w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rajendra Singh v/s Union of India & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY LTD. [Active] CIN = U36900WB1927PLC005621

Company & Directors' Information:- H B SINGH PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29299WB1975PTC030204

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1943PLC000306

Company & Directors' Information:- R N SINGH & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310JH1975PTC001224

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- SINGH AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36101PB1982PTC005152

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999KA1942PTC000292

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17219TZ1948PTC000161

Company & Directors' Information:- J N SINGH AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U74999DL1908PTC000014

    W.P.(C). No. 5793 of 2020 & CM. No. 20956 of 2020 (for stay)

    Decided On, 31 August 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

    For the Petitioner: Sunil Kumar Pandey, Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advocates. For the Respondents: Jagjit Singh, Preet Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text


[Via Video Conferencing]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

CM No.20957/2020 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exception and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5793/2020 & CM No.20956/2020 (for stay)

3. The petitioner, a constable in the respondents Railway Protection Force (RPF), has filed this petition impugning the chargesheet dated 22nd June, 2020 issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner (ASC), RPF Nizamuddin, Delhi as well as the order dated 4th January, 2019 of the ASC, RPF, Headquarter, Delhi (East) in pursuance to which the chargesheet dated 22nd June, 2020 has been issued.

4. The counsel for the respondents RPF appears on advance notice and considering the nature of the controversy, with the consent of the counsel for the respondents RPF, we have heard the counsels finally.

5. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) he passed his High School exam in the year 1990 and his date of birth, as recorded on his High School Certificate, is of 5th October, 1971; (ii) the petitioner, on 20th August, 1994 was selected and in May, 1995 appointed as a constable in the respondents RPF and was last posted at Delhi; (iii) on 3rd August, 2014, an FIR was registered against some person and in the offence subject matter of which FIR, the brother of the petitioner was named as a eyewitness; (iv) the accused in the said FIR, to pressurize the brother of the petitioner to depose in their favour, made a complaint with the respondents RPF, of the petitioner, while seeking employment in the RPF, having concealed his true date of birth; (v) pursuant to the aforesaid, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the respondents RPF and a chargesheet dated 18th November, 2017 issued to the petitioner; (vi) it was the charge against the petitioner that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 4th April, 1964 and the petitioner had passed his High School exam in 1983-84 with date of birth of 4th April, 1964 but had in the year 1989-90 again taken the High School exam showing his date of birth as 5th October, 1971; (vii) the Inquiry Officer appointed, recorded the statement of the witnesses; (viii) the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 14th December, 2018 inter alia to the effect that the charge against the petitioner had not been proved, though no copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioner; (ix) the ASC, Headquarter, Delhi (East) issued an order dated 4th January, 2019 mentioning that the Inquiry Officer had reported that further disciplinary proceedings could not be continued due to administrative reasons and therefore chargesheet / disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner be expunged; however the said order also was not furnished to the petitioner; (x) however the ASC issued fresh chargesheet dated 15th January, 2020 containing same and identical imputation of charges as levelled against the petitioner in the earlier chargesheet dated 8th November, 2017; and, (xi) however the chargesheet dated 15th January, 2020 was withdrawn through order dated 22nd June, 2020, on a technical ground, and a new chargesheet dated 22nd June, 2020 containing the same and identical charges as levelled in the earlier chargesheet dated 8th November, 2017, was issued.

6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that under Rule 154 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, as under:

“154. Action on the Inquiry Report. –

154.1 If the disciplinary authority, having regard of its own findings where it is itself the Inquiry Officer or having regard to its decision on all or any of the Inquiry Officer, if of the opinion that the punishment warranted is such as 1s within its competence, that authority may act on the evidence on record. However, in a case where it is of the opinion that further examination of any witness is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall the witness, examine him and allow the party charged to cross-examine him. After that, it may impose on the party charged such punishment as is within its competence according to these rules.

154.2 While communicating the order imposing the punishment, a copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer shall also be given to the party charged.

154.3 Where such disciplinary authority is of the opinion that punishment warranted is such, as is not within its competence, that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to the appropriate disciplinary authority who shall act in the manner as hereinafter provided.

154.4 The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the Inquiry Officer may, for reasons to be recorded, remit the case to the Inquiry Officer for further Inquiry and report. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 153 and submit to the disciplinary authority the complete records of such inquiry along with his report.

154.5 The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any articles of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.

154.6 If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the opinion that any of the major punishments should be imposed on the party charged, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 158, make an order imposing such punishment.

154.7 If the authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of evidence on record, is of the opinion that any of the major punishments should be imposed on the party charged, it shall make an order imposing such punishment and it shall not be necessary to give to the party charged any opportunity of making representation on the punishment proposed to be imposed.”

though the Disciplinary Authority, if not agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, after issuing notice to the petitioner, could have ordered further evidence to be taken but could not have ordered initiation of fresh disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a fresh chargesheet.

7. The counsel for the respondents RPF has drawn our attention to, (i) ordersheet dated 27th April, 2018 of the Inquiry Officer; (ii) the order dated 5th December, 2018 of the ASC, Headquarter, Delhi (East); (iii) the report dated 10th December, 2018 of the Inquiry Officer; and, (iv) the order dated 4th January, 2019 of the ASC and has contended that the petitioner, (a) on account of his non-cooperation was not permitting the inquiry proceedings to proceed; (b) was seeking copies of documents which were not on record and which were not relied upon; and, (c) was delaying the cross-examination of witnesses on one pretext or another, and has further contended that the complainant, on whose complaint inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, also was reported to have died and since he was the main witness and owing to his death could not appear, it was deemed appropriate to hold de-novo inquiry. He has also drawn our attention to Rule 153.18 of the Railway Protection Force Rules as under:

“153.18 Whenever any Inquiry Officer after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry, cases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Inquiry Officer who has and exercises such jurisdiction, the Inquiry Officer so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by him or himself record it fresh as he deems expedient.”

8. We have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the respondents RPF as to what difference the demise of the complainant on whose complaint inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, would make on the inquiry on the subject charge. The complainant only brought to the notice of the respondents RPF that the petitioner, in seeking employment with the respondents RPF, had fabricated documents showing his date of birth as 5th October, 1971 when in fact his date of birth was 4th April, 1964. To prove or to disprove the said charge, the evidence of the complainant was not relevant and the true date of birth of the petitioner had to be investigated. It is not as if on the complainant withdrawing his complaint, the inquiry would have come to an end. Pursuant to a preliminary enquiry, a charge was framed against the petitioner, and the investigation had to be completed with a finding as to the date of birth of the petitioner and which has to be verified from the records of various institutions and not on the basis of testimony of the complainant. The departmental proceedings moreover are inquisitorial in nature and not adversarial, as seems to be the understanding of the respondents RPF.

9. On perusal of the Rules cited by both the counsels also, we are unable to find the procedure being followed to have the sanction of the Rules. What emerges on a reading of the documents to which attention has been drawn by the counsel for the respondents RPF is, that the inquiry officer vide proceedings dated 14th December, 2018 expressed inability to proceed further in the matter on account of non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner, on account of the report of the preliminary enquiry being not on record and on account of the demise of the complaint who was the main witness. If the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the said report of the Inquiry Officer, such action of the Inquiry Officer being within the meaning of Rule 153.18 aforesaid i.e. of the Inquiry Officer ceasing to exercise jurisdiction, what ought to have followed was, appointment of another Inquiry Officer, if so deemed necessary. To the said extent, merit is found in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that de novo inquiry could not have been ordered and a fresh chargesheet could not have been ordered to be issued.

10. The counsel for the respondents RPF has contended that under Rule 153.18, the new Inquiry Officer has power to either proceed on the basis of evidence already recorded or to record evidence afresh. He has argued that the procedure as is being followed, is within the ambit of Rule 153.18.

11. We are unable to agree. Here, what has happened is that rather than leaving the decision to the Inquiry Officer freshly appointed, the Disciplinary Authority has ordered a de-novo inquiry.

12. We, even otherwise are of the opinion that considering the seriousness of the charge against the petitioner, what ought to have prevailed with the Disciplinary Authority was that the time of over two

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

years already undertaken in the inquiry ought not to have been allowed to be wasted and it should have been left to the Inquiry Officer to, after perusing the records, take decision under Rule 153.18. 13. In fact, it is for the aforesaid reason only that we have also not deemed it appropriate to call for the counter affidavit and have felt the need to dispose of the matter immediately so that the punishment, if any to be meted out to the petitioner, is not delayed any further. 14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 15. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority for de novo inquiry are set aside. The Disciplinary Authority of the respondents RPF to now, forthwith, on the basis of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer appointed earlier, take a decision in accordance with the Rules. 16. The counsel for the petitioner has also urged that copies of the proceedings are not being furnished to him. 17. If the petitioner, in accordance with the Rules and law is entitled to any copies of the proceedings, the same be furnished to him and else, reasons in writing denying the request be furnished. 18. The petition is disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-10-2020 Rajendra Eknath Apugade & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-10-2020 Ramesh Versus Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Government (Revenue) Government of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Sapat Khan Versus Union of India Through Intelligence Officer High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-10-2020 Jitendra Singh Dhillon Versus State of MP & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 Gurcharan Singh Versus The State of Punjab Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 M/s. Kashmir Wine & Provision Store Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
29-09-2020 Ashok Vishwakarma Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
24-09-2020 Kajal Mukesh Singh & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Inspector-in-charge of Malad Police Station) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-09-2020 M. Umapathy & Another Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour-I, (Registrar of Trade Union), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Rajbahadur Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-09-2020 The Visnagar Taluka Co-Operative Purchase & Sales Union Limited (Deleted) Versus District Registrar, Co-Op. Societies High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
22-09-2020 M/s. Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-09-2020 M. Rajalakshmi Versus Union of India Represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Revenue & Disaster Management Govt. of Union Territory of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Vaibhav Prasad Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2020 Mukul Mittal & Another Versus Union of India Through its Secretary & Another High Court of Delhi
18-09-2020 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-09-2020 K. Murugan: Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2547/15 T. Velladurai, Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2548/15, Versus The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Alangulam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-09-2020 Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League, Represented by its General Secretary, K.A.M. Muhammed Abubacker, Chennai Versus M.G. Dawood Miakhan & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
15-09-2020 Firoz Iqbal Khan Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2020 Lakhan Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
11-09-2020 Ranjeet Singh Raghuvanshi Versus The State of M.P. Through Police Station, Kotali High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
11-09-2020 Mohd Nashruddin Khan & Others Versus Union Of India & Others High Court of Delhi
11-09-2020 Syed Mujtaba Athar & Another Versus Union of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Others High Court of Delhi
10-09-2020 Pravin Kumar Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 Hriday Narayan Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-09-2020 Gyan Singh Thakur & Others Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Alankit Assignments Limited Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
08-09-2020 Ramraj Singh Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-09-2020 Ex Jwo Kewal Krishan Vij Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
08-09-2020 Sidharth Vijay Shah Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 Rai Singh Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
04-09-2020 Inder Kumar Raina Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-09-2020 R. Poornima & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
04-09-2020 Vijay Singh Yadav Versus Ajay Shanker Rai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-09-2020 Dr. Vani Viswanathan Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Sandeep Agarwal & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Mohd. Asgar Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2020 Amanpreet Singh & Others Versus Union Territory of J&K High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2020 Naseem Chauhan Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2020 L.B.S. Group of Eduction Institute Through Its Director Shri Prateek Mathur, Rajasthan Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-08-2020 Mukesh Singh Versus State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) Supreme Court of India
31-08-2020 Gajendra Singh Negi Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-08-2020 Purshotam Behl & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Dalbir Singh Versus State of Nct of Delhi & Others Supreme Court of India
28-08-2020 Renu Gupta Versus Ram Pal Singh, Basic Education Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-08-2020 Ram Vikram Singh (In Person) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2020 Dr. Navroz Mehta Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 The State of Punjab & Others Versus Davinder Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 Manga @ Manga Singh Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
26-08-2020 Vijendra Singh Yadav Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-08-2020 Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Represented by its Vicepresident (Legal) Ch. Viswanath Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-08-2020 Sharad Kumar Singh & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-08-2020 The Mining & Engineering Corporation Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
25-08-2020 Raj Pal Singh Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Haryana, Rohtak Supreme Court of India
24-08-2020 M/s. Govindhji Jewat & Co., Represented by its Partner Rajendra Kone & Others Versus M/s. Rukmani Mills Ltd., Represented by its Board of Directors, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-08-2020 Vikrant Singh Malik & Others Versus Supertech Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
24-08-2020 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
24-08-2020 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gauhati
21-08-2020 Sunil Kumar Bishnoi Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
21-08-2020 The Union of India & Others Versus Aditya Nandan Prasad @ Bala Prasad High Court of Judicature at Patna
21-08-2020 Arun Kumar Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 Ranjit Singh Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
20-08-2020 Sardar Bahginder Singh Versus Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
20-08-2020 TNCSC Employees Union, Affiliated with Labour Progressive Federation, Rep. by its State President, Chennai Versus Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Aniruddh Kumar Saxena & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-08-2020 Sudhir Kumar Patodia Versus Union Bank of India High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-08-2020 Jatinder Pal Singh @ Sunny Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Constituent Attorney, Rajasthan Versus Baldev Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 V.K. Somarajan Pillai Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
18-08-2020 Vinay Mittal Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
18-08-2020 Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt Ltd & Another. Versus Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence & Another. High Court of Delhi
18-08-2020 Lal Chand Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
18-08-2020 Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Ray @ Ritlal Prasad Singh Versus The U.O.I. through B. Hazara, Assistant Director, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Complainant) & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 Neeraj Kumar & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
17-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus Shailendra Prasad Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Union of India & Another Versus M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
14-08-2020 Preet Pal Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
14-08-2020 Rabindra Singh Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-08-2020 Satyavir Singh & Others Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-08-2020 Seventh Plane Networks Private Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-08-2020 O. Hymavathi Versus Union of India High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 Ram Niwas Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-08-2020 Shelli Sehria & Another Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir