Disposed

Mriganka Mistry v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Dec 2021WPA(P)/304/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court examined COVID protocol violations at a State-railed mela. Despite earlier permission, finding clear breaches in attached photos, the Court invoked safety concerns to direct monitors to close the gathering and warned personal liability for committee officials violating directives.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondents to close mela if COVID protocol violated; warns officials of personal liability; grants protection to petitioner.

Mriganka Mistry Vs the State of West… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

December 1, 2021 Item No. 01 Court No.1 s.biswas/M.Ali

WPA (P) 304 of 2021

Mriganka Mistry

vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

¶6

(Through Video Conference)

¶7

Mr. Subhabrata Chowdhury, Ms. Tripti Pandey, Mr. Mohit Sarkar, Advocates

¶8

… for the petitioner

¶9

Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, ld. Advocate General Mr. Anirban Ray, ld. Govt. Pleader Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Advocates

¶10

… for the State

¶11

Mr. Dhiman Ray, Mr. Dip Chanda, Advocates

¶12

… for the respondent No.9

¶13

This Court on 18.11.2021 had passed following order

¶14

in this Case:

¶15

“In this petition the petitioner has raised an issue that in the Piali Rash and Gramin Mela – 2021 there is a possibility that the Covid protocol may not be followed. He has submitted that no permission has been obtained and there may be huge gathering of persons on the Mela which is in the nature of recreational Mela and is not religious in nature and it will continue for about 16 days and there is no ways and means to regulate the gathering and that though the petitioner has submitted a representation in this regard but it has not been considered.

¶16

Learned Advocate General has informed that the Mela is on the ground which is half owned by the State and half by the railway authorities and the State authorities have

¶17

¶18

WPA (P) 304 of 2021

¶19

granted permission on 17.11.2021. The electricity permission has been granted on 08.11.2021. The fire permission has been granted on 17.11.2021 and the necessary deposits have been made by the Mela organizer and even the permission to use the mike has also been granted. He submits that the Covid protocol will duly be followed and even the masks and sanitizers will be distributed to the persons entering the Mela premises. Referring to Clause-viii of order of the State Government dated 29.10.2021, Annexure P-3, he has submitted that such Mela is permissible with adherence to physical distancing and Covid appropriate protocol.

¶20

Learned Advocate General is directed to place stand of the State on record in writing. Meanwhile, it will also open to the petitioner to bring notice to the competent authority of the State if there is any breach of Covid protocol in the Mela.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner is also directed to inform the respondent no. 9, Mela Committee, about the next date of hearing. Meanwhile, the Mela Committee is directed to adhere to all the Covid protocol and ensure that the overcrowding is not permitted and the persons entering the Mela premises duly wear their masks.

¶22

List on 23^rd November, 2021.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the photographs enclosed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 26^th November, 2021 and has submitted that in the mela there is large crowd and

¶24

¶25

WPA (P) 304 of 2021

¶26

no COVID protocol is followed as large number of persons are visiting, moving around in the mela without mask. He has also submitted that the petitioner has been extended threat at the instance of one of the office bearers of the Mela Committee.

¶27

Learned Advocate General has submitted that whenever the official respondents visit the mela site, due compliance of the COVID protocol is shown, but in the phtographs annexed with the supplementary affidavit there is clear violation of COVID protocol.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent No.9 has disputed the above position but has not produced any contrary material to substantiate that the COVID protocol is being followed.

¶29

Having regard to the larger issue of safety of general public, we are of the opinion that unless the COVID protocol is strictly followed, large gathering in the mela should not be allowed.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent No.9 has disclosed that Shri Bijan Krishna Mondal is the President, Shri Nanda Gayen is the Secretary and Shri Ashis Sil is the Cultural Secretary of the Mela Committee. This Court on 18^th November, 2021 had directed the Mela Committee to adhere to all the COVID protocol and ensure that overcrowding is not permitted and the persons entering mela premises, duly wear their mask. If this order is violated then the office bearers of the Mela Committee will be personally held liable.

¶31

¶32

WPA (P) 304 of 2021

¶33

It has been informed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.9 that the mela will continue only up to 3^rd December, 2021 and thereafter it would be closed down. But even in the meanwhile, the COVID protocol violation cannot be permitted.

¶34

In these circumstances, we direct the respondent Nos.4 and 8 to regularly visit the mela and if any violation of the COVID protocol is found or large gathering without wearing mask and using sanitizers is noticed then they will be at liberty to take appropriate steps to close down the mela. The respondent No.4 is also directed to extend protection to the petitioner in the meanwhile.

¶35

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

[Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.]

¶37

[Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]

Mriganka Mistry v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mriganka Mistry v. the State of West Bengal 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

Sk. Md. Rafikul Islam Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Tapendu Sengupta Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Rahiv Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Nuzhat Banu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S. Msc Agency (India) Private Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Abbas Banu Alias Banarasi Vs Cesc Limited and Others