chamber,
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi-110001
Mobile: 9868009602
Email: charumilind@gmail.com

Filed On: 30.05.2021

Place: New Delhi
8
9
 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.522 OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mamta Sharma …Petitioners
Versus
Central Board of Secondary
Education and Ors. ...Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Youth Bar Association of India …Intervener/Applicant

APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM

FILING DULY AFFIRMED AFFIDAVIT

TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

OF THE ABOVENAMED PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. The Petitioner has filed the present application seeking

directions in the above captioned writ petition.

2. That the Applicant has filed the present application before this
Hon’ble Court in public interest.
 11

3. That due to the lockdown induced reasons it is difficult for the

Applicant to file the notarized affidavit.

4. That it is prayed that in the prevailing circumstances, exemption

from filing duly affirmed affidavit be granted, for the time
being.

5. That the Applicant undertakes to file a notarized affidavit, once

the situation normalizes.

PRAYER

In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, it is most humbly

prayed that this Hon’ble Court, may be pleased to:

a. exemption from filing duly affirmed affidavit, in the

prevailing circumstances;

b. Pass any other Order (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit.

Drawn by: Tanvi Dubey

FILED BY:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Intervener/Applicant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOBILE: 9868009602
Filed On: 30.05.2021
Place: New Delhi
 ANNEXURE ‘Y’
ADVOCATE’S CHECK LIST (TO BE CERTIFIED BY
ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD)
Indicate Yes or NA
1. SLP (C) has been filed in Form No.28 with
certificate. YES

2. The Petition is as per the provision of Order

XV Rule 1. YES

3. The papers of SLP have been arranged as

per Order XXI, Rule (3)(1)(f). YES

4. Brief list of dates/events has been filed.

YES
5. Paragraphs and pages of paper books have
been numbered consecutively and YES
correctly noted in Index.

6. Proper and required number of paper

books (1+1) have been filed. YES

7. The contents of the petition, applications

and accompanying documents are clear, YES
legible and typed in double space on one
side of the paper.

8. The particulars of the impugned judgment

passed by the court(s) below are uniformly YES
written in all the documents.

9. In case of appeal by certificate the appeal

is accompanied by judgment and decree NA
appealed from and order granting
certificate.

10. If the petition is time barred, application

for condonation of delay mentioning the NA
no. of days of delay, with affidavit and
court fee has been filed.

11. The Annexures referred to in the petition

are true copies of the documents before the YES
court(s) below and are filed in
chronological order as per List of Dates.

12. The annexures referred to in the petition

YES
are filed and indexed separately and not
marked collectively.
13. The relevant provisions of the
Constitution, statutes, ordinances, rules, YES
regulations, bye laws, orders etc. referred
to in the impugned judgment/order has
been filed as Appendix to the SLP

14. In SLP against the order passed in Second NA

Appeal, copies of the orders passed by the
Trial Court and First Appellate Court have
been filed.
15. The complete listing proforma has been
filled in, signed and included in the paper YES
books.

16. In a petition (PIL) filed under clause (d) of

Rule 12(1) Order XXXVIII, the petitioner NA
has disclosed:
(a) his full name, complete postal
address, e-mail address, phone
number, proof regarding personal
identification, occupation and
annual income, PAN number and
National Unique Identity Card
number, if any:
(b) the facts constituting the cause of
action;
(c) the nature of injury caused or likely
to be caused to the public;
(d) the nature and extent of personal
interest, if any, of the petitioner(s);
(e) details regarding any civil, criminal
or revenue litigation, involving the
petitioner or any of the petitioners,
which has or could have a legal
nexus with the issue(s) involved in
the Public Interest Litigation.
17. If any identical matter is pending/disposed YES
of by the Hon. Supreme Court, the
complete particulars of such matters have
been given.

18. The statement in terms of the Order XIX

Rule 3(1) of Supreme Court Rules 2013 YES
has been given in the Petition of appeal.

19. Whether a Bank Draft of Rs.50,000/- or

50% of the amount, whichever is less, has NA
 been deposited by the person intending to
appeal, if required to be paid as per the
order of the NCDRC, in terms of Section 23
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

20. In case of appeal under Armed Forces

Tribunal Act, 2007, the NA
petitioner/appellant has moved before the
Armed Forces Tribunal for granting
certificate for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court.
21. All the papersbooks to be filed after curing
the defects shall be in order. YES

I hereby declare that I have personally verified the

petition and its contents and it is in conformity with the
Supreme Court Rules 2013. I certify that the above
requirements of this Check List have been complied
with. I further certify that all the documents necessary
for the purpose of hearing of the matter have been filed.
Signature

AoR’s Name CHARU MATHUR

AOR Code 1642
Contact No. 9868009602
New Delhi;
Date: 23.07.2022
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2022

[From the final order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2021]

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Assistant Engineer Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.

…PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Narpat Singh & Anr.

...RESPONDENTS

WITH

I.A. No. of 2022

Application for exemption from filing Official Translation

I.A. No. of 2022

Application for Condonation of Delay

PAPER – BOOK

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: DR. CHARU MATHUR

 INDEX
S.No Particulars of document Page no. of part to Remarks
which it belongs
Part I Part II
(Content Contents
s of of file
paper alone
Book)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
Court Fee
1. O/R on Limitation A A

2. Listing Proforma A1-A2 A1-A2

3. Cover page of paper Book A3

4. Index of Record of Proceedings A4

5. Limitation Report prepared by the A5

Registry

6. Defect List A6

7. Note Sheet NS1

to…..
8. Synopsis & List of Dates B– G

9. 1–4
Impugned final order dated
14.07.2021 passed by the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2021.

10. SLP with affidavit 5 – 14

11. Appendix 15

12. ANNEXURE P-1:

16 -
Copy of award dated 15.04.14 in
Labour Dispute Case No. 92/2009
13. ANNEXURE P-2:
Copy of order dated 26.08.20
passed in 33C(2) Dispute Case No.
04/2016
14. ANNEXURE P-3:
 Copy of order dated 20.01.21
passed SB Civil Writ Petition No.
384/2021
15. Application for exemption from filing
official translation.

16. Application for condonation of delay

17. F/M

18. V/M
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

 A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF :

Assistant Engineer Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.

…PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Narpat Singh & Anr.

...RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/are within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of ______

days in filing the same against order dated 14.07.2021 and
petition for condonation of ____ days delay has been filed.
3. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of _____
days in re-filing the same and petition for condonation of
days delay has been filed.

New Delhi BRANCH OFFICER

Dated : 23.07.2022
 A-1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION:II

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

 Central Act: (Title) Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India

 Section: ______ Under Article 136
 Central Rule: (Title) ___________NA________
 Rule No(s): ___________NA________
 State Act: (Title) __________NA__________
 Section: _____________NA____________
 State Rule: (Title) _____NA________________
 Rule No(s): __________NA_______________________
 Impugned Interim order : (Date)____NA____________
 Impugned Final Order/Decree : (Date) 14.07.2021
 High Court: (Name) High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur
 Names of Judges- Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur
 Tribunal / Authority : (Name) ___________N/A____________________
___________________________________________________________________
1. Nature of Matter: ✓ Civil  Criminal
2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant No.1: Assistant Manager, JVVNL & Ors.
(b) e-mail ID:_________________NA__________________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA_________________
3. (a)Respondent N.1: Narpat Singh & Anr.
(b) e-mail ID:_________________NA__________________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA_________________

4. (a) Main category classification: ____06________________

(b) Sub classification: _____________605______________

5. Not to be listed before: ___________NA_____________

6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any, & case details:
No similar matter
(b) Similar Pending matter with case details:
No similar matter

7. Criminal Matters:
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered:  Yes  No
(b) FIR No. ______NA_________
(c) Police Station: ___________NA_________
(d) Sentence Awarded: ________________NA_______
(e) Period of Sentence undergone including period of
Detention/Custody undergone: ______NA_________
 A-2
8. Land Acquisition Matters:
(a) Date of Section 4 notification: ____NA__________________

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: ____NA__________________

(c) Date of Section 17 notification: ___NA___________________

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: ________NA__________________

10. Special Category (First petitioner/appellant only):
 Senior Citizen > 65 years SC/ST Woman/ Child  Disabled
 Legal Aid case  In custody
11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters):
_________N/A_____

Date: 23.07.2022
[DR. CHARU MATHUR]
AOR for petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Registration No:1642
9868009602
charumilind@gmail.com
 B
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

Petitioner Corporation prefers the instant Special Leave Petition

being aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the appeal filed
by the Petitioners herein was dismissed.

The facts in brief are that respondent no. 1 had raised an industrial
dispute in respect of his retrenchment. The Labour Court held the
respondent No. 1 entitled for reinstatement with effect from
02.09.2008 along with 50% back wages. Against the said award
Petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4830/2014 which
is pending consideration before the Hon’ble High Court.

During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, Respondent no. 1

preferred an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 seeking payment of back wages.

Reply was filed by the petitioners that the S.B. Civil Writ Petition
no. 4830/2014 is still pending for consideration against the award
dated 15.04.2014. It was stated that the contractual appointment
was offered to the Ex- servicemen but the respondent no. 1 is not
an ex-servicemen, therefore, he was sent back to the agency i.e.
the respondent no. 2 and that he was not entitled for any relief at
this stage.

The learned Labour Court allowed the application filed by

respondent No.1 and passed an award requiring the present
petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 3,36,205/- to the respondent No. 1
being 50% of his salary (Rs.6,72,410/-) within a period of two
months.

The Hon’ble High Court dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
384/2021 while observing that the petitioners had challenged the
 C
judgment and award dated 15.04.2014 but no interim order has
been granted. The Writ Petition was dismissed. D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2021 was dismissed vide impugned order.

It is submitted that although no interim order has been passed in

the pending writ petition granting stay of the award dated
15.04.2014, however the same is yet to attain finality in view of
the challenge by the petitioners by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition
4830/2014.

During the pendency of the said writ petition there was no

occasion for the respondent no. 1 to file an application u/s 33 of
the Act of 1947 for payment in pursuance to the award dated
15.04.2014. Also, The Hon’ble High Court ought to have heard
the main petition alongwith the present petition and should have
finally decided the issue.

2008 Respondent No. 1 working as security guard and

employed through respondent no. 2 agency was
retrenched from service.

Respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute and

consequently a reference came to be made to the
Labour Court in relation to his retrenchment.

2009 Respondent No. 1 in his claim petition submitted that

he was initially appointed as Security Guard in the
office of the petitioners on 09.05.2006 through
Security Agency i.e. respondent no. 2. It. was further
stated in the claim petition that he worked till
01.09.2008 but his services were terminated vide
order dated 30.08.2008 and another person was
 D
appointed in his place. The respondent claimed that
he was worked for more than 240 days in a calendar
year and prayed for reinstatement with all
consequential benefits.

In the reply filed by the petitioners it was stated that

an agreement was executed between Jodhpur Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Ltd, and respondent no. 2 to provide
services of Ex-Servicemen for the work of Security
guard on the terms and conditions mentioned in the
agreement. The agreement was only upto the period
of June, 2008. The relationship of the employee and
labour were also denied. It was submitted that the case
of the respondent no. 1 was not covered under the
Industrial Dispute Act as the services of the
respondent no. 1 were only on the basis of the
agreement executed between the Nigam and
respondent no. 2. Thus, the provision of section 25-B,
25-F & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act are not
applicable. It was also stated that the respondent
agency is being engaged for providing the Ex-
servicemen as Security Guards and since respondent
no. 1 was not an ex-serviceman, he was not entitled
to claim any relief.

Respondent no. 2 in its reply stated that the

appointment of respondent no. 1 was contractual and
does not fall within the provisions of the Industrial
Dispute Act.
 E
15.04.14 That learned Labour Court answered the reference so
made to it and held that respondent’s retrenchment
vide order dated 02.09.2008 was contrary to law and
without following due procedure. The Tribunal held
the respondent No. 1 entitled for reinstatement with
effect from 02.09.2008 along with 50% back wages.

Copy of award dated 15.04.14 in Labour Dispute

Case No. 92/2009 is annexed herewith as Annexure
P-1 pages ( )

2014 Petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

4830/2014 challenging the award dated 15.04.2014.
The said writ petition is pending consideration before
the Hon’ble High Court.

2016 That during the pendency of the writ petition an

application was filed by respondent No.1 under
Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reply was filed by the petitioners that the S.B. Civil

Writ Petition no. 4762/2014 is still pending for
consideration against the award dated 15.04.2014. It
was replied that the respondent no. 1 does not fulfill
the contractual conditions therefore, the services of
the respondent no. 1 have been rightly terminated. It
was also mentioned that the contractual appointment
was offered to the Ex- servicemen but the respondent
no. 1 is not an ex-servicemen, therefore, he was sent
back to the agency i.e. the respondent no. 2, thereafter
the respondent no. 1 was directed to give his services
at Pindwara but he failed to join services and
 F
preferred the Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal.
Thus, the respondent no. 1 is not entitled for any relief
at this stage.

26.08.20 The learned Labour Court allowed the application

filed by respondent No.1 under Section 33-C (2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned
Labour Court passed an award requiring the present
petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 3,36,205/- to the
respondent No. 1 being 50% of his salary
(Rs.6,72,410/-) within a period of two months

Copy of order dated 26.08.20 passed in 33C(2)

Dispute Case No. 04/2016 is annexed herewith as
Annexure P-3 pages ( )

2021 Petitioner Corporation being aggrieved preferred S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 384/2021.

20.01.21 The Hon’ble High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 384/2021 observed that the petitioners had
challenged the judgment and award dated 15.04.2014
but no interim order has been granted. The Writ
Petition was dismissed.

Copy of order dated 20.01.21 passed SB Civil Writ

Petition No. 384/2021 is annexed herewith as
Annexure P-4 pages ( )

2021 Petitioner Corporation being aggrieved preferred

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2021
 G
14.07.21 Hon’ble High Court vide impugned order dismissed
the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner.

23.07.22 Hence the present Special Leave Petition

 1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 382/2021
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 579/2021

1. Assistant Engineer, Junior Sub Division II, Jodhpur Vidyut

Vitran Nigam Limited, Pali.
2. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
New Power House, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
3. Superintending Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Pali
4. Executive Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Pali (Chd-II).
----Appellants
Versus

1. Parbat Singh S/o Shri Peer Singh, R/o Village Mandali

Khurd, Post Hemavas, Pali.
2. Manager, Purv Sainik Bahu Udeshya Sehkari Samiti
Limited, F-33, Tilak Nagar, Pali
----Respondents
Connected with
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 385/2021
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 386/2021

1. Assistant Engineer, Junior Sub Division II, Jodhpur Vidyut

Vitran Nigam Limited, Pali.
 2
2. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
New Power House, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
3. Superintending Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Pali
4. Executive Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Pali (Chd-II).
----Appellants
Versus

1. Hukum Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh, R/o 336, Rajendra

Nagar, Pali.
2. Manager, Purv Sainik Bahu Udeshya Sehkari Samiti
Limited, F-33, Tilak Nagar, Pali
----Respondents

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2021

In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 384/2021

1. Assistant Engineer, Junior Sub Division II, Jodhpur Vidyut

Vitran Nigam Limited, Pali.
2. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
New Power House, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
3. Superintending Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Pali
4. Executive Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Pali (Chd-II).
----Appellants
Versus
 3
1. Narpat Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, R/o G-51, Bhadelav
Road, Society Nagar, Pali.
2. Manager, Purv Sainik Bahu Udeshya Sehkari Samiti
Limited, F-33, Tilak Nagar, Pali
----Respondents
____________________________________________________

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat, Advocate with

Mr. Rohin Bhansali, Advocate
____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order

14/07/2021

Vide this order above-mentioned three appeals would

be disposed of as they raise common issue.
The appellants have filed the appeals challenging the orders
dated 20.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby,
writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed.
We have heard learned State Counsel and have gone
through the record available on the file carefully.
Respondents/Workmen had raised an Industrial Dispute by
serving a demand notice challenging their termination. The Labour
Court vide its award dated 15.04.2014 ordered reinstatement of
the workmen with 50% back-wages. Although, the award passed
by the Labour Court is under challenge before this Court but no
interim order has been passed in favour of the appellants. In this
situation, respondents/workmen moved an application under
 4
Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming back-wages. The Labour Court
allowed the applications moved by the respondents/workmen
under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Hence, the petitions were filed
by the appellants challenging the orders passed by Labour Court
under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.
Since the awards have already been passed in favour of the
respondents/workmen while reinstating them in service along with
50% back-wages, the Labour Court rightly allowed the
applications moved by the respondents/workmen under Section
33(C)(2) of the Act. The award passed by the Labour
Court awarding 50% back-wages has not been set aside
nor its implementation has been stayed by this Court. In the facts
and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge
had rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants. No
ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SABINA),J

33, 34, 35-SanjayS/SunilS/-

TRUE COPY
 5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022

BETWEEN POSITION OF PARTIES
In the In this
High Court Court

1. Assistant Engineer,
Junior Sub Division II,
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Pali
Rajasthan Appellant No. 1 Petitioner

2. Managing Director,
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
New Power House,
Jodhpur,
Rajasthan Appellant No. 2 Petitioner

3. Superintending Engineer,
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Pali,
Rajasthan Appellant No. 3 Petitioner

4. Executive Engineer,
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Pali, (Chd-II)
Rajasthan Appellant No. 4 Petitioner
 6
Versus

1. Narpat Singh
S/o Shri Hari Singh,
R/o G-51, Bhadelav Road,
Society Nagar,
Pali Contesting
Rajasthan Respondent Respondent

2. Manager,
Purv Sainik Bahu Udeshya
Sehkari Samiti Limited,
F-33, Tilak Nagar,
Pali, Contesting
Rajasthan Respondent Respondent

TO,
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA;
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE-NAMED
PETITIONER;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The petitioners herein are filing the present special leave
petition against the final impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed
by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2021 whereby the Hon'ble
High Court was pleased to dismiss the same.
 7

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

A. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not appreciating

that the award dated 15.04.2014 is yet to attain finality in
view of the challenge by the petitioners by way of S.B. Civil
Writ Petition 4830/2014?

B. Whether during the pendency of S.B. Civil Writ Petition

4830/2014 filed by the petitioners the labour Court ought to
have entertained the application u/s 33 of the Act of 1947
filed by the respondent?

C. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not deciding the

issue finally by hearing both the matters simultaneously?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(2):

The Petitioners state that no other petition seeking Leave to appeal
has been filed by him against the impugned judgment and final
order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
386/2021.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3:

The Annexure P-1 to P-3 produced along with the Special Leave
Petition are the copies of the pleading/documents, which formed
part of the records in the High Court against whose order the leave
is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUND:
The leave to appeal is sought on following grounds:
 8
I. That although no interim order has been passed in the
pending writ petition granting stay of the award dated
15.04.2014, however the same is yet to attain finality in view
of the challenge by the petitioners by way of S.B. Civil Writ
Petition 4830/2014.

II. Because the Hon’ble High Court erred in not appreciating

that the award dated 15.04.2014 which has been challenged
by the petitioners by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition
4830/2014 is still pending consideration and the issue is yet
to attain finality, hence, there was no occasion for the
respondent no. 1 to file an application u/s 33 of the Act of
1947 for payment in pursuance to the award. The Hon’ble
High Court ought to have heard the main petition also
alongwith the present petition and should have decided the
issue once for all.

III. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider that the
basic award on the basis of which the amount has been
claimed is pending consideration and it would be difficult for
the petitioners to recover any amount paid to respondent no.
1. The appropriate action would have been to hear both the
matters i.e. the writ petition challenging the award and the
present petition. Both the matters should have been heard
simultaneously.

IV. Because respondent no. 1 does not fulfill the contractual

conditions therefore, the services of the respondent no. 1 have
been rightly terminated. It was also mentioned that the
contractual appointment was offered to the Ex- servicemen
but the respondent no. 1 is not an ex-servicemen, therefore,
 9
he was sent back to the agency i.e. the respondent no. 2,
thereafter the respondent no. 1 was directed to give his
services at Pindwara but he failed to join services and
preferred the Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal. Thus, the
respondent no. 1 is not entitled for any relief at this stage.

V. Because it is a settled principle of law that when the

award/order on the basis of which the workmen is claiming
right, is pending consideration before the Higher Court then
there was no occasion available to the respondent no. 1 to
move an application for execution of the award. In the instant
case the award passed by the Learned Tribunal is pending
consideration before the Hon’ble High Court and the same
has been brought on record before the learned Tribunal also
but the learned Tribunal has not Considered this averment of
the reply and failed to appreciate that the relief at this stage
could not have been granted in favor of respondent no. 1. It
is submitted that during the pendency of S.B. Civil Writ
Petition 4830/2014 filed by the petitioners the labour Court
ought not to have entertained the application u/s 33 of the Act
of 1947 filed by the respondent

VI. Because for claiming the relief, the-ex-servicemen was the

condition precedent. Further, it was a case of contractual
appointment and the replacement was made by the
respondent no. 2 knowing fully well that the respondent no.
1 was not fulfilling the criteria on the basis of which he was
engaged.

VII. Because an agreement was executed between the Nigam and

the agency whereby, only ex-servicemen were required to be
 10
provided for contractual appointment. The agency was
having the discretion of changing the workmen according to
their choice and therefore, neither it can be said that any right
has accrued in favor of the respondent no.1 nor he can claim
employment with a particular employer of his choice,
especially when he was engaged through contractor/agency
by the Nigam.

6. GROUND FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

I. Because although no interim order has been passed in the

pending writ petition granting stay of the award dated
15.04.2014, however the same is yet to attain finality in view
of the challenge by the petitioners by way of S.B. Civil Writ
Petition 4830/2014

II. Because the basic award on the basis of which the amount has
been claimed is pending consideration and it would be
difficult for the petitioners to recover any amount paid to
respondent no. 1.

III. Because the petitioner has a strong prima facie case and the
balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner

IV. Because in case the impugned order is not stayed, then, the
Petitioner would suffer great loss and injury.

7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to: -

a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the impugned final

order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special
 11
Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2021; and

b) pass any such further orders, as it may deem fit and proper
in the peculiar facts and the circumstances hereof.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

a) Grant ad-interim ex-parte stay of the operation of order
dated 26.08.20 passed in 33C(2) Dispute Case No. 04/2016
passed by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour
Court , Jodhpur, Rajasthan; and
b) pass any such further orders, as it may deem fit and proper
in the peculiar facts and the circumstances hereof.

Filed by:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the petitioner
Drawn on: 22.07.2022
Filed on: 23.07.2022
 12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO (CIVIL) _____ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Assistant Engineer Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
…PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Narpat Singh & Anr.

...RESPONDENTS
CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and
the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No
additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or
relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that
the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the Special
Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised
in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave
Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This Certificate
is given on the basis of the instructions given by the
Petitioner/Persons authorized by the Petitioner whose affidavit is
filed in support of the S.L.P.
FILED BY:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner

Filed on: 23.07.2022

 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

OF 2022
SPECIALLEAVE PETITION (C)NO.

INTHE MATTER QF:

Engineer, Junior Sub Division-I1,
Assistant
Jodhpur
Pali & Ors.
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Petitioners
VERSUS
Respondents
Narpat Singh & Anr.

AFFIDAVIT

Shri K.K. Bhatnagar, aged about 33 years,

I, Pranjal Bhatnagar S/o
Vitran
Personnel Officer (Enquiry), Jodhpur Vidyut
presently posted as

affirm and state

Jodhpur, Rajasthan, do hereby solemnly
Nigam Limited,

as hereunder:-

well acquainted with the

the Officer-in-Charge and
am
1. That I am

and am appointed as Officer-in-Charge in the

facts of the aforesaid case

authorized to swear this

aforesaid matter and am competent and duly

affidavit.
drafted on my
Special Leave Petition has been
2. That the aforesaid

records of the case.

instructions based on

List of Dates (Page B to G ), Special Leave

3. That I have read over the
understood the same. The
Rion (Page 5 to14 & Paras 1 to 8) and have

AR
ACHHEERAU
PARIHAP

AD
ODHPUR
RegdNo1388 ATTESTED

Cov
EAPERY DAT

07/02/202

OFI
MOTARY, JODHPUR
 true and
correct to my knowledge and belief based
facts stated therein
are

on records of the case.

are true and

in the accompanying applications
4. That the facts stated

records of the case. I have

and belief based on
correct to my knowledge

understood the contents of the

read over the said applications and have

same.

annexed therewith is/are the true copy/copies of

5. That the annexures

its respective originals.

(PranjaDEPONBNT
Personnel Officer (Enq.)
Jodhpur Discom, Jodhpur

VERIFICATION:
that the contents of
1, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify

l to 5 are true and correct to my knowledge

the above affidavit from paras
material has been
and belief and nothing false
is stated herein and nothing

ARogcealed therefrom.
ACHHEE RA
PARIHAP
ADVOCA

JODHPUR
R e g d
N o1 3 8 8 6

Verified at Jodhpur on this day of July, 2022.

E x P E R YD A E

OVT
GTH02/2024

OF OF
BENTEEDBY
DEPONENT
(Pranjal Bhatnagar)
Personnel Officer (Enq.)
Jodhpur Discom, Jodhpur

ATTESTED

MOTARY, JODHPUR.
 APPENDIX

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

33C. Recovery of money due from an employer.—

(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer

any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in
terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of
money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be
computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be
made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be
specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government; [within a
period not exceeding three months:] 1

[Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court

considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further
period as he may think fit.]
 ANNEXURE P-2

ANNEXURE P-3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 384/2021

1. Assistant Engineer, Junior Sub Division II, Jodhpur Vidyut

Vitran Nigam Limited, Pali.
2. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
New Power House, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
3. Superintending Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Pali
4. Executive Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Pali (Chd-II).
----Appellants
Versus

1. Narpat Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, By Caste Rajput R/o

G-51, Bhadelav Road, Society Nagar, Pali.
2. Manager, Purv Sainik Bahu Udeshya Sehkari Samiti
Limited, F-33, Tilak Nagar, Pali
----Respondents
____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur

Mr. Lakshya Raj Singh
____________________________________________________

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order
20/01/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have
challenged the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jodhpur (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Labour Court’ or ‘the Tribunal’), whereby
an application filed by respondent No.1 under Section
33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter,
referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’) has been allowed.

2. At the instance of the respondent No.1, a reference came to be

made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court in
relation to his retrenchment and the Tribunal was required to
answer as to whether retrenchment of respondent No.1 by the
present petitioners and respondent No.2 was legally valid?

3. Vide award dated 15.04.2014, learned Labour Court

answered the reference so made to it and held that respondent’s
retrenchment vide order dated 02.09.2008 was contrary to law
and without following due procedure.

4. While passing the award, the Tribunal held the respondent-

labourer entitled for reinstatement along with 50% back
wages.

5. When the due amount as awarded by the Tribunal was not

paid, the respondent-labourer was again constrained to
approach the Tribunal by way of moving an application under
Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947.

6. Respondent No.1 claimed the amount which was not paid to

him in terms of the award.
7. Vide order dated 26.08.2020, (impugned in the present
proceeding), the learned Labour Court passed an award
requiring the present petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.3,36,205/-
to the respondent-labourer being 50% of his salary
(Rs.6,72,410/-) within a period of two months.

8. Calling the order dated 26.08.2020 in question, Mr. Mathur,

learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
Labour Court was not justified in directing the present
petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.3,36,205/-, as such amount
was not determined/mentioned in the award dated 15.04.2014.

9. He invited Court’s attention towards the provisions contained

in Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 and argued that in
exercise of powers under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, Labour
Court can pass direction/award only in relation to the amount
which had earlier been determined or is undisputed. He also
argued that the liability of the amount should have been
fastened on respondent No.2.

10.Heard.

11.It is not in dispute that pursuant to award dated 15.04.2014,the

present petitioners were required to reinstate the respondent
No.1 and pay 50% back wages.

12.It is also not in dispute that after the judgment and award dated
15.04.2014, neither the present petitioners nor the
Manager-respondent No.2 has paid the amount flowing from
the judgment and award dated 15.04.2014.
13.A perusal of the judgment and award dated 15.04.2014
reveals that not only respondent No.2 but the petitioners were
also held responsible for illegally dispensing with the services
of the respondent No.1.

14.This being the position, petitioners cannot sway off their hands
by saying that it is the responsibility of respondent No.2 to pay
the amount awarded by the Labour Court.

15.Admittedly, the petitioners had challenged the judgment and

award dated 15.04.2014 wherein, interim order has not been
granted so far.

16.In considered opinion of this Court, since the present

petitioners (Officers of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.)
were held responsible for dispensing with services of the
respondentNo.1, they were under statutory duty to take him
back on duty in furtherance of the award and to pay
the amount under consideration.

17.So far as Mr. Mathur’s arguments based on the provisions of

Section 33-C (2) of the Act is concerned, prima facie, it
appears to be attractive; however, a deeper probe therein
shows that it is liable to be rejected. The reasons are not far to
seek.

18.A comprehensive reading of Section 33-C (2) reveals that it

does not speak of amount already awarded or determined, it
rather provides that in case, money or any due are
to be computed, then, the Labour Court would
decide/compute the amount and pass orders accordingly.
19.If this interpretation is not given, then, the whole purpose of
the provision contained in Section 33-C (2) of the Act would
be frustrated. A Labour Court cannot be expected to determine
the amount before hand, while allowing the claim and passing
the award. The said amount is required to be quantified at a
later date. In case the employer does not implement the award
or omits to pay the amount as per the award passed by the
Labour Court, it can calculate the same.

20.As an upshot of discussion aforesaid, this Court does not find

any substance in the writ petition for which the same is hereby
dismissed.

21.Stay petition is also dismissed.

22.Needless to observe that in case amount is paid by

or recovered from the present petitioners, the same will
remain subject to ultimate decision of the writ petition which
has been filed by the petitioners against the basic award dated
15.04.2014. Respondent No.1 or 2, as the case may be, shall
have to restitute in case the award is set aside or modified.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

31-Amar

TRUE COPY
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A No. OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Assistant Engineer Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
…PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Narpat Singh & Anr.

...RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION.

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India.

The humble Petition of the

Petitioner abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Special

Leave Petition against the final order dated 14.07.2021
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2021.
2. That the Annexure P-1 and P- 2 filed herewith were
originally in vernacular language i.e. Hindi and the counsel
has got the same translated into English.
3. That it is in the interest of justice that the petitioner may be
exempted from getting Annexure P-1 and P- 2 translated by
an Official Translator.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to :

a) Allow this application and accept the English translation of

Annexure P-1 and P- 2 and exempt the Petitioner from filing
Official Translation of the same;

b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Filed By:

Filed on: 23.07.2022

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A No. OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Assistant Engineer Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
…PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Narpat Singh & Anr.

...RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY.

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India.

The humble Petition of the

Petitioner abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Special

Leave Petition against the final order dated 14.07.2021
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
386/2021.
2. That after passing of the impugned order decision was
taken at the administrative level to file Special Leave
 Petition before This Hon’ble Court. Accordingly order
No. 137 D , 1729 dated 07.09.21 was issued.
3. As the appointed counsel failed to file the Special Leave
Petition the office order No. 137 D , 1729 dated 07.09.21
was withdrawn by order no. JdVVVNL/ XEN / LEGAL
/ JU/ F/ 8192/ D. 926 dated 19.07.22 and instructions
were issued in favor of the present counsel.
4. That after receipt of instructions the present counsel
immediately called for the requisite documents and after
translation/typing of the relevant annexures and after
making the SLP complete in all respects the same was
filed without any further delay.
5. That the delay thus caused in approaching This Hon’ble
Court is not intentional or deliberate. It is only for the
bonafide reasons mentioned herein above.
6. That the case of the petitioner being good on merits, and
for the reasons stated hereinabove, condonation of delay
is just and proper to meet the ends of justice.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to :

a) Condone the delay of ………… days in filing the instant

special leave petition against the order dated 14.07.2021
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2021
and;
b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Filed By:

Filed on: 23.07.2022

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
 SECTION II
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL/ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP/W.P/TP/RP/APPEAL/CIVIL/CRIMINAL/ NO……….……..OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF

Assistant Engineer Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.

…PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Narpat Singh & Anr.

...RESPONDENTS

INDEX
S. Particulars Copies Court Fee
No.
1. List of Dates 1+3
2. Impugned order 1+3
3. Special Leave Petition with affidavit 1+3
4. Annexure P-1 to P-3 1+3
6. Application for exemption from filing 1+3
official translation.
7. Application for condonation of delay 1+ 3
Vakalatnama

Filed on : 23.07.2022

Filed by

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
29, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi 110001
Code No.1642
Mob.: 9868009602
E-mail: charumilind@gmail.com
 COURT OF INDIAA
IN THE sUPREME
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

OF2022
SLP(C) NO_

IN THE MATTEROF:
Assistant Engineer, Junior Sub Division-11, Jodhpur
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Pali & Ors. Petitioner (»)

Versus.

Narpat Singh & Anr. Respondent (s)

VAKALATNAMA
CHARU
do hercby appoint and retain (DR.
, the undersigned on petitioners, in the above mentioned matter,
behalf of'
Court to act and appear for mc/us in the above Suit/ Appeal
Advocatc of the Supreme
MATIHUR), Advocate-on-Record, or withdraw the samc and
all procecdings
Petition / Reference and on my/our
behalf to conduct and prosecute (or defend)
thercin, including
conneclcd with the same or any derec, order passed
that may be takcn in respect of any application documents and to deposit and receive money
for Review, to file and obtain return of
procceding in taxation and application / Refcrence and in applications of Revicw, and to represcnt me/us and
Suit I Appeal / Petition
on my/our behalf in the said acts donc by the aforesaid
behalf in the above malter. WWe agree to ratily all
to take all necessary steps on my/our
Advocate in pursuance of this authority.

Dated this the nd

22 day of July, 2022

Accepted & Identified/Verified/Certilied

Dr. CHARU MATHUR

Advocate on Record
h a
Chamber No. 29
R K Garg Block
Supreme Court of India
9868009602
(Pranjal Bathagar)
(DR CHARU MATHUR) Personnel Officer (Enq.)
Advocate-on-Record
29, LawyeTS Chamber
Jodhpur Discom, Jodhpur
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001

Mob:-9868009602
E-mail: charumilind@gmail.com

Memo of Appearance
0,
The Restra
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi

above
ir, Respondent(s)/ Intervenor in the matter
on behalf of the Petitioner(s/Appellant(s)/
Please enter my appearance
mentioned. Yours Faithfully

Dr. CHARU MATHUR

Advocate on Record
Chamber No. 29
R K Garg Block
Supreme Court of India
9868009602
(DR. CHARU MATHUR)
Advocate for the petitioners

Dated: 22.07.2022
1
2
3
4
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I A NO. OF 2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 5394 OF 2017

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.23694 of 2015)

IN THE MATTER OF

State of Rajasthan & Ors. ... Appellants

, VERSUS

Dr. Amba Chand Mathur & Anr. . .. Respondents

APPLICATION FOR URGENT INTERIM DIRECTIONS ON BEHALF

OF RESPONDENT
. '
N0.1

PAPER BOOK

. (FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: MS. CHARU MATHUR

 I

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[ORDER XXI Rules 3(1)(a)] ·
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) s·v(>a )t\te. L1l:,~tt~~}~•l!/'.
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)C.~o.llfltll OF 2015
(Against the impugned final judgment and order dated 25.2.2015
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur,
in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.109 of 2015}

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ... PETITIONERS

AND
;;, .

DR. AMBA CHAND MATHUR & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS

WITH
I.A.NO. OF 2015
(AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM
FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION)

PAPER BOOK
{FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE}
• ....-,

·~~-
r""'\ ~J-5w-) 1 '"'
. ~ !/._ s J-J .
•(\
D
'Y

ADVOCAl'E FOR THE PETITIONERS: : MS. RUCHI KOHLI

CA 5394/2017
@86 P-12
LIEN. DEPUTED.
Lien terminated on
13.4.1988.
therefore 17 yrs

Rule 15 and 18

Deputed. Lien
No benefits received.
Not 14 yrs. its 7
No order given.
what records
148
241
 ANNEXURE ‘Y’
ADVOCATE’S CHECK LIST (TO BE CERTIFIED BY
ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD)
Indicate Yes or NA
1. SLP (C) has been filed in Form No.28 with
certificate. YES

2. The Petition is as per the provision of

Order XV Rule 1. YES

3. The papers of SLP have been arranged as

per Order XXI, Rule (3)(1)(f). YES

4. Brief list of dates/events has been filed.

YES
5. Paragraphs and pages of paper books
have been numbered consecutively and YES
correctly noted in Index.

6. Proper and required number of paper

books (1+1) have been filed. YES

7. The contents of the petition, applications

and accompanying documents are clear, YES
legible and typed in double space on one
side of the paper.

8. The particulars of the impugned judgment

passed by the court(s) below are YES
uniformly written in all the documents.

9. In case of appeal by certificate the appeal

is accompanied by judgment and decree NA
appealed from and order granting
certificate.

10. If the petition is time barred, application

for condonation of delay mentioning the NA
no. of days of delay, with affidavit and
court fee has been filed.

11. The Annexures referred to in the petition

are true copies of the documents before YES
the court(s) below and are filed in
chronological order as per List of Dates.
12. The annexures referred to in the petition
YES
are filed and indexed separately and not
marked collectively.
13. The relevant provisions of the
Constitution, statutes, ordinances, rules, NA
regulations, bye laws, orders etc. referred
to in the impugned judgment/order has
been filed as Appendix to the SLP
14. In SLP against the order passed in Second
Appeal, copies of the orders passed by the NA
Trial Court and First Appellate Court have
been filed.
15. The complete listing proforma has been
filled in, signed and included in the paper YES
books.

16. In a petition (PIL) filed under clause (d) of

Rule 12(1) Order XXXVIII, the petitioner NA
has disclosed:
(a) his full name, complete postal
address, e-mail address, phone
number, proof regarding personal
identification, occupation and
annual income, PAN number and
National Unique Identity Card
number, if any:
(b) the facts constituting the cause of
action;
(c) the nature of injury caused or likely
to be caused to the public;
(d) the nature and extent of personal
interest, if any, of the petitioner(s);
(e) details regarding any civil, criminal
or revenue litigation, involving the
petitioner or any of the petitioners,
which has or could have a legal
nexus with the issue(s) involved in
the Public Interest Litigation.
17. If any identical matter is
pending/disposed of by the Hon. Supreme NA
Court, the complete particulars of such
matters have been given.

18. The statement in terms of the Order XIX

Rule 3(1) of Supreme Court Rules 2013 YES
has been given in the Petition of appeal.

19. Whether a Bank Draft of Rs.50,000/- or

50% of the amount, whichever is less, has NA
been deposited by the person intending to
appeal, if required to be paid as per the
 order of the NCDRC, in terms of Section
23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

20. In case of appeal under Armed Forces

Tribunal Act, 2007, the NA
petitioner/appellant has moved before the
Armed Forces Tribunal for granting
certificate for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court.
21. All the papersbooks to be filed after
curing the defects shall be in order. YES

I hereby declare that I have personally verified the

petition and its contents and it is in conformity with
the Supreme Court Rules 2013. I certify that the above
requirements of this Check List have been complied
with. I further certify that all the documents necessary
for the purpose of hearing of the matter have been
filed.
Signature

AoR’s Name DR. CHARU MATHUR

AOR Code 1642
Contact No. 9868009602
New Delhi;
Date:11.02.2022
.02.2022
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2022
[From the final impugned judgment and orderdated 31.01.2022
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at
Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2021]

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Smt. Neelam Mohnot …Petitioner

Versus

Puneet Mohnot …Respondent

WITH

I.A. No. of 2022

Application for exemption from filing official translation

PAPER – BOOK

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: DR. CHARU MATHUR

 INDEX
S.No Particulars of document Page no. of part to Remarks
which it belongs
Part I Part II
(Conten Contents
ts of of file
paper alone
Book)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
Court Fee
1. O/R on Limitation A A

2. Listing Proforma A1-A2 A1-A2

3. Cover page of paper Book A3

4. Index of Record of Proceedings A4

5. Limitation Report prepared by the A5

Registry

6. Defect List A6

7. Note Sheet NS1

to…..
8. Synopsis & List of Dates B–H

9. Impugned final order dated 1–3

31.01.2022 passed by the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 2325 of 2021.

10. SLP with affidavit 4 – 13

11. ANNEXURE P-1: 14 – 15

Copy of registration certificate
dated 19.12.11
12. ANNEXURE P-2: 16 – 21
Copy of reply dated 3.8.2018 filed
by the petitioner before the Family
Court No.2 Jaipur.

13. ANNEXURE P-3: 22 – 32

Copy of application dated
20.1.2020 filed by the petitioner
before the Family Court No.3
Jaipur.
14. ANNEXURE P-4: 33 – 36
Copy of order dated 9.2.2021
passed by the Family Court No.3
Jaipur in Case No.366/2020.

15. ANNEXURE P-5: 37 – 47

Copy of reply dated nil filed by the
respondent before the High Court.
16. Application for exemption from 48 – 49
filing official translation.

17. F/M 50

18. V/M 51 – 52
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

 A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF :

Smt. Neelam Mohont …Petitioner

Versus

Puneet Mohnot …Respondent

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/are within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of

days in filing the same against order dated
31.01.2022 and petition for condonation of days
delay has been filed.
3. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of
days in re-filing the same and petition for condonation
of days delay has been filed.

New Delhi BRANCH OFFICER

Dated : 11.02.2022
 A-1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION:XV

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

 Central Act: (Title) Hindu Marriage Act

 Section: _________do_______
 Central Rule: (Title) __________________NA___________
 Rule No(s): ___________NA________
 State Act: (Title) __________NA__________
 Section: _____________NA____________
 State Rule: (Title) _____NA________________
 Rule No(s): __________NA_______________________
 Impugned Interim order : (Date)____NA____________
 Impugned Final Order/Decree : (Date) 31.01.2022
 High Court: (Name) High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
 Names of Judges Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjeet Singh, J.
 Tribunal / Authority : (Name) ___________N/A____________________
___________________________________________________________________
1. Nature of Matter:  Civil  Criminal
2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant No.1: Smt. Neelam Mohnot
(b) e-mail ID:_________________NA__________________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA_________________
3. (a)Respondent N.1: Puneet Mohnot
(b) e-mail ID:_________________NA__________________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA_________________

4. (a) Main category classification: ____018________________

(b) Sub classification: _____________1807______________

5. Not to be listed before: ___________NA_____________

6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any, & case details:
No similar matter
(b) Similar Pending matter with case details: No similar matter
pending

7. Criminal Matters:
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered:  Yes 
No
(b) FIR No. ________NA_______ Date: ________NA_______
(c) Police Station: _________NA_________
(d) Sentence Awarded: ________________NA_______
(e) Period of Sentence undergone including period of
Detention/Custody undergone: ______NA_________
 A-2
8. Land Acquisition Matters:
(a) Date of Section 4 notification: ____NA__________________

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: ____NA__________________

(c) Date of Section 17 notification: ___NA___________________

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: ________NA__________________

10. Special Category (First petitioner/appellant only):
 Senior Citizen > 65 years SC/ST Woman/ Child  Disabled

 Legal Aid case  In custody

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters):
_________N/A_____

Date: 11.2.2022
[DR. CHARU MATHUR]
AOR for petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Registration No:1642
charumilind@gmail.com
 B
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

Petitioner prefers the instant Special Leave Petition being

aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the writ petition
preferred by the respondent was partly allowed.

The Hon’ble Court held that- “In that view of the matter this writ
petition is partly allowed and the order dated 09.02.2021 passed
by the Family Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur is
modified to the extent that as mentioned in para No.4 of the
application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC
wherein it has been mentioned that she last stayed with her
husband from 22.06.2017 to 26.06.2017, the same be read that
she last stayed with her husband in June, 2011, as stated by the
respondent-wife herself in various judicial proceedings”

The brief facts of the instant matter are that the petitioner and
respondent got married on 21.05.10 and the same was registered
on 19.12.11. On 18.01.12 Daughter Tejjal was born. On
21.02.18 Respondent filed application under Section 13 Hindu
marriage Act seeking decree of divorce on ground of cruelty and
desertion by the Petitioner from June 2011. Petitioner after filing
reply and after evidence of the respondent was recorded,
preferred application under order 06 rule 17 read with section
151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the reply.
The same was allowed by the Family Court on 09.02.21.

It is submitted that the statement that petitioner is living

separately from the respondent-husband since June, 2017 cannot
be sustained due to the simple fact that the marriage of the
petitioner and respondent was registered on 19.12.11by the
 C
Municipal Council, Udaipur. In June 2011 petitioner was forcibly
sent to maternal house at Udaipur by the respondent.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner in various

judicial proceedings had stated that she is living separately from
her husband since June, 2011. The Hon’ble High Court held that
the petitioner was therefore estopped to amend the written
statement submitted in response to the divorce petition.

It is submitted that even if the petitioner had stated in certain

proceedings that she is living separately since June 2011, the
same was not a ground to disallow the amendment of the reply
filed by the respondent. Whether the petitioner is living
separately from June 2011 or not or last stayed with respondent
husband from 22.06.2017 to 26.06.2017 is a finding of fact which
can be arrived at only after evidence has been adduced before the
Family Court and therefore the Hon’ble High Court was not
justified in disallowing the amendment sought by the petitioner
that she last stayed with her respondent husband from 22.06.2017
to 26.06.2017.

In Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 SCC

626 it was held that:-
“5. As noted herein earlier, the prayer for amendment was
refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first
ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment was a
belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated,
then also, the question that needs to be decided is to see
whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy
between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that
 D
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide
powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the
court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a
manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and
proper. Even if, such an application for amendment of the
plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be
refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy
between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs.
Therefore, in our view, mere delay and laches in making the
application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the
amendment.”

In North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan Das, (2008) 8 SCC

511 it was held that:-
“16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of
granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17
CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these
are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates
amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.
In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda
Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was
held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy
the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other
side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between the
parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other
party cannot be placed in the same position as if the
pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment
would cause him an injury which could not be compensated
 E
in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar
Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC 166] .)”

In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385 it

was held that:-
“15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try the
merits of the case that come before them and should,
consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for
determining the real question in controversy between the
parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the
other side.
16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the first
part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the court to order
amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall)
and enjoins the court to allow all amendments which are
necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in
controversy between the parties.”

In Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons,

(2009) 10 SCC 84 it was held that:-
“Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with
applications for amendments
63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases,
some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into
consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for
amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper
and effective adjudication of the case;
 F
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or
mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the
other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms
of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or
lead to multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case;
and
(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments
if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by
limitation on the date of application.
These are some of the important factors which may be kept
in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6
Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

64. The decision on an application made under Order 6 Rule

17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the said exercise
should never be undertaken in a casual manner. We can
conclude our discussion by observing that while deciding
applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona
fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should
never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest
amendments.”

LIST OF DATES

21.05.10 Petitioner and respondent got married

 G
19.12.11 The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was
registered. Copy of registration certificate dated
19.12.11 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1
(Pages 14-15)

18.01.12 Daughter Tejjal was born at Udaipur.

21.02.18 Respondent filed application under Section 13

Hindu marriage Act seeking decree of divorce on
ground of cruelty and desertion by the respondent
from June 2011

03.08.18 Petitioner filed reply to the application under

Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act. Copy of reply dated
3.8.2018 is annexed here as Annexure P-2 (Pages
16-21)

28.02.19 Evidence of the respondent was recorded.

20.01.20 Petitioner preferred application under Order 06 Rule

17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure
seeking amendment in the reply filed on. Copy of
application dated 20.1.2020 is annexed here as
Annexure P-3 (Pages 22-32)

10.08.20 Respondent filed reply to the application filed by

petitioner under order 06 rule 17 read with section
151 of Code of Civil Procedure

09.02.21 The Family Court allowed the application preferred

by the petitioner under order 06 rule 17 read with
 H
section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. Copy of
order dated 9.2.2021 is annexed here as Annexure
P-4 (Pages 33-36)

2021 Petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

2325/2021.

2021 Respondent filed reply to S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 2325/2021. Copy of reply filed by the
respondent is annexed here as Annexure P-5 (Pages
37-47)

31.01.22 Hon’ble High Court vide impugned order partly

allowed the writ petition preferred by the
respondent. The Hon’ble Court held that-“In that
view of the matter this writ petition is partly
allowed and the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by
the Family Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur
is modified to the extent that as mentioned in para
No.4 of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read
with Section 151 CPC wherein it has been
mentioned that she last stayed with her husband
from 22.06.2017 to 26.06.2017, the same be read
that she last stayed with her husband in June, 2011,
as stated by the respondent-wife herself in various
judicial proceedings”

11.02.22 Hence the present Special Leave Petition

 1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 2325/2021

Puneet Mohnot S/o Shri Arjun Raj Mahnot, Aged About 42

Years, R/o-B-59. Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner

Versus
Smt Neelam Mohnot W/o Shri Puneet Mohnot, D/o Shri Madan
Lal Singhvi, Aged About 42. Years, R/o-Opp. Bhupalpura Police
Station, 308/4, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, through VC.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Jain, through VC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

31/01/2022

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-

husband challenging the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the
Family Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the
application submitted by the respondent-wife under Order 6 Rule
17 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-husband filed

a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
before the Family Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-1, Jaipur to
which the respondent-wife filed a written statement and after
completion of evidence of the petitioner-husband, the
 2
respondent-wife filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read
with Section 151 CPC for seeking certain amendments in the
written statement. The said application was allowed by the
Family Court No.3, Jaipur. Hence, this writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the order dated
09.02.2021 passed by the Family Court No.3, Jaipur

3. Counsel for the petitioner husband submits that the trial court
has committed serious illegality in allowing the application filed
by the respondent-wife under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section
151 CPC. Counsel further submits that in various
judicial proceedings before this court in S.B. Civil Transfer
Application No.146/2018 as well as in the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Udaipur she stated
that she is living separately from her husband since 2011.
Counsel further submits that once the respondent-wife has stated
that she is living separately from the petitioner-husband since
2011, therefore, she is estopped to amend the written statement
submitted in response to the divorce petition, to the effect that
she is living separately since June, 2017

4. Counsel for the respondent-wife has opposed the writ petition.

5. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-husband deserves

to be allowed for the reasons; Firstly, the respondent-wife in
various judicial proceedings before this court as well as before
the Family Court, Udaipur has stated that she is living separately
from her husband since June 2011 and therefore in my
considered view the respondent-wife is estopped to amend the
written statement submitted in response to the divorce petition, to
 3
the effect that she is living separately from the petitioner-husband
since June, 2017; secondly, the learned trial court in my view has
committed serious illegality in not considering the fact that it is
the own version of the respondent-wife herself in various
judicial proceedings that she is living separately from her
husband since June, 2011, therefore in this fact situation the
respondent-wife could not have been allowed to amend the
written statement to this effect; thirdly, the petitioner husband has
taken a ground of desertion in the divorce petition

6. In that view of the matter this writ petition is partly

allowed and the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Family
Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur is modified to the extent
that as mentioned in para No.4 of the application under Order 6
Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC wherein it has been
mentioned that she last stayed with her husband from 22.06.2017
to 26.06.2017, the same be read that she last stayed with her
husband in June, 2011, as stated by the respondent-wife herself in
various judicial proceedings. The Family Court is directed to
decide the divorce petition preferably within a period of six
months

(INDERJEET SINGH), J

TRUE COPY
 4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[S.C.R. Order XXII Rule 2(1) SCR, 2013]
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2021

BETWEEN POSITION OF PARTIES
In the In this
High Court Court
Smt. Neelam Mohnot Respondent Petitioner
W/o Shri Puneet Mohnot
D/o Shri Mdan Lal Singhvi
R/o Opp. Bhupalpura
Police Station,
308/4, Ashok Nagar,
Udaipur (Rajasthan).

Versus

Puneet Mohnot Petitioner Respondent

S/o Shri Arjun Raj Mohnot
R/o B-59, Malviya Nagar
Jaipur (Rajasthan).

TO,
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA;
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE-NAMED
PETITIONER;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The petitioners herein are filing the present special leave
petition against the final impugned judgment and order dated
31.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
 5
Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2325 of
2021whereby the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to partly
allowed the same.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

A. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not appreciating

that Whether the petitioner is living separately from June
2011 or not or last stayed with respondent husband from
22.06.2017 to 26.06.2017 is a finding of fact which can be
arrived at only after evidence has been adduced before the
Family Court?

B. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not appreciating

that the statement that petitioner is living separately from
2011
the respondent-husband since June, 2017 cannot be
sustained due to the simple fact that the marriage of the
petitioner and respondent was registered on 19.12.11 by
the Municipal Council, Udaipur?

C. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the

Hon'ble High Court was justified in disallowing the
amendment sought by the petitioner that she last stayed
with her respondent husband from 22.06.2017 to
26.06.2017?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):

The Petitioners state that no other petition seeking Leave to
appeal has been filed by him against the impugned judgment and
final order 31.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
 6
Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2325 of
2021.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

The Annexure P-1to P-5 produced along with the Special Leave
Petition are the copies of the pleading/documents, which formed
part of the records in the High Court against whose order the
leave is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUND:
The leave to appeal is sought on following grounds:

I. Because even if the petitioner had stated in certain

proceedings that she is living separately since June 2011,
the same was not a ground to disallow the amendment of
the reply filed by the respondent. Whether the petitioner is
living separately from June 2011 or not or last stayed with
respondent husband from 22.06.2017 to 26.06.2017 is a
finding of fact which can be arrived at only after evidence
has been adduced before the Family Court and therefore
the Hon’ble High Court was not justified in disallowing
the amendment sought by the petitioner that she last stayed
with her respondent husband from 22.06.2017 to
26.06.2017.

II. Because the statement that petitioner is living separately

2011
from the respondent-husband since June, 2017 cannot be
sustained due to the simple fact that the marriage of the
petitioner and respondent was registered on 19.12.11 by
the Municipal Council, Udaipur. In June 2011 petitioner
 7
was forcibly sent to maternal house at Udaipur by the
respondent.

III. Because In Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh,

(2009) 10 SCC 626 it was held that:-
“5. As noted herein earlier, the prayer for amendment was
refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the
first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment
was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was
belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is
to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real
controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well
settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have
been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the
pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as
it appears to the court just and proper. Even if, such an
application for amendment of the plaint was filed
belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it
is found that for deciding the real controversy between the
parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore,
in our view, mere delay and laches in making the
application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse
the amendment.”

IV. Because In North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan

Das, (2008) 8 SCC 511 it was held that:-
“16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of
granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule
17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned,
 8
these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates
amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.
In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda
Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was
held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy
the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other
side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between the
parties. Amendments should be refused only where the
other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the
pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment
would cause him an injury which could not be
compensated in costs. (Alsosee Gajanan Jaikishan
Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990)1 SCC166].)”

V. BecauseIn Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006)

4 SCC 385 it was held that:-
“15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try the
merits of the case that come before them and should,
consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary
for determining the real question in controversy between
the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice
to the other side.
16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the first
part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the court to
order amendment of pleading. The second part is
imperative (shall) and enjoins the court to allow all
amendments which are necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy between the
parties.”
 9

VI. BecauseIn Revajeetu Builders & Developers v.

Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 it was held
that:-
“Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with
applications for amendments
63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian
cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be
taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the
application for amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper
and effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or
mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the
other side which cannot be compensated adequately in
terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or
lead to multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the
case; and
(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments
if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by
limitation on the date of application.
These are some of the important factors which may be kept
in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6
Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
 10
64. The decision on an application made under Order 6
Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the said
exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner.
We can conclude our discussion by observing that while
deciding applications for amendments the courts must not
refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary
amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless
and/or dishonest amendments.”

6. GROUND FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

That the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court, is erroneous in law for the reasons
stated in the Grounds as aforesaid. The petitioner most
respectfully submits that the petitioner has a prima facie
case in her favour and as such the petitioner hopes to
succeed before this Hon'ble Court. The balance of
convenience is also in favour of the petitioner and
irreparable loss will be caused to the Petitioner in case the
stay of the impugned order is not granted to the petitioner.

7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to: -

a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the impugned

judgment and final order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2021; and

b) pass any such further orders, as it may deem fit and proper
 11
in the peculiar facts and the circumstances hereof.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to: -

a) Grant ad-interim ex-parte stay of the operation of

impugned order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2021; and

b) pass any such further orders, as it may deem fit and proper
in the peculiar facts and the circumstances hereof.

Filed by:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the petitioner
Drawn on: 10.2.2022
Filed on: 11.2.2022
 12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO (CIVIL) _____ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Neelam Mohnot …Petitioner

Versus

Puneet Mohnot …Respondent

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged
and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No
additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or
relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified
that the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the
Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of
law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the
Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court.
This Certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by
the Petitioner/Persons authorized by the Petitioner whose
affidavit is filed in support of the S.L.P.
FILED BY:

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner

Filed on: 11.2.2022

 14
ANNEXURE P-1
 15
Municipal Council Udaipur, Rajasthan

Marriage Registration Certificate

This is to certify the marriage registration of Mr PUNEET

MOHNOT S/o Mr ARUN RAJ MOHNOT Resident of B-58,
MALVIYA NAGAR, HARI MARG, JAIPUR (RAJ.)with Mrs.
NEELAM MOHNOT D/O Mr. MADAN LAL SINGHVI
Resident of308, ASHOK NAGAR, ROAD No, 4B, UDAIPUR
(Raj.)

The marriage registration has been done on the basis of enclosed

attached photograph and produced documents, of the marriage
held on Dated 21.05.2010 venue Udai Bagh Resort, Near Debari
Railway Station, Debari, Udaipur

The registration is being recorded on the page no. 1699 with

serial no. 6837

This Certificate is being issued with the authorised signature and

seal.

Date 19.12.2011 Signature

Marriage Registration Officer

TRUE COPY
 16
ANNEXURE P-2

Before the Family Court No.-2

Jaipur Metropolitan, (Raj)

Shri Puneet Mohnot Father Shri Arjunraj Mohnot Age 41 year

residentB-59, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj)…Applicant
Vs
Smt. Neelam Mohnot Wife Shri Punit Mohnot Age 41 year
resident Opposite Bhupalpura Police Station, Udaipur (Raj)
... Opposite Party

Reply to Application under Section-13A Hindu Marriage Act

On behalf of Opposite party Mrs. Neelam Mohnot Wife Mr.

Puneet Mohnot Age 41Year resident in front of Bhupalpura
police station, Udaipur (Raj), the reply to the application
submitted by the applicant is given as under:-

1- That para number-1 of the application is accepted as being

correct.
2- That para number-2 of the application is accepted as being
correct.
3- That para number-3 of the application is accepted as being
correct.
4- That para number-4 of the application is denied being false
and fabricated. The opposite party never had ideological
differences with the applicant. The correct fact is that – That at
the time of marriage, the opposite party and his parents told the
father of the applicant that opposite party is a chartered
 17
accountant in Jaipur and his monthly income is Rs 5,00,000/- and
is the only son in the family, your daughter will not face any kind
of problem. We have servants in our house so that your daughter
will not have to do any work and your daughter will rule in the
house. But shortly after the marriage, the behavior of the opposite
party and his parents, turned cruel towards the applicant. The
opposite party and his parents fired three – four servants working
in the house and the work of cleaning the house, and eating and
drinking and all other tasks were put on the applicant and they
used to find fault in the work of the opposite party, applicant and
repeatedly harassed her by taunting her. Opposite party got the
toilet and bathroom cleaned from applicant and cleaning of the
whole house, utensils and all the work of the house was got done
by applicant and when the applicant got terribly tired, still the
opponent and his parents do not feel any pity and whenever the
applicant becomes ill then even the opposite party never got her
treated and in her illness also she was made to do all the
household chores like a maid, and always forced the applicant to
wear the veil, did not allow her to wear suit, while before the
marriage the opposite party and his father said that your daughter
will be able to wear salwar suit etc. There is no custom of veil in
our house. Whereas on the contrary, the opposite party did not
allow the applicant to wear a salwar suit. And always bound to
wear the veil. In this way, the applicant and his parents used to
taunt the applicant again and again, due to which the applicant
always started living in mental depression and became ill.

5. That para number-5 of the application is denied being

wrong and false. This statement of the applicant is completely
 18
fabricated that there some ideological difference arose between
him and the opposite party. The correct fact is that after the
marriage the applicant himself started forcing the opposite party
to stay in the house as a maidservant and repeatedly started
taunting her about her parents home and said that you should go
to your parents home or else you will have to do all kinds of
work at my place and will have to live as we say. The opposite
party being the daughter of a reputed family, continued to bear all
the atrocities of the applicant and his family members, yet tried to
ensure that her married life would not be broken. But the
appellant conspiringly severed the relationship with her by
sending the applicant to her parent’s house for delivery, whereas
the opposite party asked the applicant to get the delivery done at
Jaipur but the applicant did not agree for this and he forcibly put
pressure on the opposite party and from her Stridhan jewelry
gave some jewelry to the applicant and told her that if you do not
give in writing then you will not get this jewellery, and I will
bring back after delivery. But when opposite party gave birth to a
daughter, then the applicant and his family got more angry with
the opposite party and started saying that now they will not keep
you and your daughter in the house. Even after this, the opposite
party and her family members through relatives and themselves,
repeatedly requested to take the opposite party and her daughter
but the applicant always refused to take the opposite party and
her daughter. Even till date has not come to meet the daughter of
the opposite party and applicant. The opposite party still wants to
come to the applicant with her daughter and live as a wife, but
the applicant herself is not ready. The applicant and his parents
 19
never talked on phone, nor any personal contact was made to take
the opposite party and her daughter.

6. That para number-6 of the application is denied being wrong.

The true fact is that the applicant by forcibly putting pressure on
opposite party for delivery sent her to her maternal home at
Udaipur where the opposite party gave birth to a daughter Tejal
on 18.01.2012 then the question of establishing physical relation
by the applicant with the opposite party and opposite party
depriving the applicant of conjugal relations does not arise. The
applicant has made false and fabricated facts in the said para.
Neither the applicant talked to the applicant or his daughter nor
he came to see the daughter. Hence the crack in the relationship
which the applicant states to have come, that the applicant is
stating to conspiratorially obtain divorce decree.

7. That para number-7 of the application is denied being wrong.

This statement of the applicant is false and fabricated that the
opposite party without any reasonable reason, has abandoned the
applicant. The true fact is that the applicant himself without any
reasonable reason has neglected the opposite party and his
daughter and in the greed of more dowry, the applicant wants to
get married second time, due to which opposite party is subjected
to false slander. The applicant never spoke to the opposite party
or his daughter on telephone nor did he try to bring her. This
statement of the applicant is also false and fabricated that one
month ago the applicant called the opposite party and the
opposite party had refused, and the opposite party still wants to
reside with the applicant along with her daughter. But the
applicant himself is not ready for this. He by any manner wants
 20
to get a divorce decree from the opposite side. Applicant is not
facing any kind of mental harassment. He himself deliberately in
order to obtained the decree of divorce wants to prepare false and
fabricated grounds.

8. That para number-8 of the application being legal, no answer

is required. The applicant should prove himself the facts
mentioned in the para.

9. That para number-9 of the application being legal, no answer

is required. The applicant should prove himself the facts
mentioned in the para.

8. That for para number-10 and 11no answer is required. The

applicant should prove himself.

.-Special Answer :-

1. That the opposite party is the daughter of a respectable

family and she always wants to live her life by living with the
applicant, but the applicant and his father gave false and
fabricated information to the opposite party and her father before
marriage and got married and later on in the greed of more
dowry, with the intention of getting married elsewhere have
abandoned the applicant and her daughter.

2. That when the opposite party gave birth to the daughter

Tejal on 18.01.2012, since then the applicant and his parents got
completely angry with the opposite party and said that we wanted
a boy, why did you give birth to a girl, so now you and your
daughter will find no place in this house.
 21
3. That the applicant, by intimidating the opposite party, forcibly
giving some ornaments of her Streedhan, forced her to get it
written. Even today, the opposite party wants to come and reside
with the applicant along with her daughter. But the applicant has
deliberately neglected the applicant and his daughter.

Therefore, it is requested to sir that the application of the

applicant should be cancelled. Any other claim which the
Hon’ble Court deems fit maybe got from the applicant.

Sd/-
Udaipur
3.08.18

// TRUE TRANSLATED COPY//

 22

ANNEXURE P-3

Before the Judge, Family Court No. 3 Jaipur

Case No.
Puneet Mohnot Vs Mrs. Neelam
Under Section-13 Hindu Marriage Act,1955

Application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section-151 Civil

Procedure Code
In respect of amendment

Sir,
The non-applicant makes the following request:-

1. That in the mentioned matter today's date is fixed and in the

matter the evidence of the present non applicant has not taken
place.

2. That the non applicant does not possess legal knowledge and
due to abandonment by the applicant, non applicant along with
her daughter is residing in maternal house in Udaipur.

3. That at several places in para 4, 5 of the reply petition,

Applicant in place of Non-Applicant has been typed and opposite
party in place of the applicant has been typed and in para 1 and 3
of the special-answer only at one – one place Applicant in place
of Non-Applicant has been typed which is respectively as
follows-
(a) In line 3, 4, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, 23, 25 of Para No. 4 of the
answer-petition and at line 6 from end of para no.5 of the answer
 23
petition, applicant in place of the opposition, be allowed to be
amended.
(b). In line 4, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 28 of Para No. 4 of the
answer petition and in line 12, 16 and line 6 from end of para no.
5 of the answer petition and last line of para 1 and 3of Special-
Answer, non applicant in place of the applicant, be allowed to be
amended.
Which typographical error due to mistake and legal ignorance -is
justified to be amended by correcting the mistake otherwise there
will be a possibility of irreparable damage being caused to the
non –applicant.

4.That in para no. 1 of the special reply of the reply petition in

the last line, after “has done”, it is necessary in the interest of
justice to add by amendment the following details :-
On the occasion of marriage and engagement of the parties, the
relatives of the non applicant gave good donation and dowry
by spending lakhs of rupees according to the demand and
desire of the applicant and the parents of the applicant. Before
and at the time of marriage, the applicant was stated to be CA
said to be having income of five lakh rupees per month, in
respect of which the visiting card of the applicant was also
given before marriage. Shortly after the marriage, the behavior
of the applicant and his parents became cruel towards the non-
applicant, they in order to harass the non-applicant fired 3-4
servants doing their household chores and started getting all
the household chores done by the non-applicant, started
pointing out mistakes in the work done by the non-applicant,
tortured by taunting, did not show to the doctor on being sick,
forced to put veil, whereas before the marriage, the applicant
 24
and the applicant's parents had said that servants work in our
house, there is no custom of veil, you will be able to wear
salwar suits etc. Giving due respect to the applicant and the
parents of the applicant, the non applicant did all the
household work and in the hope of a happy future life, kept on
suffering the cruelties of the parents of the applicant and the
applicant. The non applicant and the relatives of the non-
applicant tried many times to convince the parents of the
applicant and the applicant but all the efforts were
unsuccessful. After a few months of marriage, the non-
applicant became pregnant but due to the cruelty of the
applicant and the parents of the applicant, the non-applicant
suffered an abortion in December 2010. Even after the
aforesaid abortion, the non-applicant handled herself somehow
and continued to serve the applicant and the parents of the
applicant with respect but their harassment never diminished
and the non- applicant kept on making the applicant and the
parents of the applicant understand again and again in the hope
of a happy future married life. After only 5 months of abortion,
in May 2011, the non-applicant again became pregnant with
the applicant, which the non-applicant came to know after
getting checked on date 14-6-2011. The doctor advised the
non-applicant to take bed-rest and 1 injections per week
keeping in mind the earlier abortion and age of the applicant.
On which in one and a half month's pregnancy itself, on 23-6-
2011the applicant assuring the non applicant of picking up
after a few days forcibly sent to maternal house Udaipur which
ticket was made by the applicant on the date 17-6-2011,
whereas the non-applicant had come to Jaipur from Udaipur 8-
 25
9 days before only. Since from the time of the non-applicant's
pregnancy, the non-applicant was not willing to go to maternal
house leaving the company of the applicant and also wanted to
get her delivery done by staying in the in-laws' house, but the
applicant did not want to bear the cost of delivery, so due to
the pressure of the applicant the delivery of the non-applicant
took place in maternal house of non applicant in Udaipur.
During the pregnancy of the non applicant, the applicant kept
visiting Udaipur and during this time the parties got their
marriage registered on date 19-12-2011 in Nagar Parishad
Udaipur. On date 16-1-2012, the physician told of caesarean
delivery to the non-applicant, which fact even after being
informed to the applicant and the parents of the applicant, the
applicant and the parents of the applicant were not present at
the time of birth of daughter Tejal, on18-1- 2012.

Similarly, after “the place will not be available” in the last line of
para no.2 of special-reply in the reply-petition, it is necessary in
the interest of justice to add by amendment the following details :

On which the relatives of the non-applicant and the non-

applicant explained many times to the parents of the applicant
and the applicant that the birth of a boy or a girl is not in the
hands of a human being, but there was no effect on the
husband and in-law’s of the non-applicant. After the delivery,
the non-applicant kept on making them understand for several
days but the parents of the applicant and the applicant did not
take any care of the non-applicant and the daughter. About 2
months after the delivery, on receiving news about the death of
grandmother of the applicant when the non-applicant asked the
 26
applicant about coming to Jaipur, then the applicant told the
non-applicant not to come to Jaipur by saying that they were
donating grandmother's body, therefore there is no need to
come. When even after about 3 months after the delivery,
when the parents of the applicant and the applicant did not
come, then the non-applicant came to the in-laws' house with
her brother Rajesh, then the parents of the applicant and the
applicant kept taunting the non-applicant for giving birth to
daughter and started doing cruelties again. On which the non-
applicant's brother Rajesh also made several efforts to
convince the applicant and the parents of the applicant, but all
the efforts were unsuccessful, rather the applicant and the
parents of the applicant used to send the non-applicant forcibly
after a few days again and again to her maternal home. The
marriage of the applicant's cousin Kanak was in Jaipur on 1-2-
2014, in the invitation card of which the non-applicant's name
was also printed and the card of the non applicants parents
household was sent to Udaipur, since the non-applicant was in
Jaipur at that time in the in-laws' house. Therefore non-
applicant attended the marriage with the applicant and the
parents of the applicant. In those days the non-applicant
wanted to talk to the applicant in the context of naming the
daughter because the daughter was two years old and no name
was given to her, then the applicant reproached non applicant
and the daughter and sent the non-applicant along with the
daughter to Udaipur, on which the non-applicant was
compelled to get the daughter admitted in the nursery class in
Udaipur itself, after which the non-applicant used to come to
her in-laws' house with her brother again and again along with
 27
daughter but after a few days the parents of the applicant and
the applicant used to forcibly send the non-applicant along
with the daughter to her maternal home. The non-applicant, the
relatives of the non-applicant and the brother of the non-
applicant made several attempts to convince the applicant and
the parents of the applicant, but all the efforts were
unsuccessful. In June 2016, when the non-applicant was with
the applicant in the in-laws' house and the daughter had turned
4 years old, then the non-applicant wanted to talk about a
permanent solution in respect of daughters admission in
school, then the applicant did not show any interest in it and
the applicant asked the father of the non applicant on phone to
take the non-applicant away as the non-applicant was refusing
to go to her parent’s home and wanted to educate the daughter
in Jaipur only. On calling by the applicant, father of the non-
applicant and brother of the non-applicant, Rajesh came to
Jaipur on date 11-6-2016 and explained a lot to the applicant
and his parents but it had no effect on them and the applicant
and the parents of the applicant became determined to get the
non applicant and the minor daughter out of the in-laws house,
on which, eventually, on the non-applicant asking for her
Streedhan, on the condition of writing by the non-applicant,
only some of the jewelery of the non-applicant were returned
and non-applicant was forcibly made to write about sending
the divorce paper with consent by the applicant, otherwise the
applicant and the applicant's parents would neither have given
back the jewellery of the non applicant, but the jewelry of the
non-applicant would have been disposed anywhere. On the
previous page of the said handwriting, the matter of the
 28
remaining goods and jewelery etc. of the non-applicant was
written, but the parents of the applicant and the applicant have
given the goods and jewelery of the non-applicant till date. In
September 2016, the applicant's father came to Udaipur for
training and met the non-applicant and the daughter at her
parent’s home and asked the non-applicant to keep patience as
he probably feared that the non -applicant may file police
report against them of cruelty, whereas the non-applicant has
always wanted to fulfill the matrimonial obligations and in the
hope of a future happy life, the non-applicant has never made
any police report of cruelty or criminal proceedings against the
applicant and the parents of the applicant till date. The
applicant's uncle Shri Mahipat Raj ji passed away on 20-6-
2017, the name of the non-applicant was also printed in his
newspaper's condolence news. Non applicant received the
news of death of the uncle of applicant Late Shri Mahipat Raj
Mohnot on 20-6-2017 through 3 Whats App messages from
Chachaji's mobile Whats App to the non-applicant's mobile
Whats App on 22-6-2017 at 7:29, 7:32 and 7:54 am whereas
Uthavana was on the same day from 9 to 10 in the morning.
On which the non-applicant left after some time after getting
the information and on the same day at around 7 o'clock in the
evening, the non-applicant came from Udaipur to Jaipur with
her cousin Gajendra Mandot to her in-laws house and stayed in
the in-laws house for about 5 days, then the applicant
continued to pressurize the non-applicant to go to Udaipur. On
25-6-2017, the applicant's brother Rajesh came to attend, the
applicant then also pressured the non-applicant and the non-
applicant's brother to take them to Udaipur, on which the non-
 29
applicant's brother got the ticket booked for Udaipur in the
night of 25-6-2017. On the next day dated 26-6-2017, the
applicant himself went to drop the non-applicant and her
brother Rajesh to the railway station. ITR of the non-applicant
was being filed by the applicant every year from the year 2011
in which the non-applicant's income was determined and filled
by the applicant as per his wish, whereas the non-applicant had
never asked applicant in respect of filling her ITR. The
intention of the applicant appeared to be to abandon the non-
applicant and the daughter without any reasonable reason, so
the applicant conspired and filled the return of the non-
applicant showing the details of false income of the non-
applicant so that the applicant would not have to bear the
maintenance expenses of the non-applicant and daughter in
future. About which the non-applicant came to know from the
documents produced by the applicant in the case of 125 CrPC
that the applicant is giving false income of the non-applicant
and applicant was also operating the non-applicant's income
tax on-line account. In this context, on coming to the
knowledge of the non-applicant, the non-applicant changed her
income tax account password and lodged a complaint with the
police station Bhupalpura, Udaipur, regarding depositing of
wrong income tax, on which investigation is pending. After
marriage, the applicant has never paid any expense in any form
to the non-applicant due to which the non-applicant has been
spending from the amount saved prior to her marriage,
whereas in addition to this, the applicant forcibly demanded
money from the non-applicant from time to time, on which the
non-applicant was compelled to give money to the applicant as
 30
per the demand and desire of the applicant while saving her
marital relations. From the non-applicant's HDFC account Rs.
1,95,000,/- was paid to Trades wift Broking by way of check
by the applicant. From the non-applicant's Axis bank account
Rs. 45,000/- was paid to Trades wift Broking by the applicant
through check. From the non-applicant's Axis bank account
Rs. 1,00,000,/- was received by the applicant through checks
made from the non-applicant bank account. The intention of
the applicant was to abandon the non-applicant and daughter
Tejal without any reasonable reason, so the applicant
conspired and in lieu of giving jewellery, forced the non-
applicant and the non-applicant's aged father to sign on 11-06-
2016 under forceful pressure, whereas the applicant did not
perform any of his matrimonial obligations after marriage.
Even after 11-6-2016, the non applicant has tried to live with
the applicant 4-5 times in the in-laws' house along with the
daughter and even on the death of the applicant's uncle, the
non -applicant stayed in the in-laws house with the applicant
for 5 days from 22-6-2017 to 26-6-2017 and the applicant had
gone to drop the non-applicant and the non-applicant's brother
Rajesh to the railway station, in this manner the applicant, with
the intention of dissolution of marriage, repeatedly abandoned
the non-applicant without any reasonable reason has played
with emotions of the non applicant- wife. Even after the
pressurized writing on 11-6-2016, both of us husband and wife
have lived together, due to which the conflicting facts of
writing become self-condoned. Eight months after the non-
applicant was sent from Jaipur to maternal home Udaipur on
26-6-2017, the applicant has presented the said divorce
 31
petition in the Hon'ble Court on the basis of false and
fabricated facts, whereas the applicant is himself wrong and
willfully devoiding of responsibilities towards the non-
applicant and daughter, is guilty of cruel conduct. The non-
applicant was always ready to discharge the matrimonial
obligations by staying with the applicant and even today is
ready and willing to fulfill the marital obligations by living
with the applicant along with the daughter. The non-applicant
has never made any case of cruelty, harassment or domestic
violence against the applicant.

5.That the desired amendment in the reply-petition does not

change the nature and form of the applicant’s divorce petition,
but all the correct facts along with the fact situation and
documents can come before the Hon'ble Court from which it will
be possible to dispose off the matter on merits, otherwise
irreparable damage will be caused to the non-applicant, which
will not be possible to compensate.

6. That the Hon'ble Family Court under section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure is conferred unlimited powers by law and
under section-14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 it has also been
stated that- “A Family Court may receive as evidence any report,
statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its
opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not
the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872". In such a situation, from the point of
view of the Family Court, it is necessary in the interest of justice
to make the above desired amendment in the reply-petition so
that the real facts can come before the Hon'ble Court and keeping
 32
all the facts in mind, the Hon'ble Court can also be helped. The
non-applicant could not write all the facts in reply earlier due to
legal ignorance. In order to properly decide all the disputes of the
case, it is very important to keep all the facts on the record of the
Hon'ble Court

Therefore, it is requested that in the interest of justice, the

amendment mentioned in para no.3 and 4 of this application be
please be accepted and kindly grant permission to the non-
applicant to present the revised reply-petition.

Sd/-
Smt. Neelam
Jaipur
20.01.2020

// TRUE TRANSLATED COPY//

 33
ANNEXURE P-4

Family Court No. 3, Jaipur

Puneet Mohnot vs. Smt. Neelam Mohnot
Case No. 366 / 2020 (Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act

09-02-2021
The applicant Puneet Mohnot is present.

Non-Applicant Smt. Neelam Mohnot absent. Counsel of

the Non-Applicant present

With this order, application on behalf of the Non-

Applicant Smt. Neelam Mohnot under order 06 rule 17 read with
section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure dated 20-01-2020 is
being disposed. Heard on the application

Brief facts of the application submitted by the Non-

Applicant are that in the reply submitted by her, in that at
paraNo. 4 and 5 and Para No. 1 and 3 of special reply, in several
places, Applicant in place of Non-Applicant and opposite party in
place of the applicant has been typed, which amendment has
been stated to be necessary. Further stated that in the reply
statement after the last line of para no.-1and after the last line of
para no.-2of the special reply wants to add by way of amendment
the details mentioned in item number-4 of the application in
hand. It was further stated that with the amendment desired by
the non applicant, the nature and form of the case would not
change, but the correct position would come before the Court,
which would make it possible to dispose of the matter on its
 34
merits. In the end, it was prayed to accept the application by the
non applicant and allow the desired amendment.

On behalf of the applicant, it was stated by presenting the

reply to the said application that in the case the applicant has
finished his evidence on date 28-02-2019 and matter is pending
for the evidence of the non-applicant since 03-05-2019, the non-
applicant has been given 08 opportunities to present evidence,
non-applicant merely wants to delay the disposal of the case. It is
further stated that even if in the reply, opposite party in place of
the applicant and applicant in place of Non-Applicant has been
typed, then also meaning of reply of the non – applicant will
remain the same.

It was further stated by the applicant in reply that the non –

applicant has been continuously living separately from him since
the month of June, 2011, in respect of which copies of the
applications presented by the non – applicant in various courts
are being produced along with the reply by him. It was further
stated in reply by the applicant that only with the intention of
causing delay in the disposal of the case, the present application
has been presented on behalf of the non – applicant on the basis
of false and fabricated facts, and prayed for it to be rejected.

During the arguments, on behalf of the parties, their own

facts mentioned in the application and reply application were
only reiterated.

Considered the arguments presented on behalf of the

parties and carefully perused the file.
 35

In the reply application of the non applicant, at several

places, applicant in place of Non-Applicant and opposite party in
place of the applicant has been said to be mentioned. The reply
application was perused in this respect. It becomes clear that in
several places in the reply, applicant in place of Non-Applicant
and opposite party in place of the applicant is mentioned, which
appears only type error, which is justified to be allowed to be
amended.

As far as the other amendments desired by the Non-

Applicant is concerned, in which the Non-Applicant primarily
mentioning the developments after 2011 and mentioning in
respect of the meeting of both the parties and even after
2011whatever invitation letters and condolence messages have
been issued on marriage and the death of any family member at
the applicants place, in those also the name of the non-applicant
Neelam has been inscribed along with the applicant Puneet.
Apart from this, it is also worth mentioning that in the year
19.12.2011 the applicant and the non-applicant have also got
their marriage registered in Udaipur, in respect of which
documents have also been produced by the non-applicant.
Although the evidence of the applicant has been recorded in the
case and the case is pending for the evidence of the non-applicant
and several opportunities have been given to the non-applicant
for evidence. But the facts and pleadings which the non-applicant
wants to bring on record, appear to be necessary in the humble
opinion of the Court for the just disposal of this matter.
 36
Therefore, the application presented on behalf of the non-
applicant Mrs. Neelam, under order 06 rule 17 read with section
151 Civil Procedure Code being accepted, permission is granted
to the non-applicant to make the desired amendment in the
application. Order was pronounced.

Case file in respect of filing revised reply application be

put up on 25.02.2021

Sd/-
09-02-2021

// TRUE TRANSLATED COPY//

 37

ANNEXURE P-5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2325/2021

Puneet Mohnot S/o Shri Arjun Raj Mahnot, Aged about 42 years,
R/o B-59, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
....Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Neelam Mohnot W/o Shri Puneet Mohnot D/o Shri Madan
Lal Singhvi, Aged about 42 years, R/o Opp. Bhupalpura Police
Station, 308/4, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur.
....Respondent

REPLY TO THE WRIT PETITION ON

BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other Hon’ble
Companion Judges of the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,

The humble answering respondents submit the following

reply to the writ petition as under:-
PARAWISE REPLY TO THE WRIT PETITION

1. That the contents of para number 1 of the writ petition is

not accepted as stated. Order passed by the learned family
 38
court on application filed by the respondent under order 6
rule 17 is as per the law applicable and just and reasoned
order, therefore liable to be upheld. It is incorrect that the
amendments seeks by the respondents is alter the earlier
stand taken by the respondents in reply while some
amendment was related to the typographical error and
other amendment are related to the facts of the case which
are necessary to be taken on the record for just and proper
decision of the aforesaid case therefore the learned family
court rightly allow the application for amendment filed by
the respondents by giving well reasoned order.

2. That the contents of sub- para 1 of para no. 2 of the writ

petition are related to the facts of the case, therefore not
required any reply. The contents of sub-para 2 is not
accepted as stated. It is incorrect that respondent by her
free will and consent deserted the house of petitioner in the
month of june-2011, because marriage was registered in
December 2011 so it was not possible, while petitioner
himself kickouted respondent from her matrimonial home
at that time when she was pregnant and respondent having
no other way except to go to her parental home because at
that time she was pregnant as well as inspite of pregnancy,
her husband and in-laws kickout the domestic servants
from job and they pressurized respondent to do all work of
kitchen as well as other domestic work in such situation.
Petitioner and in-laws of respondents always told to her to
go to her parental home otherwise they will torture her in
the same way which they are doing and due to that
respondent left her matrimonial home. Respondent never
 39
want to leave her matrimonial home but petitioner with
pre-planned manner create such situation in which
respondents not having any other way except to leave her
matrimonial home. It is also incorrect that petitioner tried
again and again to bring respondent back to her
matrimonial home while petitioner never did any effort to
bring respondent back. It is submitted that when she gave
birth to a baby girl than attitude of petitioner and her in-
laws become more tortures to her and they clearly asked to
respondent that they will never bring back to her in her
matrimonial home and after that respondent came to her
matrimonial home to live here but petitioner by giving
threatening and by mal- practice took her signature on
blank paper and after that used these papers by written on
this papers wrong facts which are not correct and there is
no question arose to make desert the life of petitioner by
respondent. It is submitted that the only aim of the
petitioner was to get divorce from respondent therefore he
filed application u/s 13 of HMA.

3(i) That the contents of para number 3(i) of the writ petition is
false and frivolous therefore not accepted. Respondent
always want to live with petitioner but petitioner himself
kickout respondent from her matrimonial home and after
that not allow to her to come back the facts mentioned by
the para no. 5, 6 and 7 of application u/s 13 HMA.

3(ii) That the contents of para number 3(ii) of the writ petition
is false and frivolous therefore not accepted. Respondent
filed reply within time. It is submitted that respondent
clearly stated in her reply that petitioner kickout her from
 40
her matrimonial home at that time when she was pregnant
against the wish of respondent and there is specific denial
and specific reply of the averments made by the petitioner
in his application under section 13 of HMA.

3(iii) That the contents of para number 3(iii) of the writ petition
is related to the facts of the case there for not needed any
reply and other averments of this para is averment made by
the respondents in her transfer application which is not
having any nexus with this writ petition or with application
for amendment under order 6 rule 17 therefore there is no
requirement of file reply of remaining part of this para.

3(iv) That the contents of para number 3(iv) of the writ petition
is related to the facts of the case there for not needed any
reply and other averments of this para is averment made by
the respondents in her review application which is not
having any nexus with this writ petition or with application
for amendment under order 6 rule 17 therefore there is no
requirement of file reply of remaining part of this para.

3(v) That the contents of para number 3(v) of the writ petition
is related to the facts of the case there for not needed any
reply and other averments of this para is averment made by
the respondents in her application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which is
not having any nexus with this writ petition or with
application for amendment under order 6 rule 17 therefore
there is no requirement of file reply of remaining part of
this para.

3(vi) That the contents of para number 3(vi) of the writ petition
is related to the facts of the case there for not needed any
 41
reply and other averments of this para is averment made by
the respondents in her application for maintenance which
is not having any nexus with this writ petition or with
application for amendment under order 6 rule 17 therefore
there is no requirement of file reply of remaining part of
this para. It is submitted that respondent never accepted or
admitted the fact that she is residing separately from
petitioner with her parents at Udaipur since June 2011 till
date while she always stated that she was kickout from her
matrimonial home in june 2011 by the petitioner and her in
laws when she was pregnant.

3(vii) That the contents of para number 3(vii) of the writ petition
is related to the facts of the case there for not needed any
reply and other averments of this para is averment made by
the respondents in her reply of section 13 petition which is
not having any nexus with this writ petition or with
application for amendment under order 6 rule 17 therefore
there is no requirement of file reply of remaining part of
this para.

4. That the contents of para number 4 of the writ petition is

not accepted as stated. It is submitted that respondent
never accepted or admitted the fact that she is residing
separately from petitioner with her parents at Udaipur
since June 2011 till date while she always stated that she
was kickout from her matrimonial home in june 2011 by
the petitioner and her in laws when she was pregnant.

5. That the contents of para number 5 of the writ petition is

not accepted as stated. It is wrong that respondent with
 42
sole intent to harass petitioner has been seeking dates
before the family court. it is also incorrect that this
application for amendment is filed by respondents with
intent to make things worse for petitioner and to make out
entirely new case. respondent file application with intent to
clear all the facts related to the present case and with intent
to help the learned family court for just and proper
decision of the case.

6. That the contents of para number 6 of the writ petition is

not accepted as stated. It is incorrect that application filed
by the respondent has neglected all earlier submission,
reply, cross of petitioner evidence done from time to time
and various applications before various forum and to built
complete new case.

7. That the contents of para number 7 of the writ petition is

related of the facts of the case therefore not required any
reply.

8. That the contents of para number 8 of the writ petition is

not accepted as stated. Respondent always tried to argue
on application but it was not possible on one or two dates
due to covid-19 situation.

9. That the contents of para number 9 of the writ petition is

not accepted as stated. Respondent never tried to delay the
proceedings. Respondent filed application which was
required by law as well as respondent having every right to
make out her case strongly therefore she having right to
move an application which is required from time to time
and if respondent filed some application during the
 43
proceeding of divorce petitioner than it cannot be said that
she want to delay the proceedings. The learned family
court rightly taken documents on record as it is prerogative
of the learned family court that if its find proper that these
documents are necessary for just and proper decision of the
case than he can ordered to taken on record these
documents. That the petitioner during the course of reply
of the application filed by the respondents u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
filed some forged and fabricated documents for the
purpose of showing that the respondent was working.
Respondent after having knowledge of these forged
documents filed by the petitioner alongwith reply
thereafter respondent lodged an criminal case against
petitioner and the concerned court did not relied upon the
documents filed by the petitioner because the respondents
was never worked at any institution.

10. That the contents of para number 10 of the writ petition is

not accepted as stated. It is submitted that the learned
family court rightly allowed the application filed by the
respondent which is a well reasoned order and liable to be
upheld and other proceeding like granted liberty to file
amended reply is consequences of allowing of application
which is necessary as per the procedure therefore ordered
by the learned trial court.

REPLY TO THE GROUNDS

1. That the contents of ground number A of the writ petition

is not accepted as stated. The order passed by the learned
 44
family court is just and proper as well as well reasoned
order.

2. That the contents of ground number B of the writ petition

is not accepted as stated. The learned family court passed
order dated 09.02.2021 after considering provisions of
order 6 rule 17 of CPC and as per the order 6 rule 17 it is
prerogative of the learned trial court if he find fit and
reasoned on the conclusion that these amendment are
necessary for the purpose of determining the reason
question of the case and the controversy between the
parties than he can at any time and at any stage may allow
the amendments therefore any party cannot dictate to the
learned trial court regarding allowing the amendment and
it is only upto the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

3. That the contents of ground number C of the writ petition

is not accepted as stated. The order passed by the learned
family court is just and proper as well as well reasoned
order.

4. That the contents of ground number D & E of the writ

petition is not accepted as stated. The order passed by the
learned family court is just and proper as well as well
reasoned order. it is incorrect that the respondent built a
new case by way of amendment and her sole intent behind
filling of amendment application is to built a new and
distinct case and to plug the loop holes in her pleadings.
The amendment sought by the respondent is not made out
any new case while it is facts of the case which are
relevant for the just and proper decision of divorce petition
 45
and it is only upto the court who if think proper and
necessary for taking amended facts on record can allow the
amendments. Other averment made in this para are
repetition of the facts stated in the previous paras which
has already been reply therefore not needed any reply.

5. That the contents of ground number F, G & H of the writ

petition is not accepted as stated. The all averments made
by the petitioner in these grounds are related to the
application and amendment filed by the respondent and
which was allowed by the learned family court because it
is just and proper in the eye of learned family court for
proper decision of the present divorce petition and
therefore any party cannot make objection in the decision
of the learned trial court on the ground that these
amendment are not necessary. Order 6 rule 17 of CPC
gives power only to the learned courts to decide whether
amendments are necessary or not and no party can dictate
the learned court in this regard.

6. That the contents of ground number I & J of the writ

petition is not accepted as stated. The averments made by
the petitioner in this para are false and frivolous and no
nexus with the application and subject matter of this writ
petition. The learned trial court give reasonable
opportunity to each party for filling reply, affidavits etc. as
well as after considering the averments of the application
as well as averments made by the petitioner in his reply of
application for amendment, the learned trial court passed
reasoned order which is as per the mandate of order 6 rule
17 CPC therefore not required any interference.
 46
7. That the contents of ground number K of the writ petition
is not accepted as stated. It is incorrect that by allowing
this amendment application, the learned family court
review and reverse its earlier order dated 28.11.2019. The
order dated 28.11.2019 is related to the document for
which respondent cross examination to petitioner so
learned family court not found this documents to be called,
therefore this order dated 28.11.2019 is altogether different
with the present controversy.

8. That the contents of ground number L to P of the writ

petition is not accepted as stated. order passed by the
learned family court is just and proper as well as well
reasoned order. The amendment sought by the respondent
is not made out any new case while it is facts of the case
which are relevant for the just and proper decision of
divorce petition and it is only upto the court who if think
proper and necessary for taking amended facts on record
can allow the amendments. The learned family court
passed order dated 09.02.2021 after considering provisions
of order 6 rule 17 of CPC and as per the order 6 rule 17 it
is prerogative of the learned trial court if he find fit and
reasoned on the conclusion that these amendment are
necessary for the purpose of determining the reason
question of the case and the controversy between the
parties than he can at any time and at any stage may allow
the amendments therefore any party cannot dictate to the
learned trial court regarding allowing the amendment and
it is only upto the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

PRAYER
 47

It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that

the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the answering
respondents may kindly be taken on record and the writ petition
filed by the petitioner, may kindly be dismissed with cost, in the
interest of justice.
Any other appropriate or direction as deemed fit in the
facts and circumstances may also be passed in favour of the
answer-respondents in the interest of justice.
HUMBLE RESPONDENT

THROUGH COUNSEL

TRUE COPY
 48

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Neelam Mohnot ….Petitioner
Versus

Puneet Mohnot ...Respondent

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION.

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India.

The humble Petition of the

Petitioner abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Special

Leave Petition against the final judgment and order dated
31.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
2325 of 2021.
 49
2. That the Annexure P-2 to P-4 filed herewith were
originally in vernacular language i.e. Hindi and the counsel
has got the same translated into English.
3. That it is in the interest of justice that the petitioner may be
exempted from getting Annexure P-2 to P-4 translated by
an Official Translator.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to :

a) Allow this application and accept the English translation of

Annexure P-2 to P-4 and exempt the Petitioner from filing
Official Translation of the same;

b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Filed By:

Filed on: 11.2.2022

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)
Advocate for the Petitioner
 50
SECTION XV
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL/ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP/W.P/TP/RP/APPEAL/CIVIL/CRIMINAL/ NO……….……..OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF

Smt. Neelam Mohnot …Petitioner

Versus

Puneet Mohnot …Respondent

INDEX
S. Particulars Copies Court Fee
No.
1. List of Dates 1+3
2. Impugned order 1+3
3. Special Leave Petition with affidavit 1+3 1720.00
4. Annexure P-1 to P-5 1+3
5. Application for exemption from filing 1+3 100.00
official tranlsation.
6. Vakalatnama 1 10.00
-------------
Total 1830.00

Filed on : 11.2.22

Filed by

(DR. CHARU MATHUR)

Advocate for the Petitioner
29, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi 110001
Code No.1642
Mob.: 9868009602
E-mail: charumilind@gmail.com
 ANNEXURE ‘Y’
ADVOCATE’S CHECK LIST (TO BE CERTIFIED BY
ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD)
Indicate Yes or NA
1. SLP (C) has been filed in Form No.28 with
NA
certificate.

2. The Petition is as per the provision of Order XV

NA
Rule 1.

3. The papers of SLP have been arranged as per

Order XXI, Rule (3)(1)(f). NA

4. Brief list of dates/events has been filed.

YES
5. Paragraphs and pages of paper books have been
YES
numbered consecutively and correctly noted in
Index.

6. Proper and required number of paper books

YES
(1+1) have been filed.

7. The contents of the petition, applications and

YES
accompanying documents are clear, legible and
typed in double space on one side of the paper.

8. The particulars of the impugned judgment

NA
passed by the court(s) below are uniformly
written in all the documents.

9. In case of appeal by certificate the appeal is

NA
accompanied by judgment and decree appealed
from and order granting certificate.

10. If the petition is time barred, application for

NA
condonation of delay mentioning the no. of days
of delay, with affidavit and court fee has been
filed.

11. The Annexures referred to in the petition are

YES
true copies of the documents before the court(s)
 below and are filed in chronological order as per
List of Dates.

12. The annexures referred to in the petition are YES

filed and indexed separately and not marked
collectively.

13. The relevant provisions of the Constitution,

NA
statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, bye laws,
orders etc. referred to in the impugned
judgment/order has been filed as Appendix to
the SLP

14. In SLP against the order passed in Second

NA
Appeal, copies of the orders passed by the Trial
Court and First Appellate Court have been filed.

15. The complete listing proforma has been filled in,

YES
signed and included in the paper books.
-
16. In a petition (PIL) filed under clause (d) of Rule
12(1) Order XXXVIII, the petitioner has YES
disclosed:
(a) his full name, complete postal address, e-
mail address, phone number, proof
regarding personal identification,
occupation and annual income, PAN
number and National Unique Identity
Card number, if any:
(b) the facts constituting the cause of action;
(c) the nature of injury caused or likely to be
caused to the public;
(d) the nature and extent of personal interest,
if any, of the petitioner(s);
(e) details regarding any civil, criminal or
revenue litigation, involving the
petitioner or any of the petitioners, which
has or could have a legal nexus with the
issue(s) involved in the Public Interest
Litigation.

17. If any identical matter is pending/disposed of by NA

 the Hon. Supreme Court, the complete
particulars of such matters have been given.

18. The statement in terms of the Order XIX Rule

YES
3(1) of Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been
given in the Petition of appeal.

19. Whether a Bank Draft of Rs.50,000/- or 50% of

NA
the amount, whichever is less, has been
deposited by the person intending to appeal, if
required to be paid as per the order of the
NCDRC, in terms of Section 23 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

20. In case of appeal under Armed Forces Tribunal

NA
Act, 2007, the petitioner/appellant has moved
before the Armed Forces Tribunal for granting
certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court.

21. All the papers books to be filed after curing the

YES
defects shall be in order.

I hereby declare that I have personally verified the petition and its
contents and it is in conformity with the Supreme Court Rules
2013. I certify that the above requirements of this Check List have
been complied with. I further certify that all the documents
necessary for the purpose of hearing of the matter have been filed.

[MILIND KUMAR]
Advocate-on-Record

New Delhi;
Date:12.04.2022
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[ORDER XXXVIII RULE (1)]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. Akepati Samhitha & Ors. …Petitioners
VERSUS

Medical Counselling Committee & Ors. …Respondents

WITH
I.A. No. OF 2022
Application seeking exemption from filing attested /notarized
affidavit

PAPER BOOK
[KINDLY SEE INSIDE FOR THE INDEX]

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: MILIND KUMAR

 INDEX

S. Particulars Pages Rem

No. arks
Part-I Part-II
(Paper- (File-
book) alone)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
E-Court fee
1. Listing Proforma A – A2
2. Cover page of Paper-book. A-2
3. Index of records of proceedings A-3

4. Defect List A-4

5. Note Sheet NS 1-
6. Synopsis & List of Dates B-Q
7. WRIT PETITION WITH 1-20
AFFIDAVIT
8. ANNEXURE P-1: 21-24
A true copy of order dated
31.03.2022 passed in Dr. Anjana
Chari S N Vs. Medical
Counselling Committee & Ors.
[W.P. (C) No. 174/2022]
9. ANNXEURE P-2: 25-26
A true copy of circular dated
02.04.2022
10. ANNXEURE P-3: 27-31
A true Copy of order dated
05.04.2022 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in MA 606/2022
in WP (C) 223/2022
11. ANNXEURE P-4: 32
A true copy of guidelines dated
06.04.2022 issued by the
Respondent No.1
12. ANNXEURE P-5: 33-34
A true copy of order dated
07.04.2022 passed by this
Hon’ble Court

13. ANNEXURE P-6: 35

A true copy of circular dated
07.04.2022

14. ANNEXURE P-7: 36

A true copy of communication
with authorities

15. I.A. NO._______OF 2022 37-39

Application seeking exemption
from filing notarised affidavit

16. F/M 40

17. V/A 41-42

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

 A
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION:
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):
Central Act: (Title) Indian Medical Council, Act, 1956 &
Medical Council Act, 1956
Section: Section 61(2) and read with 10 (D)
Central Rule: (Title) ____NA___________
Rule No(s): ___________NA________
State Act: (Title) ________NA______
Section: ________NA__________
State Rule: (Title) _____NA________________
Rule No(s): __________NA_______________________
Impugned Interim order : (Date)____NA____________
Impugned Final Order/Decree : (Date) ___NA_________
High Court: (Name) ___NA____________
Names of Judges ___NA____________
Tribunal / Authority : (Name) ___________N/A______
1. Nature of Matter: ✓Civil Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant No.1: Dr. Akepati Samhitha

(b) e-mail ID:______________NA__________________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA________________

3. (a)Respondent No.1: Medical Counselling Committee

(b) e-mail ID:_________________NA_______________
(c) Mobile phone No. __________NA________________

4. (a) Main category classification: ____08_______________

(b) Sub classification: _____________812_____________

5. Not to be listed before: ___________NA_____________

6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any, & case

details: No similar matter is disposed of

(b) Similar Pending matter with case details: No similar

matter is pending
 A-1
7. Criminal Matters:
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: Yes No
(b) FIR No. ________NA________ Date: ____NA____
(c) Police Station: _______________NA____________
(d) Sentence Awarded: ___________NA___________
(e) Period of Sentence undergone including period of
Detention/Custody undergone: _________NA_____

8. Land Acquisition Matters:

(a) Date of Section 4 notification: ___NA__________
(b) Date of Section 6 notification: __NA____________
(c) Date of Section 17 notification: _______NA______

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: ______NA_________

10. Special Category (First petitioner/appellant only):

Senior Citizen > 65 years SC/ST Woman/ Child
Disabled Legal Aid case In custody

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters):

_________N/A_____

Date:12.04.2022
[MILIND KUMAR]
AOR for petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Registration No: 1566
Email:-milindkradv@gmail.com
 B

SYNOPSIS

That the present Petition is being filed by the Petitioners who

appeared in NEET-PG 2021-22.

The Petitioners were allocated the seats as per the following

details:

Name of Seat allocated in Seat allocated in Seat allocated in

Petitioner Round 1 (AIQ) Round 2 Special round
(AIQ) (among 146 seats)

Dr A. Samhitha MD DVL, Not upgraded Nbems, obgy, district

chengalpattu hospital, tumkur
medical college,
tamilnadu, AIQ

Dr Tejaswini M.s ophthalmology. Not upgraded Nbems diploma- family

MAMC, delhi medicine district
(AIQ) hospital chitradurg
karnataka

Dr ponduri M.D medicine Nbems diploma

shrikanth government Anesthesiology, district
thiruvannamalai medical hospital chitradurg
college tamil nadu. Karnataka

Dr Tejasri Ms obstetrics and MD general medicine, Nbems, diploma

Koorapati gynaecology, dr. scgmc, nanded pediatrics, KC general
kakatiya medical (joined)AIQ hospital, Bangalore,
college warangal Karnataka
(free exit)

Dr. Deepika MS Opthalmology, Not upgraded NBEMS, diploma,

LHMC ,Delhi(AIQ) Obstetrics and
Gynecology, darjeelin,
westbengal
 C

It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioners participated in the

second round of counselling and further in the Special Round of

counselling, subsequent to the Order dated 31.03.2022 passed by

this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Anjana Chari S N Vs. Medical

Counselling Committee & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 174/2022], wherein

this Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 31.03.2022 inter alia passed

the following directions:

“3.The following directions are issued in order to

facilitate the completion of the counselling process for
the NEET - PG 2021-2022: (i) The All India Quota
mop-up round of counselling shall stand cancelled;

(ii) For the 146 additional seats which became

available after AIQ round 2 on 16 March 2022, a
fresh round of counselling shall be conducted as a
special case. Students who have joined in round 2
either of the state quota or of the AIQ, will be at
liberty to participate in the fresh round of counselling
without any financial penalties;

(iii) In order to facilitate the expeditious completion of

the process, the DGHS shall invite options from
students for the 146 new seats within twenty-four
hours of the uploading of the notification and the
process shall be completed within a period of seventy-
two hours after the cut of for receipt of options;
 D

(iv) A fresh mop-up round for AIQ seats shall be

conducted and an endeavour shall be made to
complete the process within a period of two weeks;
and
(v) In line with the regulations which have been
notified on 5 April 2018, students who have joined in
round 2 of the state quota or round 2 of the AIQ shall
not be eligible to participate in the mop-up round for
All India Quota.”

That on 01.04.2022, a notice was released by Respondent No. 1

providing for cancellation of the Mop-Up round in light of this

Hon’ble Court’s order dated 31.03.2022.

That on 02.04.2022, FAQs were released by Respondent No. 1.

The relevant FAQs are:

“Q.No.2 What happens to my current seat if I get new seat in

Special Round?

Ans: Your current seat will get vacated and will be included in

Mop Up Round of Counselling if you are allotted a new seat in

Special Round. If you are allotted a seat in Special Round you will

have no claim on the earlier /old seat.

 E

Q.No.3 What happens to my current seat if l don't get a new seat in

Special Round?

Ans: If no seat is allotted to you in Special Round, you will

continue with your current seat and continue to carry on your

duties in your department.

Q.No.4 What happens to my eligibility in Mop Up Round if I don’t

join the new allotted seat in Special Round and decide to go with

Forfeiture of Fees?

Ans: If you are allotted a seat in Special Round and you don’t join

the allotted seat then you will fall in Exit with Forfeiture

category. Your Security Deposit will get forfeited and you will

have to Register again with payment of requisite fees in Mop Up

Round of PG Counselling. However, once you join the seat allotted

to you in Special Round, you will not be able to resign.”

That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.04.2022 in MA

606/2022 in WP (C) 223/2022 modified FAQ 2 issued on

02.04.2022 as under:

Q.No.2 What happens to my current seat if I get new seat in

Special Round?
 F

Ans: Your current seat will get vacated and will be included in

Mop Up Round of Counselling if you are allotted a new seat in

Special Round. If you are allotted and have joined a seat in

Special Round you will have no claim on the earlier /old seat.”

Thus, if a candidate is allotted a seat in special round of

counselling and s/he joins only then s/he has no claim on the

earlier/old seat.

Further on 06.04.2022 Respondent No.1 issued guidelines for

special round to students and colleges.

According to this notice, the candidates who are allotted seats in

the special round are required to join their allotted seats by April 7,

2022. The seats of NEET PG counselling round-2, vacated by the

candidates who are allotted seats in special round will be included

in mop-up round of PG counselling 2021. The colleges should take

offline resignation of round-2 candidates who have been allotted

seats in NEET PG special round and send the scanned copies to

MCC on email Id pgmcconlinereporting@gmail.com.

The MCC further said that the college authorities should return the

original documents of such candidates and clear their dues so that

they are able to join in special round allotted colleges.

 G

That on 07.04.2022 this Hon’ble Court in MA Diary No(s).

10651/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 202/2022 and WP (C) 254/2022

extended the deadline to allow the candidates to join their round-2

seats by 5PM of 9th April.

That on the same day i.e., on 07.04.2022 Respondent No.1 issued

an urgent notice as follows:

“Urgent Attention:

In light of the Court proceeding in M.A. No. 606 of 2022 in

W.P. (C) No. 223 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India and in continuation of the notice no. U-

12021/06/2021-MEC dated 02/04/2022 it is clarified that, if

any joined candidate of Round 2 who has been allotted a

seat in Special Round and does not join the allotted seat,

then such candidates will be deemed to be holding the

seat allotted and joined by them in Round 2 as there is no

Free Exit in such circumstances.”

It is submitted that this notice of 07.04.2022 is in direct

contravention of FAQ No. 4 of 02.04.2022

 H

FAQ No. 4 dated 02.04.2022 Notice dated 07.04.2022

Q.No.4 What happens to my Urgent Attention:

eligibility in Mop Up Round if I In light of the Court proceeding
don’t join the new allotted seat in M.A. No. 606 of 2022 in
in Special Round and decide to W.P. (C) No. 223 of 2022
go with Forfeiture of Fees? before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India and in
Ans: If you are allotted a seat in
continuation of the notice no. U-
Special Round and you don’t
12021/06/2021-MEC dated
join the allotted seat then you
02/04/2022 it is clarified that, if
will fall in Exit with Forfeiture
any joined candidate of Round
category. Your Security Deposit
2 who has been allotted a seat
will get forfeited and you will
in Special Round and does not
have to Register again with
join the allotted seat, then
payment of requisite fees in
such candidates will be
Mop Up Round of PG
deemed to be holding the seat
Counsellling. However, once
allotted and joined by them in
you join the seat allotted to you
Round 2 as there is no Free
in Special Round, you will not
Exit in such circumstances.”
be able to resign.”

That pursuant to notice dated 02.04.2022 Petitioners had clear

understanding that if they don’t get their preferred seat of special

counselling then they has 2 options, including–

First, they can revert back to their round-2 seats and Second, they

will fall in exit with forfeiture clause and will be able to

 I

participate in fresh round of mop up by registering for the mop up

round. Thus, the Petitioners had to forfeit the security deposit and

had to register for mop up round by paying the requisite fee.

Accordingly, Petitioners resigned from their round 2 seats to

participate in new mop up round, looking at the conditions

mentioned in the notice dated 02.04.2022.

That when the Petitioner acted as per notice dated 02.04.2022.

Obviously, they were not aware of that MCC will come out with

new circular on 07.04.2022 and backtrack from the stand taken by

it.

That the Petitioners have not got the desired seat in the Special

round and are aggrieved by the 07.04.2022 as they are not left with

an option of either exit with forfeiture of security deposit or to

participate in Mop-Up round.

That the Petitioners like thousand others participated in special

round of counselling. The Petitioners were fortunate enough to be

allotted seats in special round of counselling. Thus, by 02.04.2022

FAQ they are eligible for exit with forfeiture clause.

 J

It is submitted that once a candidate is allotted a seat in special

round and he doesn’t join the same then he has two options- first he

can join his 2nd round seat or participate in fresh mop up round. It

is humbly submitted that once a seat is allotted in special round and

the candidate choose not to join then his choice of fresh registration

for mop up round cannot be curtailed. Hence, it is prayed that the

position as on 02.04.2022 be applicable as they had resigned from

the earlier seat basis the FAQ 4 in 02.04.2022 notice.

That the 07.04.2022 has left the candidates in a total limbo. The

notice of 07.04.2022 provided that there is no free exit. It

backtracks on relied upon “exit with forfeiture” clause of notice

dated 02.04.2022. That the special round not joined candidates

may be allowed to participate in mop up round where

unprecedented 6500 seats are yet to be filled. It is pertinent to note

that special round was open to all i.e. to state quota and AIQ and

even to those who applied but were not upgraded in round 1. Thus,

it is fair that these 146 allotted special round candidates be allowed

to participate in mop up round.

 K

That the Petitioner have endeavoured to pictorially represent the

situation. The situation in oval/sphere is the one that needs

attention of this Hon’ble Court.

That in view of the exceptions carved out by this Hon’ble Court in

its order dated 31.03.2022 with respect to special round of

counselling for additional 146 seats, in its powers under Article

142. It is most humbly submitted that in order to ensure that the

merit prevails, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court, be

 L

pleased to allow the Petitioners to participate in the Mop-Up round

for NEET-PG 2021-22.

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Petitioner is,

inter alia seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus, or any

appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents, directing as

under:

a. to direct the Respondent No. 1 to allow the Petitioners to

participate in the AIQ MOP-UP round;

The present Writ Petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as this Hon’ble had an

opportunity to deal with various aspects of the NEET-PG 2021-22

counselling, in the matter of Dr. Anjana Chari S N Vs. Medical

Counselling Committee & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 174/2022] directed

the Respondent No. 1 to conduct the Mop-Up round again.

Therefore, aggrieved by the unjust and arbitrary act of the

Respondent, the Petitioner has no other option but to approach this

Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition.

 M

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

28.09.2021 The results of NEET-PG 2021-22 were announced.

16.12.2021 The Union Government filed an affidavit in Nihila

P.P. & Ors. Vs. MCC SLP (C) No. 10487/2021

inter alia presenting the modified scheme of

counselling.

18.12.2021 Respondent No. 1 vide Notice dated 18.12.2021

intimated the candidates that there will be 4 rounds

of NEET-PG counselling and that no AIQ seat will

be reverted back to the respective State after

completion of AIQ round 2.

07.01.2022 Counselling schedule for NEET-PG 2021-22 was

released and the first round commenced from

07.01.2022 and the second round commenced from

05.02.2022.

07.01.2022 The Petitioners participated in the first round AIQ

counselling of counselling

10.01.2022 A notice dated 10.01.2022 was issued by the

Respondent No. 1 informing the changes/

modifications in the counselling scheme.

 N

23.01.2022 Rounds 1 and 2 were conducted. Petitioners were

24.02.2022
allotted seats.

05.03. The Respondent No.1 warns candidates of

2022
consequences of blocking seats.

Various meritorious candidates approached this

11.03.2022 Hon’ble Court and this court was pleased to issue

notice in the matters of Dr. Vineet Vijendra Rathi Vs.

Medical Counselling Committee & Ors. [W.P. (C)

No. 164/2022] and Dr. Anjana Chari S N Vs. Medical

Counselling Committee & Ors. [W.P. (C) No.

174/2022]

15.03.2021 Respondent No. 1 uploaded a notice providing for the

details for additional seats being introduced in Mop-

Up round

16.03.2022 An advisory was issued by Directorate General of

Health services (“DGHS”) advising candidates

holding a seat in round 2 of State counselling to not

take part in the Mop-Up round of AIQ counselling.

19.03.2022 The Respondent No. 1 issued a notice providing for

new seats been added in the Mop-Up round

 O

24.03.2022 Respondent No. 1 released the provisional result for

Mop-Up round

30.03.2022 This Hon’ble Court observed that an addition of 146

additional seats were introduced in Mop-Up round,

which were not available in round 2, accordingly an

opportunity was given by this Hon’ble Court to the

Respondent No. 1 to set right the anomalies and the

writ petitions were listed on 31.03.2022. This

Hon’ble Court in its order dated 30.03.2022 observed

as under:

“7. Before this Court decides upon the issue

finally, an opportunity should be granted to the
Union of India through the DGHS to set right
the anomalies on both the above counts and to
respond to the Court at the earliest, having
regard to the fact that counselling is at a
substantially advanced stage at the present
point in time.”
31.03.2022 The Respondent No. 1 put the counselling on hold.

31.03.2022 This Hon’ble Court passed the final order in Dr.

Vineet Vijendra Rathi Vs. Medical Counselling

Committee & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 164/2022] and Dr.

 P

Anjana Chari S N Vs. Medical Counselling

Committee & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 174/2022] inter alia

directing cancellation of the mop-up round and

conduct of mop-up round again. It allowed

candidates from State Quota as well as AIQ to

participate in special round.

01.04.2022 A notice was released by Respondent No. 1

providing for cancellation of the Mop-Up round in

light of this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 31.03.2022

02.04.2022 FAQ’s were released by Respondent No. 1which

interalia provided that if a candidate is allotted a seat

in special mop up round and s/he chooses to not join

then s/he has an option to be reverted back to old seat

or exit with forfeiture and participate in mop up with

fresh registration.

05.04.2022 That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.04.2022

modified FAQ 2 of notice dated 02.04.2022

06.04.2022 The Respondent No.1 came out with detailed

procedure to be followed for Special Round

07.04.2022 That on 07.04.2022 this Hon’ble Court in MA Diary

No(s). 10651/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 202/2022 and WP

 Q

(C) 254/2022 extended the deadline to allow the

candidates to join their round-2 seats by 5PM of 9th

April.

07.04.2022 That the same day Respondent No.1 came up with an

urgent clarificatory circular which is in direct

contravention of its own circular of 02.04.2022. That

vide circular dated 07.02.2022-it forfeited the rights

of candidates to participate in mop up round. Relying

upon circular dated 02.04.2022 the Petitioners and

like candidates have resigned from their old seats.

That as non joined candidates of special round the

Petitioners be allowed to participate in the fresh mop

up round.

07.04.2022 The Petitioner made umpteen efforts to follow up

with the Respondent No. 1 regarding a chance to

apply for the Mop-Up round, however there was no

reply from the Respondent No. 1.

12.04.2022 Hence this petition.

 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Dr. Akepati Samhitha

D/o: Raghunath Reddy
Age:25 years
R/o: 11/142 D.M.C. Road Nagireddipalle
Nandalur Cddapah Andhra Pradesh
Pin-516150 Petitioner No. 1

2. Dr. Tejaswini Rushiji Mundare

D/o: Rushiji Mundare
Age: 27 years
R/o: Ward No.15, Po. Tah. Mul,
Chandrapur, Maharashtra Petitioner No. 2

3. Dr. Ponduri Shrikanth

S/o: Ponduri Srinivasarao
Age: 24 Years
R/o: 3-41, Tungapadu, Annavaram,
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh,
522603 Petitioner No. 3

4. Dr. Tejasri Koorapati

D/o Koorapati Karunakar Raju
Age:25 years
R/o:5-24-405/2
Umadevi Nagar
Gajularamaram, Qutubullapur,
Ida Jeedimetla, K.V. Rangareddy
Andhra Pradesh-500055 Petitioner No. 4

5. Dr. Deepika
D/o:Banwari Lal
Age:26 years
R/o: 267, Kashmiri Angi Wali Gali,
New Bus Stand Road, 13, Dabwali,
Sirsa Haryana 125104 Petitioner No. 5
 2
VERSUS

1. The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC)

Through its Director
Directorate General of Health Services
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011
Tel. 011-23061110
E-mail: adgme@nic.in
Respondent No. 1
2. GMERS Medical College;
Through its Director
Ground Floor, GMERS Medica College, Section 12,
Gandhinagar-382016
Respondent No. 2
3. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
THROUGH THE SECRETARY NEW
SACHIVALAYA, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT
,GANDHINAGAR , GUJARAT
Respondent No. 3
4. National Board of Examination
Through its Director
Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar
Ring Road, New Delhi – 110029
Respondent No. 4
5. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Health and Family welfare
Government of India
Nirman Bhawan, Delhi – 110011
Respondent No. 5

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING ISSUANCE OF A

WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, ORDER OR

DIRECTION OF SIMILAR NATURE TO THE

RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW THE PETITIONERS (WHO

ARE NON JOINDED CANDIDATES OF SPECIAL

 3
ROUND OF COUNSELLING) TO LET THEM REGISTER

FOR FRESH MOP-UP ROUNDIN VIEW OF THE

REASONS ELABORATED IN THE WRIT PETITION AND

THE PRAYERS MENTIONED THEREIN.

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA ANDHIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Writ Petition is being filed under Article 32 of

the Constitution of India before this Hon’ble Court

challenging the unjust and arbitrary act of the Respondents

and issuing self-contradictory circulars. That the

Petitioners participated in special counselling round

relying on circular dated 02.04.2022 as they wished to

avail options provided by the Respondent No.1 i.e., either

they revert back to their old seat or exit with forfeiture and

participate in fresh mop up round. That MCC came up

with a subsequent clarificatory circular dated 07.04.2022

whereby the candidates who are allotted seats in the

special round but chose not to join are forbidden to

 4
participate in mop up round. It says that there is no option

of free exit from round 2 and hence they are not eligible to

participate in mop up round. It is submitted that once a

candidate come under special round allotted seats then he

can no longer be labelled as round 2 candidate. His status

changes to allotted but not joined and hence has a right to

participate in the fresh round of counselling. Left to no

remedy the Petitioners are constrained to knock the doors

of this Hon’ble Court for Justice.

2. That the reason why the Petitioners urgently approached

this Hon’ble Court is borne from the relevant dates of the

cases of the Petitioners.

3. That the Petitioner appeared in NEET-PG 2021-22. They

participated in the first and the second round of

counselling.

4. The Respondents herein are the proper authorities

representing the Government of India that is responsible

for the Impugned decision. They are all covered under the

definition of ‘State’ in Article 12 of the Constitution, and

as such, the present petition is maintainable against them.

 5
5. That, cause of action for filing the present writ petition

arose on 07.04.2022, when the Respondents issued

clarificatory circular dated 07.04.2022 whereby they go

back on exit with forfeiture clause.

6. That NEET-PG 2022 is single eligibility cum entrance

examination for admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma

Courses, which includes the following:

1. All India 50% quota seats for all States/Union territories

of India.
2. State quota seats for all States/Union territories of India.
3. All Private Medical Colleges, Institutions &
Universities/Deemed Universities all across the country
4. Armed Forces Medical Services Institutions.
5. Post MBBS DNB Courses and Post MBBS NBEMS
Diploma Courses

7. In the above background, the factual background leading

to the filing of the instant writ petition are being narrated

herein below for the kind consideration of this Hon’ble

Court:

i. The Medical Council of India issued its

Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000

on 22nd August 2000.

 6
ii. That the Medical Council of India issued a Gazette

Notification dated 05.04.2018 to amend the

Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.

iii. That NEET-PG 2021-22 was conducted on

11.09.2021.

iv. The result of NEET-PG 2021-22 was announced on

28.09.2021.

v. The counselling scheme for NEET-PG 2021-22 was

released by Respondent No. 1.

vi. This Hon’ble Court in the matter of Nihila P.P.&

Ors. Vs. MCC SLP (C) No. 10487/2021 directed the

Union Government to file an affidavit explaining the

scheme of counselling for NEET-PG/UG 2021

(“modified scheme”). An affidavit was filed by the

Union Government on 03.12.2021 explaining the

modified scheme for AIQ.

vii. The Respondent No. 1 vide Notice dated 18.12.2021

intimated the candidates that there will be 4 rounds

of NEET-PG counselling and that no AIQ seat will

be reverted to the respective State after completion

of AIQ round 2.
 7
viii. That the counselling schedule for NEET-PG 2021-

22 was released on 10.01.2022 and the first round of

AIQ commenced from 12.01.2022 and the second

round of AIQ commenced from 05.02.2022.

ix. That the Petitioners applied for the rounds of

counselling and were allocated seat.

x. On 19.03.2022, the Respondent No. 1 issued a

notice providing for new seats been added in the

Mop-Up round.

xi. On 19.03.2022, the Respondent No. 1 released the

provisional result for Mop-Up round.

xii. On 24.03.2022, Respondent No. 1 released the

provisional result for Mop-Up round.

xiii. This Hon’ble Court observed that an additional 146

seats were introduced in Mop-Up round, which were

not available in round 2, accordingly an opportunity

was given by this Hon’ble Court to the Respondent

No. 1 to set right the anomalies and the writ petitions

were listed on 31.03.2022. This Hon’ble Court in its

order dated 30.03.2022 observed as under:

“7. Before this Court decides upon the issue

finally, an opportunity should be granted to
the Union of India through the DGHS to set
right the anomalies on both the above
 8
counts and to respond to the Court at the
earliest, having regard to the fact that
counselling is at a substantially advanced
stage at the present point in time.”

xiv. On 31.03.2022, the Respondent No. 1 put the

counselling on hold.

xv. On 31.03.2022, this Hon’ble Court passed the final

order in Dr. Vineet Vijendra Rathi Vs. Medical

Counselling Committee & Ors. [W.P. (C) No.

164/2022] and Dr. Anjana Chari S N Vs. Medical

Counselling Committee & Ors. [W.P. (C) No.

174/2022] inter alia directing cancellation of the

mop-up round and conduct of mop-up round again.

A true copy of order dated 31.03.2022 passed in Dr.

Anjana Chari S N Vs. Medical Counselling

Committee & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 174/2022] is

annexed herewith and marked as “Annexure-P-1”

(Page 21 to 24).

xvi. On 01.04.2022, notice was released by Respondent

No. 1 providing for cancellation of the Mop-Up

round in light of this Hon’ble Court’s order dated

31.03.2022.

xvii. On 02.04.2022, FAQ’s were released by Respondent

No. 1. . The relevant FAQs are:

 9
“Q.No.2 What happens to my current seat if I

get new seat in Special Round?

Ans: Your current seat will get vacated and

will be included in Mop Up Round of

Counselling if you are allotted a new seat in

Special Round. If you are allotted a seat in

Special Round you will have no claim on the

earlier /old seat.

Q.No.3 What happens to my current seat if I

don't get a new seat in Special Round?

Ans: If no seat is allotted to you in Special

Round, you will continue with your current

seat and continue to carry on your duties in

your department.

Q.No.4 What happens to my eligibility in

Mop Up Round if I don’t join the new allotted

seat in Special Round and decide to go with

Forfeiture of Fees?

Ans: If you are allotted a seat in Special

Round and you don’t join the allotted seat

then you will fall in Exit with Forfeiture

 10
category. Your Security Deposit will get

forfeited and you will have to Register again

with payment of requisite fees in Mop Up

Round of PG Counsellling. However, once

you join the seat allotted to you in Special

Round, you will not be able to resign.”

A true copy of circular dated 02.04.2022 is annexed

here as “Annexure P-2”(Page 25 to 26)

xviii. That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.04.2022

in MA 606/2022 in WP (C) 223/2022 modified FAQ

2 issued on 02.04.2022 as under:

Q.No.2 What happens to my current seat if I

get new seat in Special Round?

Ans: Your current seat will get vacated and

will be included In Mop Up Round of

Counselling if you are allotted a new seat in

Special Round. If you are allotted and have

joined a seat in Special Round you will have

no claim on the earlier /old seat.”

Thus, if a candidate is allotted a seat in special

round of counselling and s/he joins only then s/he

 11
has no claim on the earlier/old seat. A true Copy of

order dated 05.04.2022 passed by this Hon’ble

Court in MA 606/2022 in WP (C) 223/2022 is

annexed herewith as “Annexure P-3” (Pages 27 to

31)

xix. That on 06.04.2022 Respondent No.1 issued

guidelines for special round to students and colleges.

According to this notice, the candidates who are

allotted seats in the special round are required to

join their allotted seats by April 7, 2022. The seats

of NEET PG counselling round-2, vacated by the

candidates who are allotted seats in special round

will be included in mop-up round of PG counselling

2021. The colleges should take offline resignation of

round-2 candidates who have been allotted seats in

NEET PG special round and send the scanned

copies to MCC on email

Id pgmcconlinereporting@gmail.com.

The MCC Further said that the college authorities

should return the original documents of such

candidates and clear their dues so that they are able

to join in special round allotted colleges.

 12
A true copy of guidelines dated 06.04.2022 issued

by the Respondent No.1 is annexed as “Annexure

P-4”(Pages 32)

That on 07.04.2022 this Hon’ble Court in MA Diary

No(s). 10651/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 202/2022 and

WP (C) 254/2022 extended the deadline to allow the

candidates to join their round-2 seats by 5PM of 9th

April. A true copy of order dated 07.04.2022 passed

by this Hon’ble Court is annexed as “Annexure P-

5”(Pages 33 to 34)

That on the same day i.e., on 07.04.2022

Respondent No.1 issued impugned notice as

follows:

“Urgent Attention:

In light of the Court proceeding in M.A. No.

606 of 2022 in W.P. (C) No. 223 of 2022
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and in continuation of the notice no. U-
12021/06/2021-MEC dated 02/04/2022 it is
clarified that, if any joined candidate of
Round 2 who has been allotted a seat in
Special Round and does not join the
allotted seat, then such candidates will be
deemed to be holding the seat allotted and
 13
joined by them in Round 2 as there is no
Free Exit in such circumstances.”

A true copy of circular dated 07.04.2022 is annexed

here as “Annexure P-6”( Pages 35)

xx. That the Petitioners made umpteen efforts to follow

up with the Respondent No. 1 to allow them to

participate in fresh mop up round but to no avail. A

true copy of communication with authorities is

annexed here as “Annexure P-7” (Pages 36)

8. That the Petitioner herein is approaching this Hon’ble

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, on

inter alia the following grounds:

GROUNDS

A. BECAUSE the Petitioners on relying upon 02.04.2022

circular participated in the special round counselling as

they knew that in case they would not get a preferred

branch they will have an option of either exit with

forfeiture or an option to register for AIQ Mop-Up. That

however, the Respondents suddenly on 07.04.2022

backtracked on the same. Thus, making them ineligible for

free exit option as well an option to participate in fresh

mop up round. This is humbly submitted that for the

 14
special counselling round everyone from AIQ as well as

State Quote were eligible. Even the candidates of Round 1,

who did not get upgrade were eligible. Thus, it is humbly

submitted that of these 146 special round allottees may be

permitted to participate in mop up round if they chose to

not join the special round allotted seats.

B. BECAUSE the Petitioners and similarly placed candidates

never attempted to block seats. They joined the special

round relying on 02.04.2022 notice, which provided that in

case they do not join the special round seat they will fall

under the Exit with Forfeiture category. Therefore, when

the candidates did not got the preferred branch, they were

shocked to note that they didn’t had an option as provided

under the 02.04.2022 notice. Rather the same had been

changed vide the notice dated 07.04.2022 .

C. BECAUSE the Respondents fail to appreciate that once

the candidates are allotted seat in special round then they

are no longer round 2 seat holders but are the ones who are

allotted in seat in special round. Further, if they don’t join

 15
the allotted seat of special round then their status is that of

allotted but not joined. In such situation, they have two

choices-as rightly identified by the notification of

02.04.2022 i.e. either they can revert back to their earlier

seats or participate in the fresh mop up round. This is the

most logical conclusion. However, the same is upset by the

subsequent clarification of 07.02.2022. That it is humbly

submitted that clarificatory circular dated 07.02.2022 is

illogical, arbitrary and against the very spirit of order dated

31.03.2022 of this Hon’ble Court. That the candidates- i.e.,

all candidates whether of state quota or AIQ or of 1st round

or 2nd round were allowed to participate in the special

round and hence if they fall under the allotted but not

joined category they must be allowed to participate in the

fresh mop up round.

D. That the Petitioners are suffering irreparably by such

conduct of Respondents and is contributing to their mental

stress. That the Act of Respondents and the institutions is

in sheer violation of the fundamental right of the

 16
Petitioners.

E. BECAUSE the Respondent No. 2 has arbitrarily issued the

Impugned Notice thereby denying opportunities to the

candidates to apply on the basis of merit.

F. BECAUSE the alleged condition provided in the

Impugned Notice deprives the candidates to apply for

Mop-Up round, which is in sheer violation of their

fundamental rights and is thus arbitrary, unjust and unfair.

G. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in its order dated

31.03.2022, in view of various glitches in the conduct of

counselling including addition of 146 seats in the Mop-Up

round has directed Respondent No. 1 to conduct the Mop-

Up round of counselling again. That the Petitioners will

hugely sacrifice on merit in case they are retrained from

participating in the Mop-Up round and therefore make a

humble request before his Hon’ble Court that this Hon’ble

Court may under Article 142, in view of peculiar facts and

circumstances of this case, allow the Petitioners to register

for Mop-Up round of counselling.

 17
H. BECAUSE while issuing the alleged condition restraining

the candidates to apply in the Mop-Up round, the

Respondents failed to consider the difference in the

counselling pattern before 2021, wherein there were only 2

rounds of counselling and after 2021, wherein vide notice

dated 18.12.2021, the Respondent No. 1 intimated the

candidates that there will be 4 rounds of NEET-PG

counselling. Further, it failed to consider that this year

unlike previous years had MD/MS/DNB seats all

combined in AIQ. This made a huge number of seats a part

of AIQ counselling and consequent mop up round.

9. Other such grounds as the Petitioner crave to raise at the

time of hearing.

10. That the Petitioners craves the liberty to add/amend/alter

grounds in the present Petition. The annexures

accompanying the present Petition are true copies/typed

copies of their respective originals.

11. That no other similar Petition has been filed by the

Petitioners before any court/ quasi-judicial authority. The

 18
Petitioners have otherwise no other alternative efficacious

remedy under the circumstances except to file the present

Petition. The Respondents are located within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, and have submitted to

the jurisdiction of the Courts at New Delhi. Hence the

present Petition is maintainable.

PRAYER

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

issue of a writ of Mandamus, or any appropriate writ, order or

direction to the Respondents, directing as under:

a. to direct the Respondent No. 1 to allow the Petitioners to

register and participate in the fresh AIQ MOP-UP round;

b. pass such further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper

in facts and circumstances of the present case, in the

interest of justice.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

DRAWN ON: 10.04.2022
FILED ON :11.04.2022
PLACE: NEW DELHI MILIND KUMAR
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
 19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. Akepati Samhitha & Ors. …Petitioners
VERSUS

Medical Counselling Committee & Ors. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Dr. Akepati Samhitha, D/o: Raghunath Reddy, Age:25 years,

R/o: 11/142 D.M.C. Road Nagireddipalle Nandalur Cddapah
Andhra Pradesh Pin-516150, do hereby solemnly state and affirm
as under:

1. That I am the Petitioner No. 1 in the present Writ Petition

and am duly authorized to swear the present affidavit being
fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
present case myself and on behalf of other Petitioners.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of the

accompanying Synopsis and the List of Dates (Page No. B
to Q) the civil writ petition (Page No. 1 to 20) and the
accompanying applications. I state that the contents therein
are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material
has been concealed there from.

3. That the annexures are true copies of their respective

originals.

DEPONENT
 20

VERIFICATION:

I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the

contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed there from.

Verified at ______on this_______ day of April 2022.

DEPONENT
 21
ANNEXURE-P-1
22
23
 24

//True Copy//
 ANNEXURE-P-2 25
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Office of MCC DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES
Email: adgme@nic.in MEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE
NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110108

Ref. U-12021/06/2021-MEC Dated: 02.04.2022

NOTICE
Kind Attention Candidates:
MCC of DGHS is receiving many queries/ clarifications regarding Eligibility and
modalities of conduction of Special Round for 146 PG Seats which is being conducted in
compliance to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 31.03.2022 in W.P (C)
No. 174 of 2022 Anjana Chari S N Vs. The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) &
Ors.,

In this regard, candidates may note the following FAQs:

Q.No.1 Do I need to resign from my joined seat of Round-2 allotted through MCC to
participate in Special Round of Counselling?

Ans: Resignation is not required from the joined seat of Round-2 allotted through MCC to
participate in Special Round of Counselling. However, you need to resign from the seat of
Round-2 only if a seat is allotted to you in Special Round.

Q.No.2 What happens to my current seat if I get new seat in Special Round?

Ans: Your current seat will get vacated and will be included in Mop Up Round of
Counselling if you are allotted and joined a seat in Special Round. If you are allotted seat
in Special Round you will have no claim on the earlier /old seat.

Q.No.3 What happens to my current seat if I don’t get a new seat in Special Round?

Ans: If no seat is allotted to you in Special Round, you will continue with your current
seat and continue to carry on your duties in your department.
 26
Q.No.4 What happens to my eligibility in Mop Up Round if I don’t join the new
allotted seat in Special Round and decide to go with Forfeiture of Fees ?

Ans: If you are allotted a seat in Special Round and you don’t join the allotted seat then
you will fall in Exit with Forfeiture category. Your Security Deposit will get forfeited and
you will have to Register again with payment of requisite fees in Mop Up Round of PG
Counsellling. However, once you join the seat allotted to you in Special Round, you
will not be able to resign.

Q.No.5 What is cut off date for the Special Round of Counselling?

Ans: The Schedule for Special Round of Counselling has been uploaded on MCC
website(www.mcc.nic.in).

Q.No.6 Who are eligible for Special Round of Counselling?

Ans: Students who have joined in Round-2 either of the State Quota or of the AIQ (apart
from Round-1 joined candidates) can participate in this special round without Forfeiture of
their Security Deposit. Candidates who are registered with MCC may also participate.

Q.No.7 Do I need to pay any fees to participate in Special Round of Counselling?

Ans: Students who are already registered need not register again or pay the fees.
Candidates who are registering afresh need to pay the requisite fees.

Q.No.8 I opted for upgradation in Round-1 but was not upgraded. Am I eligible to
participate in Special Round?

Ans: Candidates who gave Willingness in Round-1 for upgradation but did not get
upgraded in Round-2, are eligible to participate in Special Round.

Q.No.9 Whether I will be eligible to participate in NEET 2022 if I do not join the seat
allotted to me in NEET PG Counselling 2021?

Ans: Your eligibility for NEET 2022 will depend on concerned University rules where
you have taken admission.

Q.No.10. Whether State Mop Up Round will also be Cancelled?

Ans: State Counselling authorities will take decision at their own level in view of
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 31.03.2022 in W.P (C) No.
174 of 2022.

Notice posted on: 02.04.2022 //True Copy//

 27
ANNEXURE-P-3
28
29
30
 31

//True Copy//
 ANNEXURE-P-4 32
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Office of MCC DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES
Email: adgme@nic.in MEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE
NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110108

Ref. U-12021/06/2021-MEC Dated: 06.04.2022

NOTICE
Kind Attention Candidates & Colleges:
All the Colleges/ Candidates are requested to note the following guidelines for
Special Round (for 146 seats) of PG Counselling 2021 which was conducted in
compliance to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 31.03.2022 in
W.P (C) No. 174 of 2022 Anjana Chari S N Vs. The Medical Counselling
Committee (MCC) &Ors.

1. The candidates who are allotted seats in the Special Round are required to
join their allotted seats by 07.04.2022.

2. The seats of Round-2, vacated by the candidates who are allotted seats in
Special Round will be included in Mop Up Round of PG Counselling 2021.

3. The colleges should take Offline Resignation of Round-2 candidates who

have been allotted seats in Special Round and send the scanned copies to
MCC on Email Id pgmcconlinereporting@gmail.com.

4. The college authorities should return the original documents of such

candidates and clear their dues so that they are able to join in Special Round
allotted colleges.

Notice posted on: 06.04.2022

//True Copy//
ANNEXURE-P-5
33
 34

//True Copy//
 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 35
Office of MCC of DGHS DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES
Email: adgme@nic.in MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110108

ANNEXURE-P-6

Ref.U-12021/06/2021-MEC Dated: 07-04-2022

NOTICE
Urgent Attention:
In light of the Court proceeding in M.A. No. 606 of 2022 in W.P. (C)
No. 223 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in
continuation of the notice no. U-12021/06/2021-MEC dated 02/04/2022 it
is clarified that, if any joined candidate of Round 2 who has been allotted
a seat in Special Round and does not join the allotted seat, then such
candidates will be deemed to be holding the seat allotted and joined by
them in Round 2 as there is no Free Exit in such circumstances.

Notice posted on: 07.04.2022

//True Copy//
 36
ANNEXURE--P-7

//True Copy//
 37
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[ORDER XXXVIII RULE (1)]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO._________OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._________OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. Akepati Samhitha & Ors. …Petitioners
VERSUS

Medical Counselling Committee & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

ATTESTED/ NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT.

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India and his companion
Justices of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
The humble Application of the
Petitioner above-named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the instant writ petition has been preferred under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

 38
2. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying petition, the

contents of which are not being repeated for sake of

brevity and the Applicant craves leave to rely upon the

same.

3. On account of the restrictions operating in prevailing

circumstances of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner cannot

furnish a notarised affidavit & Welfare stamp in support of

the petition. The petitioner undertakes to file the same as

soon as the normal court functioning resumes.

4. It would be expedient and in the interest of justice that the

petitioner be exempted from filing duly attested affidavit

in the prevailing circumstances and the petitioner

undertakes to file the same whenever possible or directed

to do so.

5. That the present application is being filed bonafide and to

meet the ends of justice.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to:

 39
a) Exempt the Petitioner from filing original notarised

affidavit & welfare stamp along with the Writ Petition for

the time being; and

b) pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

FILED BY:

MILIND KUMAR
Advocate for the Petitioner
Filed on:12.04.2022
 40

SECTION - X
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[ORDER XXXVIII RULE (1)]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. Akepati Samhitha & Ors. …Petitioners
VERSUS

Medical Counselling Committee & Ors. …Respondents

INDEX

S. No. Particulars Copies Court Fee

1. Listing Proforma 1+3
2. Synopsis &List of Dates 1+3
3. Writ Petition with affidavit 1+3
4. Annexure P-1 to P-7 1+3
5. Application for exemption from 1+3
filing Notarized Affidavit
6. An Application seeking Ad-interim 1+3
Relief
7. Vakalatnama & Memo of 1
Appearance

(MILIND KUMAR)
Advocate for the Petitioners
29, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi 110001
Code No. 1566
Mob.: 9868161390
 41
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. _________ OF 2022

Dr. Akepati Samhitha & Ors. …Petitioners

VERSUS

Medical Counselling Committee & Ors. …Respondents

VAKALATNAMA

We, Dr. Samhitha & Ors., the Petitioner (s)/Respondent(s) in the

above Petition do hereby appoint and retain Mr. Milind Kumar,
Advocate on Record To act and appear for me/us in the above
Suit/Appeal/Petition/Reference and on my/our behalf to conduct
and prosecute or defend the same and all proceedings that may be
taken in respect of my application connected with the same or any
decree or order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation
and applications for review, to file and obtain return of documents
and to deposit and receive money on my/our behalf in the said
Suit/Appeal/Petition/Reference and applications of Review and to
represent me/us and to take all necessary steps on my behalf in
the above matter. I/We agree to ratify acts done by the aforesaid
advocate in pursuance of this authority.
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2022
ACCEPTED, VERIFIED, IDENTIFIED AND VERIFIED BY

Milind Kumar Dr. Akepati Samhita

Advocate-on-Record Petitioner No.1

Dr. Tejaswini Rushiji Mundare Dr. Ponduri Shrikanth Dr Tejasri Koorapati

Petitioner No.2 Petitioner No.3 Petitioner No.4

Dr. Deepika
Petitioner No.5
 42
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
The Registrar,
The Supreme Court of India
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of Petitioner(s)
Appellant(s)/Respondent(s) in the above matter.

Dated:12.04.2022 (MILIND KUMAR)

Advocate for the Petitioners
29, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi 110001
Code No. 1566
Mob.: 9868161390