Disposed

Yohan Tengra v. the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, the Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2022PIL/85/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of two PILs regarding restrictions on public transport availability for non-vaccinated individuals. The Court held that since a fresh order was issued maintaining the restriction, the petitions would be challenged in fresh proceedings, keeping all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to challenge the new order in fresh proceedings upon its publication; petitions disposed without deciding on merits.

Yohan Tengra Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

901-PIL.84 & 85.2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 84 OF 2021

¶4

Feroze Mithiborwala } Petitioner

¶5

versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. } Respondents

¶6

WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 85 OF 2021

¶7

Yohan Tengra } Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. } Respondents

¶8

Mr. Tanveer Nizam i/b Adv Mangesh Bhimrao Dongre a/w Adv. Vijay Kurle, Adv. Dipali N. Ojha, Adv Mariam Nizam, Adv. Awtar Singh, Adv Ishwarlal S. Aggarwal, Adv Mayank Mishra, Adv Kajal Hindalekar, Adv Rajeshwar Panchal, Adv. Partho Sarkar, Adv. Sandeep Sheregar, Adv. Mita Rudani, Adv. Pratik Jain, Adv. Shivam Mehra, Adv. Deepika Jaiswal, Adv. Poonam Rajbhar, Adv. Nicky Pokar, Adv. Snehal Surve, Adv. Shivchand Mishra, Adv. Mangesh Mali, Adv. Siddhi Dhamnaskar, Adv. Pratik Sarkar, Adv. Vikas Pawar, Adv. Aditya Parmar, Adv. Sarang Gundagwar, Adv. A.R. Kori, Adv. Mohan Rawat, Adv Mita Rudani, Adv. Adarsh Diwani, Adv. Gopal Nirban, Adv. Mohan Rawat, Adv. Aniruddh More for Petitioner in PIL No.84 of 2021.

¶9

Mr. Nilesh Ojha i/b Adv. Abhishek N. Mishra a/w Adv. Vijay Kurle, Adv. Dipali N. Ojha, Adv Mariam Nizam, Adv. Awtar Singh, Adv Ishwarlal S. Aggarwal, Adv Rajeshwar Panchal, Adv. Partho Sarkar, Adv. Sandeep Sheregar, Adv. Mita Rudani, Adv. Pratik Jain, Adv. Shivam Mehra, Adv. Deepika Jaiswal, Adv. Poonam Rajbhar, Adv. Nicky Pokar, Adv. Snehal Surve, Adv. Shivchand Mishra, Adv. Mangesh Mali, Adv. Siddhi Dhamnaskar, Adv. Pratik Sarkar, Adv. Vikas Pawar, Adv Mayank Mishra, Adv Kajal Hindalekar, Adv. Aditya Parmar, Adv. Sarang Gundagwar, Adv. A.R. Kori, Adv. Mohan Rawat, Adv. Adarsh Diwani, Adv. Gopal Nirban, Adv. Mohan Rawat, Adv. Aniruddh More for Petitioner in PIL No.85/2021.

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

J.V.Salunke,PS

¶12

901-PIL.84 & 85.2021

¶13

Mr. Anil Anturkar, Special Counsel a/w Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader a/w Ms. Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP for State.

¶14

Mr. Anil C. Singh, ASG a/w Mr. Aditya Thakkar a/w Mr. D P Singh for Respondent –Union of India

¶15

Mr. T. J. Pandian with Mr. T. C. Subramanian for Respondent no. 6.

¶16

Mr. Suresh Pakale a/w Mr.Om Suryawanshi for MCGM.

¶17

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶18

DATE: MARCH 2, 2022

¶19

P.C.:

¶20

1. Mr. Anturkar, learned senior advocate for the respondents, has placed before us an order dated 1^st March 2022 signed by the Chief Secretary, Department of Disaster Management, Relief and Rehabilitation and Chief Executive Officer, State Executive Committee.

¶21

2. Although such order has not yet been published, as stated by Mr. Anturkar, it reveals that the State Executive Committee has decided to maintain the impugned earlier restriction that public transport cannot be availed of by those who are not fully vaccinated. This order, according to Mr. Anturkar, is based on the minutes of the meeting of the State Executive Committee (hereafter “the Committee”, for short) chaired by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra on 25^th February 2022.

¶22

3. In our order dated 22^nd February 2022, we had in no uncertain terms observed that the previous orders of the State Government imposing restrictions on user of public

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

J.V.Salunke,PS

¶25

901-PIL.84 & 85.2021

¶26

transport had no sanction of law and that in keeping with the improving situation, it would be eminently desirable if the Committee takes a decision which would effectively put a quietus to the issues raised in the PIL petitions. The hope and trust reposed by us in the Committee that it would take a decision, which is reasonable and not in derogation of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d), stand belied. We were utterly mistaken. The Committee, instead of respecting the observations that were made in the order dated 22^nd February 2022, has once again insisted on only those who are vaccinated to avail public transport despite the fact that presently in Mumbai and its adjoining areas almost every activity is being performed as in the pre-pandemic days and normalcy has been restored in fair measure. In hindsight, we feel that having regard to the gross violations of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereafter “the Act”, for short) and the rules framed thereunder in imposing restrictions since 10^th August 2021, it would have been appropriate if we had struck down the further orders passed in the name of the State Government post August, 2021 by the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra in exercise of our suo motu powers instead of, in accordance with judicial discipline, permitting the Committee to take a fresh decision. This decision of the Committee, in the circumstances, is unexpected to say the least. 4. Be that as it may, since a new order has been issued under the Act maintaining the same restriction as before, publication of which is in contemplation, we are of the considered opinion that nothing further survives for decision

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

J.V.Salunke,PS

¶29

901-PIL.84 & 85.2021

¶30

on these two PIL petitions and that the petitioners herein, if they feel aggrieved by such order (as and when it is published), ought to subject such order to challenge in fresh proceedings. Granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedy in accordance with law, we dispose of these PIL petitions. No costs.

¶31

5. Since we are not disposing of the PIL petitions on merit, all contentions that have been raised by the petitioners are kept open.

¶32

6. Copy of the order dated 1^st March 2022 and the minutes of meeting of the Committee dated 25^th February 2022 shall be retained with the records and marked ‘X’ for identification.

¶33

7. The respondents are granted liberty to publish the order dated 1^st March 2022.

¶34

8. We direct Mr. Kakade, learned Government Pleader to supply a copy of the said minutes of the meeting of the Committee to the petitioners’ advocates once the order dated 1^st March 2022 is published and made available to the public.

¶35

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶36

Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2022.03.02 20:07:06 +0530

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

J.V.Salunke,PS

Yohan Tengra v. the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, the Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yohan Tengra v. the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, the Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omprakash Shreelal Pal Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Marashtra State and Ors.

Kaustubh Ramchandra Paranjape and Anr. Vs the Municipal Commissioner and the Chairman of the Delimitation Committee, Nashik Mun.Corp and Anr.

Ujwal Govind Keskar and Ors. Vs the Municipal Commissioner and the Chairman of the Delimitation Committee, Pune Mun. Corp. and Anr.

Madanbhau Patil Yuva Manch, Sangli, through President, Satish Vasantrao Sakhalkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri Padamkumar S/O Shri Shantilal Jain Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary New Delhi and Others

Shri. Nitin S/O Mohandas Rathi Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Textile Ministry, and Other

Krishna Kumar Agrawal and Others Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Mines, New Delhi and Others

Vijay Babasaheb Sale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

F. a. Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.

Dilip Bapusaheb Gaikwad and Anr. Vs Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. and Ors.

Shivaji Kisanrao Ghuge and Anr. Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Dattatray Gundewar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Feroze Mithiborwala Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, the Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Workmen of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , Nashik Division Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Anr.