Supreme Court stays order by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a family dispute case

In Chandramohan Kumar & Anr. vs. 1. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 2-page long order dated June 16, 2026. The order reads: "4. The condition imposed by the impugned order is stayed until further orders, subject to the petitioner depositing or paying Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today towards legal expenses for the present case." The respondent no. 2 is Aarti Kumari. Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had passed the 3-page long impugned order dated February 17, 2026.  

Earlier, Justice Kumar had concluded; "6. Considering the submission of the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, this application of grant of anticipatory bail is allowed." He added: "7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the concerned Court below within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, East Muzaffarpur/ concerned court below in connection with Minapur Case No. 117 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 482 of the BNSS. 8. As a condition of this order, the petitioner is directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- from the month of February, 2026 to the informant and the maintenance for the month of February, 2026 shall be paid to the informant within one week from the date of pronouncement of this order and thereafter, the maintenance amount shall be paid to the informant every month before the 10th day of the month." 

Justice Kumar made it clear that the order of maintenance passed by the High Court shall be subject to the outcome of maintenance case of the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court concerned, if any.

The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in connection with Minapur P.S Case No.117 of 2025 registered for the offence under sections 126(2),115 (2), 109, 85, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners were husband and devar of the informant. It was alleged that the petitioners and other family members started demanding Rs, 3 lakh and one motorycle. The counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners were innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. There was no specific allegation against the petitioners. The petitioners have got clean antecedent. 

  

Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Satyavrat Verma in a ca se from Govindganj, Motihari

In Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed a 5-page long order dated June 3, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "6. It is not in dispute that the conditions stand fully complied with; the appellant has cooperated during the investigation; he has not threatened or intimidated any of the witnesses; or has tried to influence the investigation in any manner. 7. We have noticed the nature of crime and the manner in which it was allegedly committed. 8. We allow the present appeal by confirming the order dated 21.04.2026, passed by this Court, with a direction to the appellant to continue to cooperate during the investigation/trial and not to seek any unnecessary adjournment. Also, the appellant shall report before the
Investigating Officer every alternate Monday, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., till such time the investigation is complete in all respects. 9. If the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court feels that the investigation/trial is delayed on account of the appellant’s conduct, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, including cancellation of bail. 10. Further, if the appellant possesses a passport, the same shall be surrendered before the Competent Authority/Court until the conclusion of the trial or directed otherwise. 11. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2026 is set aside."

The appellant had challenged the judgment and order dated March 24, 2026 in Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar”, passed by Justice Stayavrat Verma of the Patna High Court. 

On April 21, 2026, the Supreme Court had passed an order, which reads: "6. In the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 280 of 2025, registered at Govindganj Police Station, District Motihari, Bihar dated 20.11.2025, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Investigating/Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as imposed and found to be just, fair and reasonable."

Earlier, in Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Verma had passed a 3-page long order dated March 24, 2026, wherei, he had concluded:"the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected." The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 303(2), 336(4), 340(1), 340(2), 308(5), 61(2) and 111(1) of the BNS, 2023.  

Ajay Kumar Thakur, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that petitioner had antecedent of one case and the informant alleged that petitioner called him on his mobile and introduced himself as having business of jewellery and called him to Muzaffarpur for buying jewellery, the informant went to Muzaffarpur and saw jewellery worth crore of rupees and said that he will come back with money, accordingly, the informant along with his friend went to buy jewellery, but before reaching Muzaffarpur, made a call when petitioner asked him to come near Areraj accordingly, the informant along with his friend went to the place where he was called by the petitioner, further the petitioner took him to the hose of Amresh and disclosed that the house is also for sale and showed jewellery, further petitioner in the meantime made a call when 7-8 accused on 3-4 motorcycles came and took Rs. 19 Lakhs along with other articles and started fleeing, when his friend caught an accused who disclosed his name as Surendra and also disclosed that petitioner, Amresh and others are part of organized gang who fled with the articles and cash. 

The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it was also submitted that the mobile from which the informant got a call does not belong to the petitioner. It was submitted that even the informant dealt in business of purchasing looted jewellery. It was further submitted that petitioner was engaged in business with one Neha Kumari, wife of the brother of the petitioner and the informant had given money to Neha but when the deal failed, the instant false case came to be instituted.

A.P.P. for the State had opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submitted that Neha is also an accused in the instant case. It was also submitted that if informant was dealing in purchasing looted jewellery in that event the same would surface during the course of investigation and appropriate action would be taken, but then as far as the petitioner was concerned, the mobile may not belong to him, but when informant before reaching Muzaffarpur called him on the mobile from which he had received a call from the petitioner earlier, the same was picked by petitioner again. It was submitted that the informant specifically alleged that petitioner along with others were operating an organized crime. It also submitted that investigation of the case is continuing and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

Supreme Court upholds judgement by Justices A. M. Badar, Sandeep Kumar in a murder case from Bhojpur

In Sunil Roy vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and  Vijay Bishnoi passed a 3-page long order dated June 15, 2026, wherein, it upheld the 79-page long final judgment dated February 27, 2023 by Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices A. M. Badar and Sandeep  Kumar in Bharath Roy & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2023). 

The High Court had dismissed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 518 of 2014 Bharath Roy & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 583 of 2014 Shakuntla Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2023) preferred by the petitioner and the co-accused and had upheld the judgment dated April 16, 2014 rendered by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 370 of 2012 convicting the accused persons including the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life till their natural death along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- payable by each accused. For the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the accused were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- payment by each of them. The High Court's judgement was authored by Justice Badar. The case had arisen out of PS. Case No.-33 of 2012, Chaori Thana, Bhojpur. Sunil Roy was the petitioner no. 3 in the High Court. 

The co-accused Bharath Roy, Uma Shankar Roy alias Uma Roy and Shakuntla Devi, did not prefer any special leave petition for assailing their conviction, only the petitioner-Sunil Roy was before the Supreme Court by way of the instant special leave petition. The case involves brutal murder of five persons, amongst which two were real brothers of accused No. 1 Bharath Roy, two were his nephews and one was his sister-in-law. 

Supreme Court concluded: "7. The case of the prosecution has been well proved by the ocular testimony of PW-1 Akash Kumar @ Vikky Kumar and PW-4 Rubi Kumari, both of whom received injuries in the same incident. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to convince the Court that the reliance placed by the trial Court and the High Court on the testimony of these two witnesses was unjustified or that the witnesses were not present at the spot. As a matter of fact, the presence of the witnesses at the spot is well established and corroborated by the fact that both of them received injuries in the very same incident. 9. Two competent Courts have recorded concurrent findings of the facts in convicting the petitioner as well as the co-accused and affirming their conviction. The judgments rendered by the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity and are rather based on sound and thorough appreciation of evidence available on record and assign detailed reasons for arriving at a finding of guilt against the accused persons. 10. In this background, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merit."

Justice Badar's judgement reads:"41. Culpable homicide is a genus and murder is its species. The Indian Penal Code practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide of the first degree is the gravest form which is defined as 'murder' and is made punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The next may be termed as 'culpable homicide of second degree', which is made punishable under first part of Section 304 of the IPC. The last degree of culpable homicide is 'culpable homicide of third degree' which is made punishable under second part of Section 304 of the IPC. Barring the cases covered by an exception to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide is murder if an act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. Otherwise, for making out the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the prosecution is firstly required to establish that a bodily injury is present on the victim. Secondly, the prosecution is required to establish nature and size of the injury on the victim. Then the prosecution is enjoined to prove that there was intention to inflict the particular injury, by adducing clear and cogent evidence for clarifying that such an injury was not accidental or unintentional. Possibility of injury of other kind intended by the appellant/accused is required to be ruled out. Lastly, the prosecution has to establish that the injury so caused was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. If all these factors are established, then only the offence defined under Section 300 of the IPC and punishable under Section 302 of IPC is made out. Similarly, it is well settled that in the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code all the ingredients of offence of murder are present except the death of the victim. Indian Penal Code are lacking, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Section 307 of Indian Penal Code does not take into consideration the effect of the act of the accused except as a measure of punishment to be imposed on him. In order to constitute the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code actus reus and the requisite mens rea both must concur and the intention precedes the act attributed to the accused. The offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is made out when the accused have intended to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention does any overt act towards commission of murder. In order to establish the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the intention or knowledge of committing murder and doing of an act towards it. Thus, Section 307 of the IPC contemplates intention or knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention." 

The High Court's Division Bench had concluded:"....the accused persons had inflicted blows of sharp cutting weapons on vital parts of bodies of all five deceased persons. As seen from the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution, deaths of Kamlesh Roy, Bikash Roy, Vijay Roy, Satyendra Roy and Shanti Devi were resulted because of cardio respiratory failure caused by haemorrhage and shock due to injuries sustained by them on vital parts of their body such as neck, chest and abdomen. Thus, we have no doubt in our mind that blows of sharp cutting weapons were inflicted by the accused persons on the victims with an intention to cause death of their victims. Seat of injury and the weapons used for causing wounds so also the force by which the blows were given on the victims makes it clear that the accused persons were knowing that they were likely to cause death of the victims by inflicting blows by sharp edged weapons. Therefore, the prosecution has established that in furtherance of their common intention, the appellants had caused murders of five victims, thereby committing the offence punishable u/s 302 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, it is proved from evidence on record that in furtherance of their common intention the accused persons had attempted to commit murder of P.W.1 Akash Kumar @ Vikky Kumar by inflicting blow of sharp cutting weapon on his chest leading to his hospitalization for a one and half month at P.M.C.H., Patna. The blow was inflicted on his chest with sufficient force making the intention to eliminate him crystal clear. Thus, the prosecution has also proved commission of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 43. As we have carefully gone through the entire case laws relied by the appellants and as we have acted upon the ratio which can be culled out from those rulings, we are not intending to reproduce the ratio by quoting relevant paragraphs from those judgments, for burdening this otherwise lengthy judgment. 44. In the result, both these appeals are devoid of merit and they are accordingly dismissed." 

 

Supreme Court grants interim protection to Rishu Shree against arrest for four weeks, finds no ground to interfere with Justice Arun Kumar Jha's judgement

In Rishu Shree vs. Union of India (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana passed a 2-page long order dated June 16, 2026, wherein, it granted interim protection against arrest to the petitioner for a period of four weeks. It granted liberty to the petitioner "to meanwhile apply for bail in the High Court. Such an application shall be decided by the High Court as per its own merits without being influenced by the observations or findings in the impugned order dated 18.05.2026. Further, the High Court is requested to preferably decide the bail application within the period during which interim protection has been granted through this order." 

The Division observed:"....we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 18.05.2026 passed by the High Court."  

The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with pending applications. It arose out of impugned judgment in Rishu Shree vs. Union of India through its Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors. (2026), Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 75-page long judgement dated May 18, 2026

Also read: Rishu Shree saga is linked to story of Advocate Gayatri Kumari, Sanjeev Hans, Gulab Yadav, Lalit and others-Part 1 

FIR under section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 & provisions of IPC quashed: Justice Sandeep Kumar

High Court quashes FIR against Sanjeev Hans, no relief for Gulab Yadav, Lalit in Advocate Gayatri Kumari rape case, matter also pending in Supreme Court   

 

 

Division Bench of Chief Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, Justice Soni Shrivastava hearing case about compliance with Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016

Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Soni Shrivastava passed a 2-page long order dated June 15, 2026 in a case from 2017, wherein, it recorded that the State-respondents, submitted that the affidavits with regard to the District Monitoring Committee of Sheohar, Saran, Sitamarhi, Banka, Aurangabad, Samastipur and Kishanganj have been filed. However, with regard to the other districts, a report is yet to be filed. The counsel for the State-respondents undertook to file a report for the remaining districts during the course of two weeks. The counsel for the respondent no. 3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board submits that 169 units of Health Care Facilities have complied with the directions to dispose of the bio-medical waste in terms of the existing Rules i.e. 2016 Rules. The counsel undertook to file a supplementary counter affidavit specifying the total number of such units, units that are compliant and non-compliant units. The counsel also gave an undertaking to specify as to what steps are taken by the respondent no. 3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board towards non-compliant units. The Division Bench's order reads: "4. Let such affidavit be filed by respondent no. 3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board during the course of two weeks. The matter is listed for hearing on July 13, 2026." Chief Justice Rai joined the High Court on June 5, 2026. The Court opened after vacation on June 15, 2026.  

Prior to this on April 20, 2026, the Court had passed a 11-page long order, wherein, it took note of partial compliance with its direction to a responsible officer of the State for filing an affidavit collecting data from each District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Level Monitory Committee of all the Districts. 

The listed respondents are: Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Principal DMCH, Darbhanga, Principal PMCH, Patna, Principal NMCH, Patna, Principal JLNMCH, Bhagalpur, Principal SKMCH, Muzaffarpur, Principal ANMCH, Gaya, Principal, Bettiah Medical College and Hospital Bettiah, Superintendent, DMCH, Darbhanga, Superintendent, PMCH, Patna, Superintendent, NMCH, Patna, Superintendent, JLNMCH, Bhagalpur, Superintendent, SKMCH, Muzaffarpur, Superintendent, ANMCH, Gaya, Superintendent, Bettiah Medical College and Hospital Bettiah and Member Secretary, Central Polution Control Board, Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi. 

In a 11-page long order dated March 30, 026 the Court observed that Rule 12(4) of 2016 Rules provides for the State Government to constitute District Level Monitoring Committee in the districts, under the Chairmanship of District Collector or District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner or Additional District Magistrate to monitor the compliance of the provisions of the rules in the HCF generating bio-medical waste and in the common bio-medical waste treatment and disposal facilities, where the bio-medical waste is treated and disposed off. Sub Rule (5) of Rule 12 of 2016 Rules provides that the District Level Monitoring Committee constituted under Sub-Rule (4) shall submit its report once in six months to the State Advisory Committee and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded to the State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee concerned for taking further necessary action. 

The counsel for the Board informed that in each of the districts, District Level Monitoring Committee is functioning. However, the counsel was unable to say whether such Committee is submitting its reports once in six months to the State Advisory Committee or not in view of Rule 12(5) of 2016 Rules. Rule 18 of 2016 Rules provides for the liability of the occupier or an operator of a common clearly stated that the occupier or an operator of a common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall be liable for all the damages caused to the environment or public due to improper handling of bio-medical waste. It further provides that the occupier or the operator of common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall be liable for action under Section 5 and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) 1986 Act. Section 5 of the 1986 Act empowers the Central Government to issue directions in writing to any person, officer or any authority and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such direction. The power to issue direction includes the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process, stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other service. Similarly, section 15 of 1986 Act deals with penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rules, Orders and Directions. Therefore, from the affidavit filed by the State Board, it became clear that 3450 Health Care Facilities have not complied with the provisions of 2016 Rules and have not taken any steps in spite of the fact that show-cause notices were issued to them and there is a State Level Monitoring Committee as per Section 12 constituted in every district as submitted by the counsel for the State Board to take action against them.

The Court observed that "11. The right to a clean and healthy environment is an inseparable part of the Right to Life guaranteed by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Courts have repeatedly reminded that the State has a duty to protect the environment and thereby to ensure the well-being of all the citizens. Therefore, the time is ripe to implement & protect the Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity."

The Court had directed: "13. Let an affidavit be filed by the next date by a responsible officer of State collecting data from each District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Level Monitoring Committee of all the districts, as to what action has been taken in respect of those 3450 Health Care Facilities for non-compliance of the directions of the State Board, so also the provisions of the 2016 Rules and the 1986 Act. The actions taken in consonance with the provisions under Section 5 and 15 of 1986 Act against such Health Care Facilities shall be clearly mentioned in the affidavit."

In its order dated February 25, 2026, the Court had passed a 18-page long order, wherein, it noted that   in view of Rule 9 of Rules,Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, the Member Secretary, BSPCB is the prescribed authority for implementation of the provisions of the Rules. The Court had directed the Member Secretary, BSPCB to file an affidavit as to what steps have been taken by the Board for implementation of the provisions of Rules, 2016. Its order reads: "All the steps should be highlighted in detail with documentary proof."

The Court's order dated May 2, 205 stated that The affidavit filed by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board indicated that the gap analysis of the bio-medical waste which is being generated and the bio-medical waste being treated, has been addressed, and based on the gap between the generation and treatment of bio-medical waste, it has been assessed that 06 additional CBWTFs in the entire State of Bihar would be required. One of such units would be required at Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Sasaram, Gopalganj, Purnia and Madhubani.

Earlier, the Court's order dated February 28, 2025 had recorded that the affidavit filed on behalf of Central Pollution Control Board, the Respondent No. 18 which stated that as per Rule 9  of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (BMWM Rules, 2016), the State Pollution Control Boards, in respect of States and Pollution Control Committees in respect of Union Territories, are the authorities for overall enforcement and implementation of BMWM Rules, 2016. According to the Rules, bio-medical waste is required to be segregated as per the colour tag, viz, yellow, red, white and blue as defined under Schedule-I of the said Rule. The methods for treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste also have been laid down in the BMWM Rules, 2016. The affidavit filed by the Bihar Pollution Control Board did not indicate the steps taken for the effective management of bio-medical waste. The Court had directed the Bihar State Pollution Control Board to file an affidavit delineating the number of facilities available in the State of Bihar with special reference to the availability of such facility in the City of Patna and the steps taken for segregation, collection and disposal of bio-medical waste.

Earlier, in Mahesh Dubey vs. Chattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors., Original Application No.507 of 2014, the National Green Tribunal (NGT)'s Principal Bench of Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson), Justice Raghuvendra S. Rathore (Judicial Member), Bikram Singh Sajwan (Expert Member) and Ranjan Chatterjee (Expert Member) had pronounced its judgment dated December 15, 2016, wherein, it had passed directions contained in para 40 of its order, directing "I. That in the State of Chattisgarh a State Level Committee be constituted under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Secretary Medical Health and all the Divisional Commissioners. Member Secretary, CPCB, Director General, Medical and Health, State of Chattisgarh shall be the Nodal Officer. II. The said Committee shall immediately hold its meeting and thereafter from time to time but not beyond the period of two months. III. The Committee shall immediately prepare a complete and comprehensive inventory of all the HCFs, as defined under Rules of 2016 and thereafter prepare the action plan regarding proper and effective implementation of the provisions of Bio-Medical Management Rules, 2016 IV. The said Committee shall send its report, soon after preparing the action plan for implementation of the Rules to the Tribunal. Thereafter, the State Level Committee shall monitor the implementation of the Bio-Medical Management Rules, 2016 by District Level Committees and send its report in three months to this Tribunal. As soon as the Report is received, the registry shall place it before the Tribunal. V. The State Government of Chattisgarh shall constitute a committee at every district level who shall be responsible for implementing the action plan prepared by the State Level Committee and for effective implementation of Bio-Medical Management Rules, 2016. VI. The District Level Committee shall consist of the District Magistrate as its Chairman and the Chief Medical Officer, Regional Officer, CEBCP and Superintendent of Police of the district to implement the provisions of Bio-Medical Management Rules, 2016 effectively and immediately. The execution/implementation of the relevant law shall be personal responsibility of every member of District Committee. The Chief Medical Officer of the district shall be the Nodal Officer." 

The applicant before the NGT had raised the issue of mismanagement of biomedical waste in Chhattisgarh. The applicant prayed for issuing direction to the State Government and other authorities to ensure proper and effective compliance of the BMW Rules. The applicant had alleged that there is lack of implementation of BMW Rules as SPCB had given notices to near about 18 hospitals (both public and private) who were not complying with the BMW Rules. The notices were given out as neither these healthcare institutions were not segregating biomedical wastes, nor they were sending the  biomedical wastes to the treatment facility. The discarded biomedical wastes were allegedly mixed with other waste and were scattered in public places. The applicant had alleged that the authorities although aware of the matter, are negligent and casual in handling the issue. 

Patna High Court's 3-page long order dated August 3, 2018 had recorded that the counsel appearing for the Bihar State Pollution Control Board had drawn its attention towards the NGT's judgement and had submitted why similar directions be not issued with regard to applicability of the provision in the State of Bihar also and why appropriate committees as indicated in the order passed by the NGT were not constituted and, if constituted, why they were not made effectively functional. 

 

Section 36 of CPC provides that every order of court is to be executed in the same manner as a decree

In a case wherein, the defendant claims to be the second wife of the deceased, she was in possession of the property, the son (from first marriage filed an application directing the defendant to disclose particulars of rent collected by the defendant. The civil court directed the defendant to pay rent. The defendant refused to deposit the amount. The question arose as to how the order was to be executed. Section 36 of CPC provides that every order of the court is to be executed in the same manner as a decree. Order XXI, Rule 15 of CPC provides that in cases involving joint decree holders, it is sufficient if one decree holder applies on behalf of the others. 

Under Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC, if an execution application is filed within two years, no notice is required to be served upon the judgment debtor. However, in the case of legal representatives, service of notice is mandatory notwithstanding the fact that the application was filed within two years. There can be no doubt that all orders passed by the Court arc executable just like decrees in so far as it may be practicable. It was for that reason that a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Ramkeshwar Prasad v. Girja Prasad; AIR 1957 Pat. 501. took the view that any order passed by the Court directing payment of Commissioner's fee would be executable as an order by virtue of Section 36 of CPC. Their Lordships have discussed the question in all its aspects, particularly with reference to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as also the earlier Civil Procedure Code of the year 1882. The observations of their Lordships in paragraph 5 may usefully be reproduced as follows: " 

In Bhudev Mallick vs. Ranajit Ghoshal reported in 2025 SC OnLine SC 360 (paras 53, 55 and 59), the Supreme Court referred to provisions of Section 36 of the CPC relating to execution of decrees which are also applicable to execution of orders. 

Once Departmental enquiry has ended against the employee, there would be no justification for withholding terminal benefits

In Vikar Mustafa Shonthu vs. Union Territory of J&K & Ors. (2026), Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh delivered a 9-page long judgement dated June 5, 2026, wherein, he directed that the respondents shall release the terminal benefits of the petitioner along with unpaid salary most expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents by the petitioner, failing which, the amount due shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till its realization. 

The Court observed that even if a departmental enquiry had been conducted against the employee, there would be no justification for withholding terminal benefits once the  proceedings forming the basis of such action had come to an end.

Justice Dhar held that "....the respondents have no justification in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner.....”