New Delhi Apr 19 PTI The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought response from the city government on a public interest litigation against the withdrawal of DTC bus services from schools A bench headed by Justice Acting Vipin Sanghi issued notice to the city government and Delhi Transport Corporation DTC on the petition by social activist Baba Alexander and asked the respondents to place on record the material which led to the decision and noted that private schools had been using DTC buses for decades as means of transport for studentsThe bench also comprising Justice Navin Chawla further observed that the parents as well as the students were suffering due to the withdrawal of the DTC buses and that the decision is also leading to more traffic on the roads Delhi government lawyer Sameer Vashisht stated that only private schools were using DTC buses for their students and the arrangement was contractual in nature He informed the court that more buses were needed for the public and the private schools were free to use other private carriages for transporting their students You cant take advantage of Covid situation Schools are also transporting childrenChildren are also public Nobody is saying that you do it for free You produce your record to justify your decision the court stated The decision to withdraw DTC buses from schools has led to children and parents suffering as the responsibility of transporting the children has fallen on the parents This is also leading to more traffic on the roads Issue notice said the court The petitioner has contended that the withdrawal of DTC buses from schools without any justifiable reason has caused deep sense of agony and disappointment among the parents and also impinges on the right to clean environment under Article 21 of the Constitution In the petition filed through lawyer Robin Raju Deepa Joseph and Blessan Mathews the petitioner has stated that the decision would increase vehicular pollution and traffic woes The decision also causes anxiety to parents and increases their financial burden as they would have to pay more in the name of transportation charges at a time when COVID-19 is still around it added The matter would be heard next on August 3 PTI ADS DV DV

New Delhi Mar 28 PTI Two new Delhi High Court judges on Monday took oath of office taking the total strength of the court to 35Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi administered the oath of office to Justices Poonam A Bamba and Swarana Kanta Sharma who were appointed as judges of the Delhi High Court earlier this monthThe swearing-in ceremony took place at the court of Chief Justice in the presence of other high court judges lawyers and family members of the newly sworn-in judgesThe Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on February 1 had approved the proposal for elevation of Justices Bamba and Sharma who were serving as judicial officers in the Delhi High CourtThe central government had notified the appointment of Justices Bamba and Sharma in that order of seniority on March 24The new appointments take the number of judges in the high court to 35 which includes nine women judges against a sanctioned strength of 60 PTI ADS DV DV

New Delhi Dec 19 PTIThe Delhi High Court has granted bail to three persons accused of duping a seller on an online marketplace stating that while online cheating and fraud have become rampant it cannot remiss in performing its duty of upholding libertyJustice Subramonium Prasad warned the three accused not to indulge in the same offence again and ordered that their bail would be subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs 25000 with the two sureties of the like amountThe judge stated that since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet stood filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in further custodyThis court is aware that this kind of online cheating and fraud have become rampant in most parts of the country However this court cannot remiss in performing its duty that is to uphold liberty subject to other relevant considerations the court said in its order dated December 13Since the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed before the learned trial court and taking into account the evidence are primarily documentary in nature this court therefore is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by further keeping the petitioners in custody it addedThe court directed the petitioners to report to the police station concerned twice in a week and not tamper with evidence or influence the witnessesThe court also asked the petitioners to give all their mobile numbers to the investigating officer and keep them operational at all timesIn the present case the complainant alleged that she had uploaded certain articles for sale on an online platform but was duped by the petitioners into transferring Rs 34000 to them through online payment modeAfter the registration of an FIR charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the alleged commission of several offences under the Indian Penal Code including forgery and Section 66D cheating by personation by using computer resource of the Information Technology Act 2000 The trial court had rejected the petitioners bail applications on the ground that they were accused of embezzlement and used clever devices to cheat many innocent persons on the internetThe prosecution opposed the bail applications before the high court saying that petitioners are accused of executing the crime in a very organised way and the charge of forgery prescribes a punishment of 10 years extending up to life imprisonmentThe court was informed that the petitioners created bank accounts giving false details in order to evade arrest and purchased SIM cards in fictitious names which were used to defraud and cheat gullible people who sold and purchased goods from the internetThe prosecution added that the petitioners did not just defraud the present complainant but many other persons and the same was being investigatedThe complainant also opposed the bail applications and submitted that online fraud has become widespread in north India whereby many innocent people have been cheatedThe petitioners sought bail on the grounds that they have been in custody for 10 months and their further custodial interrogation was not required PTI ADS DV DV

New Delhi Oct 17 PTI The Delhi High Court has sought the city governments stand on why an application for issuance of a ration card by a daily wage worker has remained pending for eight years Justice Rekha Palli issued notice on the petition by the worker seeking a ration card in a time-bound manner with names of all her family members and granted time to the Delhi government counsel to get instructionsThe petitioner alleged that in spite of applying for a ration card in September 2013 and making repeated representations no action has been taken by the authoritiesKeeping in view the nature of relief sought in the present petition Mr Gautam Narayan Delhi government counsel is directed to obtain instructions as to why the petitioners application has been pending for the last eight years the court said in its order dated October 6In the petition filed through lawyers Jayshree Satpute and Tripti Poddar the petitioner said that she and her family are being denied their right to subsidised food grains owing to inactions and inefficiencies of the authorities in violation of the Right to Food Right to Health and Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the ConstitutionThe court was informed that the petitioner and her family resides in a slum cluster in South Delhi and the ration card issued in her husbands name in 2005 was unilaterally cancelled by the authorities in 2013The petitioner and her family continue to live in abject poverty and are unable to provide food for their family despite having applied for a ration card eight years prior the petitioner statedIt further informed that although the petitioner collected the free ration being distributed by the authorities during the pandemic she faced difficulties in accessing it on grounds on account of the pendency of her ration card applicationIn the petition the petitioner has also sought compensation of Rs 25000 from the authorities The matter would be heard next on October 25 PTI ADS DV DV