SC BIG ORDER TODAY | WB CM CAN'T HALT ED RAID....RAID VAILD? #supremecourtofindia #mamatabanerjee

Added: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]different people either my lord he works within one thing I must say when I when we say kubota means kubota >> is their princip with pitis love >> yes my lord >> no repetition >> so anyway anyway uh we issue notice we issue notice to the respondent Mr. So and soul under council appears and accepts notice of the counter affidavit shall specifically file specifically find proof that the petitioner has any subsisting contract and work with kubota in Pune. Please >> my lord uh it can be uh clear from there later only >> you you you also file >> file yes it is filed on post the matter on 15th July 15th 16th July >> my say miscellaneous week post in the meanwhile contempt proceedings against the petitioner shall remain state >> myos My lord, the petitioner was recruited as a driver in the police force. My lord, there's a three judges judgment before of this honorable court which deals with such situations due to difference of opinion between different benches of this honorable court. My lord has been he was having a matrimonial dispute with his wife.

[00:01:49]This this this judgment hold my >> matrimonial open. It it was >> one one is 324 3 >> 324 294 56 and 279 >> all related to matrimonial dispute.

[00:02:20]>> Why did you not disclose this one >> in which he was >> forget about matrimonial we can understand matrimonial dispute. Nobody understands >> that it's a criminal case.

[00:02:29]>> This this other case was disposed of prior to >> no no you have to prior to prior to >> you have to dislo are saying clearly applies.

[00:02:37]>> My my lord may kindly see the judgment.

[00:02:39]It has it is held with that verification of anticaring to be found out what Singh says.

[00:02:47]>> Yes. Yes. It it it has not been discussed at all. It has been referred to by the >> It has been referred and lied.

[00:02:54]>> Not only referred lied also.

[00:02:56]>> Kindly see it whereas 19 and 28 was a reference to a larger that is against you. It was a it was a reference to a larger bench as to what should happen in such cases and it has been held that verification of anticidence is to find out fitness of the incumbent. No no no no see verification is different >> but when you conceal >> that itself is an offense >> even that situation is covered in this matter my lord and he's a driver so it it does not affect if he had a prior dispute with driver not it is it is not going to affect nothing >> my lord may kindly see this this judgment has not been applied at >> dismissed dismissed Mr. Anulka is on BC.

[00:03:50]>> Yes.

[00:03:51]>> Lord, the only contention I'm placing before your lordships is that it is an admitted fact that an agreement to sell was executed between the parties. It is also an admitted fact that a portion of the consideration was paid. Now once there is an agreement to sell between the parties mealots your lordships in kanti mati 2000 volume 9 have taken the view that the landlord tenant relationship comes to an end.

[00:04:18]>> No no no >> it is your lordships will see that and I leave it at that your lordships will only see that judgment for a moment.

[00:04:25]Yes.

[00:04:26]>> So 2000 volume 94 cases 339. We had given a >> volume 9 sec >> 339 meot >> and that refers to an earlier decision in Arjun Lal but Kotani that has been quoted. I'll read it from there.

[00:04:53]You see this first appian court has referred to this.

[00:04:58]>> Yes lords but with greatest respect it has not considered it in the right cont.

[00:05:03]>> No I'll tell your lordships firstly. May I show this judgment sir and then I'll answer your lordship's query right away.

[00:05:08]Please see paragraph six of this judgment. Sir, am I with your lordships at paragraph 6?

[00:05:16]>> May I read it?

[00:05:18]Which par?

[00:05:19]>> Paragraph 6, sir.

[00:05:22]It is at internal page 341.

[00:05:24]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:05:26]>> Any jural relationship between two persons could be created through agreement and similarly would be changed through agreement subject to limitations under the law. Earlier when the appalants were inducted into teny, it only means both agreed that their relationship was to be that of landlord and tenant. Later when the landlord decided to sell this property to the tenant and the tenant agreed by entering into agreement they by their positive act change their relationship as purchaser and seller when the seller landlord accepts the sum >> was the property delivered to you person to agreement.

[00:06:00]>> Yes mess I was already in possession agreement has been executed I continue to be in possession >> forget about it your possession as on the date of agreement was that of a tenant. Yes.

[00:06:11]>> If if possession is delivered to you as a prospective purchaser >> in that agreement.

[00:06:19]>> Yes.

[00:06:20]>> Does it record that you have been delivered possession pursuant to this agreement to sell?

[00:06:25]>> Well, it does not say so in those many words.

[00:06:28]>> Then your position is still that of a tenant.

[00:06:32]>> Lord, would your lordship just allow me to read a little further? Perhaps >> of a tenant would just we'll deal with this. May I just may I just read a little may be addressed against the this agreed sum of rups 1 cr you will pay 10,000 advance and you will say I cease to become a tenant. Now may I just say this? I my contention before your lordships is that once I have executed this agreement, the landlord tenant relationship comes to an end. That does not mean that certainly does not mean that I can continue to be in possession >> if without uh without performing my part of the contract. But here meots since the suit at the >> date of that agreement >> mess that agreement is at page number 40 21st September 2004 September 21 2004 >> did you move any petition for specific performance? So I have not I have not >> but it is my contention that I have >> said that forever now you cease to be a tenant and you will neither file any suit for performance and you will assert the property belonging to the landlord.

[00:07:41]>> Can I answer this at the same time?

[00:07:43]Sorry >> we want an answer.

[00:07:45]>> Yes. At this the the straight answer is that I have not filed any suit for specific performance.

[00:07:50]>> Then you are out >> belongs at the same time. At the same time the landlord has also not filed any suit for specific performance. Number one. Number two the LANDLORD LANDLORD WILL FILE A SUIT for state performance to file. You are the purchaser.

[00:08:03]>> I understand that. So therefore I may my possession may not be lawful in that sense. But the question which is falling for your lordship's consideration is that once the relationship has changed does the tenency court have the jurisdiction? In my submission the tenency court has >> and what I am saying what I am saying we are saying observing is precisely the reasoning in KK Sharma which has been dealt with by the high court.

[00:08:28]>> Yes. But your lordships will just see that both the all the courts have disregarded this agreement on the basis that it's not a registered agreement.

[00:08:36]Now that certainly would be held against me provided the respondent ising the agreement. I especially ask you >> yes >> was the was delivery of position happened at the time of execution of agreement because my next question would have been if yes whether the agreement was registered >> lord >> because if it's not registered it's not registered to be registered >> it's not registered but for your lordship's first >> you are also out >> for your lordship's first >> never have been delivered without registration.

[00:09:12]>> Milots, for your lordship's first query as to whether I was put in possession pursuant to that agreement, >> your lordships may find an answer to the notice which was sent by the landlord at page 42 >> where he says that he put me in possession pursuant to that agreement >> for closed for reserved for >> very would your lordships kindly permit me.

[00:09:33]>> Would your lordships in that case permit me to submit a written note of argument?

[00:09:36]Ah yes please is permitted to submit a written note within a week.

[00:09:42]>> I will muchotion.

[00:09:54]This is against the criminal revision.

[00:09:56]Petitioner has been convicted under section 32 of the petitioner has been convicted under section 342 of the MBXI.

[00:10:05]Surrender.

[00:10:06]>> No worship. He has not surrender.

[00:10:08]>> Surrender. Therefore, we are saying surrender. Please surrender.

[00:10:12]>> Without surrender, you cannot maintain.

[00:10:14]>> Yes.

[00:10:17]>> Yes. I will surrender. Exemption has been allowed by this honorable court.

[00:10:20]>> Wrongly allowed.

[00:10:22]>> Yes.

[00:10:23]>> Wrongly allowed.

[00:10:25]It should not have been.

[00:10:28]>> It should not have been allowed.

[00:10:30]>> One year has been you cannot you cannot be out.

[00:10:38]You cannot be out as an escond and yet >> you obtain exemption from surrender.

[00:10:46]>> He has filed the criminal division and therefore >> sorry dismissed >> his criminal division was decided on >> dismissed. Dismissed next 49 >> 49 I was led by Mr. Nickel I had taken a pass but I was led by Mr. Nicl go the pass last round but he's still on his legs >> any urgency >> can keep it next week >> after working days >> yes >> 66 month >> she was requesting for one year >> one year >> too much one year is >> this is the only livelihood is possible then six months will But you find out some reasonable >> 6 months if >> 6 months 6 months 6 months >> 6 months >> 66 no upon hearing learn council for we are not inclined to to entertain this SLP accordingly the SLP is dismissed. However, uh considering that the subject tenant premises is a non-residential premises, we allow the petitioner to occupy the premises for a period of 6 months for an additional period of 6 months. Post of petitioner shall submit an undertaking before the registry of this court within two weeks that he that CL hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 30th November.

[00:12:37]Yes. Next.

[00:12:40]12.

[00:12:50]>> Yes. 12.

[00:13:01]Well none of the petitioner is in both the rounds post I'm appearing in item 12 we would like to withdraw the petition withdrawn 51 >> yes >> this is an after notice matter mallets mallet is on the last date that fifth the date for NMD ballots But matter this requires some time otherwise I'm ready for the matter on 8th September >> 8th September enter >> much is appearing short accommodation for How much?

[00:14:01]>> How much?

[00:14:04]>> Post after partial working.

[00:14:08]>> Yes, ma'am. I appear to respond.

[00:14:11]>> Yes.

[00:14:12]>> A request for a passover. We have been late by learn >> I'm suffering because there is a state that has been granted against me.

[00:14:18]>> I understand that but he's on his legs.

[00:14:19]My >> in fact not what happened was there.

[00:14:22]>> We can't hear you finally now.

[00:14:23]>> But no, it's a short issue. I'll tell you what you what it is. H >> not in the high court.

[00:14:32]>> Yes.

[00:14:33]>> Please do not >> everything is in this case. In fact, there's a perjury if I my friend permits me. There's a perjury because before the high court they took a stand as against me because I wanted my sanctioned documents. They took a stand that they are not giving them because these are third party information. Here they come to the honorable court make a statement in ground B that investigation is pending in the trial court they have filed a plea saying that investigation is over and that is what they say at in the trial court as well as the high court in the collateral proceeding the trial court in this proceeding itself so they can't take contradictory steps and contrary findings are not in so far as the mood questions is concerned whether information can be gr means granted or given only in respect of in when the investigation pending or during the prosecution. Now look the prosecution goes on. Judge seat was filed. This was specifically uh recorded by the single judge as well as as well as the trial division bench.

[00:15:40]And in both the cases high court ignores H1H wherein prosecution is when during pendency of the prosecution it can be denied. In fact, thereafter before the matter was taken up by the contempt court, we had already given them all the requisite document which they had asked for >> pertaining to and made in DOP.

[00:16:09]>> No, but the this information is concerning the respondent himself.

[00:16:14]>> Yes, but only myself. I don't want others.

[00:16:16]>> It is not about third party. Yeah, >> there are third parties information. So, kindly see what is being sought for >> if I may say may I if my friend permits they can redact the third party. I only want it as against my sanction I wanted and please note my learned friend interpret so far as this allow me a moment 81 my learned friend says information which would impede the process or apprehension or prosecution.

[00:16:40]Now this will not impede the prosecution but the prosecution is pending pending.

[00:16:46]>> Why can't you make a prayer before court.

[00:16:49]>> Can I tell you lordship? If I may just say this >> so that it is proved in >> why not if I may say so but today the issue is this in my case one authority said no sanction to be granted there is a infirmity in that sanction could not be could not have been granted and they have CB has gone ahead and taken sanctions the CBC took a view now the issue here is when there is a fundamental CBC being the governing who says no not a case no sanction I have a right to say the sanction is bad the prosecution should fail before the high court they say they are willing to give but they say third Just a minute sir.

[00:17:20]They say third party information. Now please see ground B before your Lord sheets in the SLP at page number 75 because this is slightly distin what is being argued here today with respect my friend is saying something else. Ground B at page number 75.

[00:17:36]They are saying Eight of my countered. They counted.

[00:18:48]counter now themselves that there has been a compliance partial compliance of the order. Nord before that I would just like to take my to page 88 of my petition page 88 before have a look at a counter kind 88 of the petition >> what document is 88 of petition or petition first petition application >> their RTI application >> yes now what they have sought for >> yes >> atm description of information sort.

[00:19:29]>> Copy of complete file.

[00:19:34]>> Copy of complete file noting comments advice made in DOPT or issue of my prosecution sanction in the case of INX media >> and copy of complete file correspondence noted advice made in DOP on issue of my prosecution sanction in the case of INX media. Now, now made in DOP of participant. Now, kindly have page eight of their counter.

[00:20:03]We provided them the information after the division by chart. Kindly page eight of the count.

[00:20:17]Page eight.

[00:20:23]Page eight. counter.

[00:20:33]>> Yes.

[00:20:33]>> Now look kindly at the third line.

[00:20:35]Petitioner had partially complied and wide letter covering letter dates 99 2025 and supplied documents to the respondent under his RTI application that also included order dated 26A 2019 issued under the signature of under secretary to the government of India whereby the central government accorded sanction under section 19 of the prevention of corruption act 1988 and section 197 of CRPC for prosecution of respondent After considering and taking into account underlying material that is comments of administrative ministry that is department of econom. Now this is all third party advice of CBC recommending section for prosecution of respondent record of case submitted by the CBI.

[00:21:26]>> Now in so far as when the prosecution is pending now we kindly come to page 104 of the petition. My Lord may read the whole of the top part of parad lord because it says which my friend is that which underlying indeed was submitted to the competent authority after which competent authority was >> so it was submitted to us. Let me just read those four lines if you have not read it sir. After pro sanction for prosecution under 90 and 19 but which underlying material has been withheld from the respondent till date on one protects or the other and the copy of the orders at the cost of repetition it submit the respondent is only seeking information with regard to sanction accorded for his prosecution. That's the point. Kindly now have page 104 of the petition page 104 of the petition.

[00:22:21]Now this is the order pass in appeal an extra P formula order passed in appeal. Now what the appeal >> formula >> while rejecting the appeal in par 3 which was specifically and where is it is found >> 104 >> please.

[00:22:49]>> Yes. And whereas it is found that the information sought for cannot be disclosed when the prosecution of the appellent is pending before the honorable court as the award file contains vital details of investigation district report and document related to central investigation in case of prosecution. Further the file also include inputs of related investigation agency including witnesses account evidences disclosure of which may pose impediment to the prosecution. Now kindly see the impute how it has been dealt with.

[00:23:23]This issue has been dealt with good >> but my learning friend may also show P7 which is the first single charge is not a single charge in my favor LP in my favor and then content. None of I'll show that also. Let me show that to the >> Yeah, please. I as >> P7.

[00:23:44]>> Yes.

[00:23:45]>> Now, kindly a page 142 of this paraph 142 >> 142.

[00:24:02]No word. No means prosecution is not mentioned in the whole judgment. Kindly a paraph careful reading of the provision reveals that the holder of information can only withhold the information if they are able to demonstrate that the information was impeded the process of investigation of apprehension of prosecution of the offender. In the present case undeniably the investigation is over and the chari has been filed. Thus in the opinion of court respondent denial of information information premised on 81H of the act cannot apply four lines above the honorable judge is recording that or prosecution of offenders and four lines below saying 81 of that cannot apply. Similar situation was considered by UN of India and OPR wherein the thes after referring to the several other case laws have taken a view that 81H of the act would not apply in case of investigation as concluded.

[00:25:08]>> Yes Mr. Now I'm not this is a single judge's order. Kindly just consider >> this matter my learned friend should have read perhaps from par page two uh >> impute order.

[00:25:21]>> Yes single judg this is not the impute order. This is a single judges order.

[00:25:25]>> Now kindly see >> par two.

[00:25:27]>> Yes not par two which par 3 in fact which will begin the CIC order. Yes 139 L.

[00:25:35]>> Yes. In the second appeal, the central information imp not the order is quoted. Then please come to paraph 4 at 141.

[00:25:44]Council for petitioner states that is request for information pertains to his prosecution sanction only. The sole ground for denying the information by response as evident from the order of first affate authority as well as C1 CIC is premised on section 81 of the right to information act which reads as follow. Now I'm not kindly not h information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders. Careful reading the provision reveals that the holder of information can only withhold information if they are able to demonstrate that the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution. In the present case undeniably investigation over charge file thus in the opinion denial information under 81H cannot apply.

[00:26:27]HL please come to the single judge's order please come please par six the contention of respondents that section 24 of the act is applicable is not table one par is not