High Courts Weekly Round Up [May 4- May 10]

Allahabad High Court 1) Allahabad HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Unhygienic Conditions In Quarantine Centers [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive Respondent] Taking suo moto cognizance based on an e-mail sent by a practicing Advocate of the High Court, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Siddharth Varma has registered a PIL against unhygienic and inhumane conditions of various Quarantine Centers in the state. The matter has been called for hearing on May 11. Andhra Pradesh High Court 1) Vizag Gas Leak : Andhra Pradesh HC Passes Slew Of Directions To State Authorities In Suo Moto Case [In Re Poisonous Gas Leakage in Vishakhapatnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.] Taking suo moto cognizance of the leak of 'Styrene' gas in Vizag, which resulted in a number of casualties, a bench comprising Chief Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari and Justice Lalitha Kanneganthi directed the Government to take "immediate steps" to bring down the effect of gas leak by sprinkling water or other substances which may curtail further damage by requesting deployment of fire services from nearby areas. The Court has also issued a slew of directions including a direction to the State Government to issue an order directing all private hospitals in Visakhapatnam to open for needy persons. Also Read: Vizag Gas Leak: NGT Directs LG Polymers To Deposit Rs 50 Crores; Constitutes 5 Member Committee For Probe Also Read: Vizag Gas Leak: 'Strict Liability' Or 'Absolute Liability'? Also Read: Vizag Gas Leak : NHRC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance; Issues Notice To Centre & AP Govt Also Read: Vizag Gas Tragedy: A Reflection Of Bhopal's Interminable Misery Also Read: Crime Without Punishment Conundrum Of Vicarious Liability In Criminal Law Also Read: Gas Victims In A Pandemic Bombay High Court 1) PIL Alleges Authorities Picking Up People Randomly In Nagpur, Non-Compliance Of ICMR's Covid-19 Guidelines; Bombay HC Seeks Reply [Mohammad Nishat S/o Mohd. Saleem v. The State of Maharashtra] A bench of Justice Anil S Kilor at the Nagpur bench of the High Court asked the State of Maharashtra, Union of India and Nagpur Municipal Corporation, to file their respective replies in a PIL alleging that authorities were picking up people randomly from particular areas in Nagpur and putting them in quarantine even though they did not belong to the categories of 'High Risk Contacts' and 'Low Risk Contacts'. 2) Rights Claim To Ram Leela Movie; Bombay HC Grants Relief To Bhansali Productions, Directs Eros International To Pay Rs.19.39 lakh [Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. v. Eros International Medial Ltd. & Ors.] Justice BP Colabawalla granted relief to Sanjay Leela Bhansali run Bhansali productions and directed Eros International Media Ltd to pay the petitioner Rs.19.39 lakh in dues over dispute regarding rights of the movie Goliyo Ki Rasleela Ram Leela which was co-produced by Bhansali along with the respondent. 3) 'Who Will Pay Their Travel & Medical Cost?' Bombay HC Asks State To Clarify Regarding Stranded Migrant Workers Justice SC Gupte directed the state government to clarify who will be paying for the cost of travel and medical screening of migrant workers stranded in the state due to the ongoing lockdown as a consequence of the pandemic of Covid-19. 4) Applicant Behaved Irresponsibly; Bombay HC Directs Man To Pay 10K To CM Relief Fund For Obstructing Health Workers Collecting Covid-19 Data [Zafar Jamal Khan v. State of Maharashtra] Observing that the Applicant had acted in an 'irresponsible manner' by obstructing a team of health workers constituted for collecting data regarding the pandemic of Covid-19, Justice Bharati Dangre directed a 55-year-old man to pay Rs.10,000 to Chief Minister's Relief Fund while enlarging him on bail. 5) No Case For Assault Made Out; Bombay HC Grants Bail To Man Who Argued With Homeguard After Being Told To Wear Mask [Shekhar v. State of Maharashtra] Justice Bharati Dangre allowed the anticipatory bail application of a doctor accused of "assaulting" a homeguard and obstructing him from performing his duty after getting into a verbal altercation when he was asked to wear a mask. The court concluded that prima facie no case for assault is made out- "On perusal of the FIR, prima facie what emerges is a verbal altercation between the complainant and the applicant while the latter was discharging his duty. No ingredients of Sections 323 and 353 of the IPC are made out from the complaint/FIR," it held. 6) PIL In Bombay HC Says Eligible Ration Card Holders Denied Food Grain Due To 'Practical Difficulties'; State To File Reply [Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] Justice MS Karnik issued notices on a PIL seeking relief for the common man who is being denied ration because of...

High Courts Weekly Round Up [May 4- May 10]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags