Dismissed

V.P.Patil v. Union of India through the Secretary - Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2010PIL/130/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two public interest litigations regarding Swine Flu. Petitions sought directions for government action, flight bans, and border lockdowns. The Court found sufficient government steps already taken and dismissed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; no further directions granted.

V.P.Patil Vs Union of India through the Secretary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

kps

¶3

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.170/2009

¶5

with

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.110/2010

¶7

Association for Aiding Justice.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

Union of India and others.

¶11

..Respondents.

¶12

AND

¶13

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.130/2009

V.P. Patil.

..Petitioner

-Versus-

Union of India and others. ..Respondents

¶18

Mr.D.U. Siroya for the Petitioner in PIL No.170/2009. Mr.V.P. Patil, the petitioner in person in PIL No.130/2009. Mr.Y.S. Bhate a/w Mr.D.R. Shah, for the Respondent No.1/UOI. Mr.A.H. Palekar, A-Panel Counsel for the Respondent No.3.

¶19

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶20

Date : 15^th July, 2010.

¶21

P.C.

¶22

1 In PIL No.170/2009 purporting to be filed by the

¶23

¶24

“Association for Aiding Justice”, the prayers are to direct the Respondent authorities i.e. Union of India and the State Government to take up immediate measures forthwith for tackling with the Swine Flu and to take effective measures for controlling its massive spread.

¶25

2 In PIL No.130/2009, the Petitioner is lawyer by profession and has prayed for direction to the Union of India that air travellers from foreign countries should not be allowed to land on Indian soil till there is eradication of Swine Flu or medicines on Swine Flu are easily made available in the country. The Petitioner has also prayed to the Union of India to suspend all international flights coming to India.

¶26

3 In response to the PIL No.170/2009, the affidavit in reply dated 17^th September, 2009 is filed by the Additional Director, CGHS, Mumbai indicating various steps being taken by the Government of India including airport, seaport and border surveillance, community surveillance, diagnostic capacity, hospital preparedness, stockpile of anti-virals and personal protective equipments anti-viral drug and vaccines. The Government of India has also undertaken the media campaigning for information, education and communication in this regard and has also taken steps for monitoring all these activities. So also the affidavit in reply dated 09^th November, 2009 is filed by the Deputy Secretary, Public Health Department, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai indicating various steps being taken by the State Government.

¶27

4 In view of the contents of the above affidavits, we are of the opinion that nothing further is required to be done in these

¶28

¶29

petitions. The petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. 5 In view of disposal of the petitions, Civil Application No. 110/2010 does not survive and the same is also disposed of.

¶30

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

V.P.Patil v. Union of India through the Secretary - Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Patil v. Union of India through the Secretary - Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Liyakat Shaikh Vs Metropolitan Commissioner and Ors.

Mrs. Shaina N. C. and 10 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 14 Ors.

Murti Upadhye Vs B.M.C. and 3 Ors.

Narendra S/O Jaggannathji Mohata and 4 Ors. Vs U.O.I. Thr. Pr. Secty., Min. of Environment and Forest and 3 Ors.

Marine Drive (Chief) Welfare Associaltion and Anr. Vs State of Maharastra and 4 Ors.

Pushkar M. Damle Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. S.G.P. Barnes Vs Jairaj Pathak, the Municipal Commissioner of B.M.C. and 3 Ors.

Sanjay Sahdev Tupe and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Khairunisa Haji Mohammed Vs Hamida Haji Haroon and O Rs

Jalna District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thr. Its G.M. Vs Vithal Revnath Gaikwad

N.D.H. Kamath Vs Chowgule and Co. (Hind) P. Ltd.

Association for Aiding Justice Vs Union of India and Ors.

Maneck Davar Vs Confetti Events Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.