Dismissed

Smt. Geetha Misra v. Union of India

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2021WP/6504/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ mandamus exempting advocates from the requirement to produce a COVID-negative RTPCR certificate to enter Karnataka, alleging violation of fundamental rights. The High Court declined to entertain the petition solely because the petitioner had not first approached the concerned authorities with a representation.

What did the court decide?

The petition was not entertained as the petitioner had not approached the concerned authorities with a representation.

Smt. Geetha Misra Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.6504 OF 2021 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. GEETHA MISRA AGED 51 YEARS D/O KAILASHNATH MISRA, ADVOCATE R/AT NO.135, 47^TH CROSS 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010 ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. G.R. MOHAN, ADVOCATE-PH)

¶10

AND:

¶11

UNION OF INDIA

¶12

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001 BY ITS HOME SECRETARY

¶13

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NIRMAN BHAVAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD NEW DELHI-110 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, 5^TH FLOOR

¶17

¶18

AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU-560 023

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560 001 … RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS/STATE-PH; ASG-SERVED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE FORM OF DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS-3 TO 6 TO EXEMPT THE PROFESSIONALS SUCH AS ADVOCATES, AND SIMILARLY PLACED PROFESSIONS FROM OBTAINING THE COVID –VE RTPCR CERTIFICATE FOR ENTERING THE KARNATAKA STATE AS THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 19(1)(G) AND ARTICLES 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed purportedly in public interest seeks

¶25

exemption for the professionals/advocates from the requirements of Clause (3) of the Circular dated 22^nd March 2021.

¶26

In substance, the relief sought for is in the nature of a

¶27

mandamus.

¶28

Before seeking the relief in the nature of a mandamus,

¶29

the petitioner has not approached the concerned Authorities with representation.

¶30

¶31

Only on that ground, we decline to entertain the petition.

¶32

However, the petitioner can always file an appropriate

representation.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Smt. Geetha Misra v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geetha Misra v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahadevaiah Vs Sri Ramesh

Mr. M. Venkatesh Vs Mr. Karunakar Alva

B Subbaya Rai Vs Union of India

Sri Nanjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Manil Aiyappa Seva Samithi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Chandrashekar Vs Mahantesh Bilagi