Busybodies indulging in 'senseless activities' & wasting judicial time, beware. The High Court of Madras imposed an exemplary cost of 1.5 lakh on a 63-year-old litigant who faulted the Govt's Covid-19 lockdowns & resorted to the habeas corpus route alleging that his fundamental right & income had been curtailed.
He also sought 5 lakh as compensation. Trashing the petitions, the Court said if he failed to pay the cost within fifteen days, the Madurai collector shall recover the sum by invoking the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.
HC: Petitioner is mocking efforts of state, Centre
The amount shall be paid to the Covid-19 ward of Govt Rajaji Hospital in Madurai.
A division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan & Justice G Jayachandran said that "This court firmly believes that the attitude of persons like the petitioner herein is detrimental to the selfless service rendered by doctors, health workers & other Covid warriors, who have lost their lives while treating Covid-19 patients. Unless busybodies like the petitioners herein are punished for their senseless activity, approaching the court with frivolous petitions, this court fears that the sacrifice of the selfless people will go in vain".
The petitioner is mocking sincere preventive efforts taken by the state & Union governments to curtail the pandemic, observed the judges, adding that he claimed that the Covid-19 virus & its variants were not deadly & that they were curable in ordinary course, if the health department is vigilant & gives proper healthcare to the public. Instead of doing what he had suggested, the government passed the orders imposing restrictions, thereby violating the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Dismissing the plea as not maintainable, the court said he was a busybody who had approached the court only for the sake of publicity.
The Court said that "Though the petitioner was warned that he cannot waste the court's time by filing such frivolous petitions, he repeatedly made the same submission, which is contrary to common sense".
The Judges said that since the registry rightly found that the pleas weren't maintainable, they were returned thrice. However, the petitioner, who was not convinced, had quoted all judgments of the courts pertaining to habeas corpus petitions & insisted on hearing, due to which the cases were heard.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Picture Source :