(A) Constitution of India , Art.226— Writ petition - Locus standi - Petitioners challenging constitutional validity of R.6(9) of High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules (2019) - Petitioners and advocates designated as Senior Advocates are not rivals so far as their claim is concerned - Being advocates petitioners have vested and existing right to call in question rule which creates separate group within particular group - More so, when such creation of group by invoking particular rule is not in consonance with guidelines of Supreme Court - Question of validity of R. 6(9) being subject matter of litigation and petitioners being alleged to have been discriminated by that rule, whether fundamental right of petitioners has been violated, not to be seen - Only because petitioners are applicants for their private cause, doctrine of aprobate and reprobate cannot be applied strictly to facts of case especially in view of nature of lis - Held, petitioners have locus standi to maintain writ petition.

(Para 10.1 10.2)

(B) Constitution of India , Art.226— PIL - Doctrine of waiver - Petitioners challenging constitutional validity of R.6(9) of High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules (2019) - Plea that petitioners precluded from challenging R. 6(9) of "2019 Rules", in view of their participation in process of selection - Petitioners aggrieved by action of High Court in midst of selection process under R.6 and they have an existing right to challenge R.6(9) as being violative of guidelines enumerated by Supreme Court in (2017) 9 SCC 766 - In view of nature of lis, strict rule of "Doctrine of waiver" would not apply to facts of case.

Doctrine Of Waiver(Paras 11.111.2)

(Para 11.1 11.2)

(C) Constitution of India , Art.226, Art.141— Advocates Act (25 of 1961) , S.34(1), S.16(2)— High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules (2019) , R.6(9)— Public Interest litigation - Question whether R.6(9) is in consonance with guidelines/norms framed by Supreme Court and whether those guidelines/norms are binding in view of Art. 141 - Guideline clearly indicating that any modification in guideline to suit particular High Court is to be in accord with guidelines framed in para 73 of (2017) 9 SCC 766 and except Supreme Court, no other High Court has any power to add or delete from guideline - Supreme Court recognized two sources for drawing advocates for being designated as "Senior Advocate" one by written proposal by Judges and other by application by advocate concerned - No third source of picking an advocate by exercise of suo motu power - Word "or" in between words "Advocate" and "whom" has been used to indicate alternative - Having discussed this suo motu power Supreme Court in has ipse dixit not stated anything about pick through suo motu source - Such silence being conscious silence - Held, sub-rule(9) of R. 6 is addition beyond scope of guidelines/norms framed by Supreme Court and not in consonance with said Judgment and ultravires of guidelines/norms.

(Para 21 22 23 24 25)

(D) Advocates Act (25 of 1961) , S.34(1), S.16(2)— High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules 2019 , R.6(9)— Designation as 'Senior Advocate' - Validity - Respondents were applicants for being designated as "Senior Advocates" along with other applicants - No material available to conclude that applications received from all applicants examined in detail or compilation made by Secretariat - Also nothing on record to suggest that datas and materials were placed before Full Court to apply it's mind - Respondents only and none else were adjudged suitable for exercise of power under R 6(9) - Rarity in case for exercise of sou moto power under R. 6(9) not found - Entire process of conferring designation of "Senior Advocate" on respondents held to be discriminatory.

(Para 26)

(E) Constitution of India , Art.226— PIL - Seeking quashment of Notification declaring advocates as "Senior Advocates" and quashed R. 6(9) - Entire process of conferring designation of "Senior Advocate" on respondent held to be discriminatory - After first notification, when process under Rule - 6 was on, it was irregular on part of High Court to issue Notification dated 04.09.2019 -Instead of expanding ambit of selection process, it put selection process into more confusion - Held that issuance of Notification dated 04.09.2019 is not valid in eye of law and quashed - However Notification declaring advocates as "Senior Advocates not liable to be quashed as there is no fault on their part in entire exercise and Court may rethink to designate them again.

(Para 29 31)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.439— Bail - Application for - Offences u/Ss. 8, 20 of NDPS Act - Allegation that from joint possession of accused and co-accused, 3 Kg 700 gram of contraband substance (Ganja) was seized by police - Considering facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, quantity of seized substance i.e. intermediate quantity and fact that accused has no criminal antecedents, also taking into consideration fact that due to present situation of Covid-19 Pandemic, trial would take considerable time to conclude hence, without commenting on merits of matter, accused entitled to be released on bail - Bail, granted.

(Para 7)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.439— Bail - Grant of - Offence of murder - Applicant is not main accused - Bail granted subject to urnishing personal bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- by conducting his Corona virus test before releasing -

Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.302, S.120B, S.34— (Paras910)

(Para 9 10)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.438— Anticipatory bail - Entitlement - Offence u/Ss. 376(2)(N), 366, 506 of Penal Code - Applicant allegedly committed rape upon prosecutrix - Prosecutrix obtained promise of marriage from applicant even though she was not divorced from her earlier husband - Prosecutrix trying to extort money from applicant - Apart from intimacy, no other angle involved in case which would bring act of applicant within category of rape - Bail granted.

(Para 8 9)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.438— Anticipatory bail - Offence under Prohibition Act -Investigation pertaining to prohibited liquor was found in vehicle when intercepted -Accused was not present when interception took place, but is arraigned only on account of his connection with vehicle - Vehicle was purchased by accused from original owner in year 2017, but in year 2019, accused had already sold it to someone else - No antecedent of accused - IO is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against accused - Accused is ready and willing to abide by all conditions - Anticipatiry bail, granted.

(Para 6)