Home » Court Judgements » HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
High Court Judgements

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS

More:  Supreme Court Judgements * Court Judgements on Service MattersLatest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Circulars / Orders *  Vigilance Related GOI/CVC Notifications/Office Orders/Circulars * Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates

Recent Judgements   

  • Unexplained Delay Of 13 Years In Initiating Inquiry Vitiated The Disciplinary Proceedings

    Delhi High Court: “In considering, whether, delay was vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeat the justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. It is further observed in the aforesaid judgment that if the delay is too long and remains unexplained, the court may interfere and quash the charges. However, how delay is too long would depend upon the facts of each and every case and if such delay has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice, the delinquent in defending the inquiry ought to be interdicted.” —  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 13.08.2019 – D.P. Sharma M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. 

  • Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act
    Departmental proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be initiated against an employee even after his retirement: Delhi High Court – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 30.07.2019 – J.P. Mahajan Vs. Governing Body, Kirori Mal College & Anr. 
  • Non-Filing Of Chargesheet Within 3 Months Cannot Be A Ground For Revoking Suspension Order
    Delhi High Court: “11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same would have to be assessed on the facts of each case. Most relevant would be the nature and substance of allegations; the materials on which the same is founded; the position held by the concerned government officer i.e. whether he is holding a portion of authority and influence, or he is a lower ranked employee with little or no power to influence others concerned with the matter.
                xxx                               xxx
    14. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed before us the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, we are not satisfied that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case.” — Delhi High Court Judgement dated 05.07.2019 – Rakesh Kumar Garg V. Union of India & Ors.
  • Adultery
    Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government shall not initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of a complaint of any person against a Government servant alleging therein of the said Government servant having extra-marital relationship with another man or woman whether married or unmarried. – Rajasthan HC Judgement dated 07.03.2019 – Mahesh Chand Sharma s/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
  • RTI
    Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
    23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] – Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 – Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau
  • Gratuity
    The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court – 
    Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.10.2018 – Vijay Krishan V. The State Trading Corporation & Ors. 
  • RTI
    Delhi High Court has held as under:-
    “… … the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration.” [Sections 19(1), 20 of the RTI Act] –   Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.08.2018 – R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India >>> RTI Judgements
  • RTI
    Delhi HC: “Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.” [Section 8(1)(e)], ” …. the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.” [Section 11(1)] –  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 – Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India
  • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    Delhi High Court: “15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
    16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors.
  • RTI
    Delhi High Court has directed it to maintain a record of daily proceedings and upload it within three days of the hearing a case. [Sections 8(1)(j), 11(1), 19(3) –  Delhi HC Order dated 13.09.2017 – M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.
  • RTI
    No Absolute Exemption To The CBI From RTI Act –  Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 – CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira  [Sections 24 (1), 8(1)]
  • RTI
    Sections 8(1), 11(1); Personal Information of Third Parties – Delhi HC Order dated 04.09.2017 – RK Jain Vs. Central Information Commission through its Secretary
  • RTI
    HC upheld the CIC Order of January 18, 2017 with clarification to direct disclosure of information by redacting personal information pertaining to third parties. [Sections 8(1)(e) and (i), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties] – Delhi HC Order dated 25.08.2017 – The CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr.
  • RTI 
    Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld a CIC order directing the Centre to give IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi a copy of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report regarding alleged harassment and false cases filed against the whistle-blower for exposing graft during his tenure as forest officer in Haryana. – Delhi HC Judgement 23.08.2017 – CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [Sections 2 (f), 24]
  • RESERVATION
    DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.1997 stands quashed. – Delhi HC Judgment dated 23.08.2017 – All India Equality Forum & Others Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Others
  • Delhi High Court: “… … it would make no difference whether the privacy settings are set by the author of the offending post to “private” or “public”. Pertinently, Section 1)(x) of the Act does not require that the intentional insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should take place in the presence of the said member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Even if the victim is not present, and behind his/her back the offending insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate him/ her – who is a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe takes place, the same would be culpable if it takes place within public view.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 03.07.2017 – Ms Gayatri @ Apurna Singh Vs. State & Anr. 
  • NOT GRAVE MISCONDUCT
    HC: “Under the circumstances we hold that the misconduct, if any committed by the petitioner, is not a grave misconduct and thus we quash the penalty levied of 5% cut in pension for a period of six months.” – Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.03.2015 – N. Bhardwaja Vs. Union of India & Ors.  
  • COMPULSORY RETIREMENT
    “… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma.” –  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 – Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others 
  • QUASHING OF CHARGES ON THE GROUND OF INORDINATE DELAY
    Inordinate delay in conducting inquiry can be a valid ground for quashing the charges’ – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 – Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan 

High Court Judgements – Subject-Wise

1. RTI
2. Service Matters
3. General

1. RTI

Section 8 
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 2,045 hits)

Section 8(1)(e) 
Delhi HC: “Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 - Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (266.0 KiB, 5,741 hits)

———————–

Section 11(1) 
Delhi HC: ” …. the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 - Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (266.0 KiB, 5,741 hits)

Delhi High Court has directed it to maintain a record of daily proceedings and upload it within three days of the hearing a case. [Sections 8(1)(j), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties]

  Delhi HC Order dated 13.09.2017 - M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (225.1 KiB, 925 hits)

—————————— 
No Absolute Exemption To The CBI From RTI Act [Sections 24 (1), 8(1)]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 - CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira (176.3 KiB, 2,318 hits)

Sections 8(1), 11(1); Personal Information of Third Parties 

  Delhi HC Order dated 04.09.2017 - RK Jain Vs. Central Information Commission through its Secretary (70.9 KiB, 897 hits)

——————-

HC upheld the CIC Order of January 18, 2017 with clarification to direct disclosure of information by redacting personal information pertaining to third parties. [Sections 8(1)(e) and (i), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties] 

  Delhi HC Order dated 25.08.2017 - The CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. (232.1 KiB, 999 hits)

   
 ——————
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld a CIC order directing the Centre to give IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi a copy of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report regarding alleged harassment and false cases filed against the whistle-blower for exposing graft during his tenure as forest officer in Haryana. 

  Delhi HC Judgement 23.08.2017 - CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (448.0 KiB, 962 hits)

Section 19(3)
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 2,045 hits)

Section 20

Delhi High Court has held as under:-
“… … the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration.” [Sections 19(1), 20 of the RTI Act]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.08.2018 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (375.0 KiB, 3,295 hits)

Delhi High Court: “8. The response to the various queries “it is an institute matter”, neither answers the queries nor renders an explanation claiming exemption from providing information.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided to the respondent No.2. No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, the order of the CIC dated 22.11.2016 cannot be faulted.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 24.01.2017 - B.B. Dash Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (572.5 KiB, 2,480 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 - Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 5,720 hits)

 Section 24(1) 
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 2,045 hits)

2. SERVICE MATTERS

Adultery * Compulsory Retirement * Delay in conducting departmental inquiry * Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act * Habitual Indebtedness * Pension * Reservation * Sexual Harassment * Suspension

Adultery
Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government shall not initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of a complaint of any person against a Government servant alleging therein of the said Government servant having extra-marital relationship with another man or woman whether married or unmarried.

  Rajasthan HC Judgement dated 07.03.2019 - Mahesh Chand Sharma s/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (248.8 KiB, 87 hits)

Compulsory Retirement — “… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma. The rule of compulsory retirement has been held to hold the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interest of the public administration.”  

  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 - Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others (149.6 KiB, 3,300 hits)

 Delay in conducting departmental inquiry 

— Unexplained Delay Of 13 Years In Initiating Inquiry Vitiated The Disciplinary Proceedings

Delhi High Court: “In considering, whether, delay was vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeat the justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. It is further observed in the aforesaid judgment that if the delay is too long and remains unexplained, the court may interfere and quash the charges. However, how delay is too long would depend upon the facts of each and every case and if such delay has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice, the delinquent in defending the inquiry ought to be interdicted.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 13.08.2019 - D.P. Sharma M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. (754.0 KiB, 45 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan (304.0 KiB, 4,123 hits)

Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act
— Departmental proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be initiated against an employee even after his retirement: Delhi High Court

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 30.07.2019 - J.P. Mahajan Vs. Governing Body, Kirori Mal College & Anr. (583.4 KiB, 233 hits)

— Gratuity 
The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court. 

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 04.10.2018 - Vijay Krishan Vs. The State Trading Corporation & Ors. (450.2 KiB, 13 hits)

  ECHS Circular dated 26.09.2018 - ELIGIBILITY OF PERMANTLY DISABLED UNMARRIED SON OF A ECHS BENEFICIARY TO AVAIL ECHS FACILITY (734.0 KiB, 859 hits)

Indebtedness 

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 21.12.2012 - G.C. Verma Vs. UOI and Ors. (47.7 KiB, 701 hits)

 Pension  

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.03.2015 - N. Bhardwaja Vs. Union of India & Ors. (221.8 KiB, 3,155 hits)

 Reservation 

— PWDs 

  Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 - National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (132.5 KiB, 8,750 hits)

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 15.07.2011 - Lachhmi Narain Gupta & others Vs. Jarnail Singh and others (176.8 KiB, 670 hits)

— Reservation in Promotion

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 23.08.2017 - All India Equality Forum & Others Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Others (593.4 KiB, 1,496 hits)

Sexual Harassment 
— Delhi High Court: “15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 - Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. (336.3 KiB, 1,411 hits)

Suspension
Non-Filing Of Chargesheet Within 3 Months Cannot Be A Ground For Revoking Suspension Order

Delhi High Court: “11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same would have to be assessed on the facts of each case. Most relevant would be the nature and substance of allegations; the materials on which the same is founded; the position held by the concerned government officer i.e. whether he is holding a portion of authority and influence, or he is a lower ranked employee with little or no power to influence others concerned with the matter.
            xxx                               xxx
14. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed before us the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, we are not satisfied that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 05.07.2019 - Rakesh Kumar Garg V. Union of India & Ors. (297.5 KiB, 26 hits)

3. GENERAL

Delhi High Court: “… … it would make no difference whether the privacy settings are set by the author of the offending post to “private” or “public”. Pertinently, Section 3(1)(x) of the Act does not require that the intentional insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should take place in the presence of the said member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Even if the victim is not present, and behind his/her back the offending insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate him/ her – who is a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe takes place, the same would be culpable if it takes place within public view.” – Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 03.07.2017 - Ms Gayatri @ Apurna Singh Vs. State & Anr. (434.8 KiB, 396 hits)

 Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Check Also

Marriage

MARRIAGE: ‘Idiots, lunatics’ can’t register their marriages; Sex on false promise of marriage is rape: Supreme Court …

‘Idiots, lunatics’ can’t register their marriagesSex on false promise of marriage is rape: Supreme CourtBride …

Sign in to browse DTF.in for FREE!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
instagram takipçi kasma instagram takipçi hilesi instagram beğeni hilesi instagram takipçi instagram giriş instagram takipçi satın al instagram free followers instagram free follower cheat follower for instagram free instagram followers free followers for instagram İskenderun escort Trabzon Escort Avcılar Escort Malatya Escort Malatya Escort İskenderun Escort Escort istanbul Bahçeşehir Escort ANKARA ESCORT basketbol iddaa sonuçları Ankara escort bayan Kadıköy Escort Ankara Escort Ankara Escort Esenyurt Escort Porno Ankara Escort kurtköy escort Türkçe Altyazılı Porno sex izle x net türk porno Kurtköy Escort ankara escort Kadıköy Escort Ankara Escort Bahçeşehir Escort ankara escort ankara escort beylikdüzü escort bayan Antalya Escort Keciören Escort Ankara Escort Beylikdüzü Escort Bayan Ankara escort Ankara Escort Ankara escort bayan İzmir Escort Kurtköy Escort Ankara Escort Beylikdüzü Escort Bayan sakarya escort sakarya escort sakarya escort sakarya escort sakarya escort Atasehir escort Esenyurt Escort Kartal Escort Kurtköy Escort istanbul Escort Antalya Escort Pendik Escort Bodrum Escort izmir Escort Mersin Escort ankara bayan ankara escort Escort Şişli Ümraniye escort Kurtköy Escort Kurtköy Escort Kadıköy Escort Pendik Escort Ataşehir Escort Pendik Escort Kurtköy escort Bostancı Escort Bostancı Escort Ataşehir escort Ataşehir Escort Kadıköy Escort Kadıköy Escort Üsküdar Escort Kartal Escort Ataşehir Escort Mutlukent Escort Bostancı Escort Ataşehir Escort istanbul escort Kurtköy Escort Kartal Escort bahis siteleri bahis siteleri süperbahissüperbahis bedava bonus tipobet betmatik-giris.xyz
wso shell IndoXploit shell c99 shell instagram takipçi hilesi hacklink Google