Madras High Court
S.V.Ramamurthy vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 11 August, 2022
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
S.V.Ramamurthy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Health and Family Welfare
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Park Town
Chennai 600 003. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first
respondent pertaining to the order dated 12.01.2022, the
G.O.(Ms).No.23, Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department and
consequently, order of the second respondent
P.H.D.C.No.C2/5907/2022 order dated 05.07.2022 and quash the
same.
___________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy
Party-in-Person
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
Assisted by
Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
for Respondent-1
Mr.Arun Babu
Standing Counsel
for Respondent-2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ petition has been filed challenging the Government
Order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Health and Family Welfare
Department and the consequential order dated 05.07.2022.
2. The petitioner appearing in person submits that imposition
of penalty for non-wearing of mask covering mouth and nose and
the enhancement of penalty amount are illegal, as wearing of mask
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
may adversely affect the person in inhaling and exhaling. Thus, the
liberty of a person to wear or not to wear a mask cannot be guided
or controlled by mandating to wear it and in case of violation of the
mandate thereof, to suffer penalty of Rs.500/-.
3. The petitioner in person submits that such penalty has not
been imposed for non wearing of mask in any other country, rather
it is only in the State of Tamil Nadu that such an order has been
issued. Therefore, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned order
making it absolutely at the discretion of the person concerned to
wear mask or not to wear it.
4. We have considered the submission made by the petitioner
in person and perused the records carefully.
5. The G.O. under challenge, viz. G.O.(Ms).No.23, Health and
Family Welfare (AB2) Department, dated 12.01.2022, is quoted
hereunder:
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
"APPENDIX
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by
section 138-A of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act,
1939 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1939), the Governor
of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following
amendment to the Rule published with the Health
and Family Welfare Department Notification
No.II(1)/HF/14(M)/2020, published at pages 1-2
of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated the
4th September 2020:-
AMENDMENT
In the said Rule, in the TABLE, for the entry
"200/- (Rupees two hundred only) in column (3),
against Serial No.(2) in column (1) and the
corresponding entry "(i) Non wearing of mask
covering mouth and nose as ordered by the
appropriate authority from time to time" in column
(2) thereof, the entry "500/- (Rupees five hundred
only)" shall be substituted."
6. The G.O. quoted above was issued by exercising the
powers conferred under Section 138-A of the Tamil Nadu Public
Health Act, 1939. The amendment was made to the Rule published
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
by the Health and Family Welfare Department notification dated
04.09.2020. The amendment was to substitute the amount of fine
of Rs.200/- with that of Rs.500/- in column (3) against serial No.(2)
in column (1) and also in the corresponding entry (i), namely "non-
wearing of mask covering mouth and nose as ordered by the
appropriate authority from time to time in column (2) thereof", the
entry "Rs.500/-" was substituted in the place of "Rs.200/-".
7. The challenge to the aforesaid has been made precisely on
the ground that on wearing the mask, a person cannot inhale
properly which would affect the health and accordingly, making
wearing of mask compulsorily is illegal and so as the imposition of
penalty for non-wearing of mask.
8. At the outset, there is nothing on record to show that
wearing of mask would adversely affect a person or cause
sufferance in inhaling while wearing mask. It shows that without a
proper research, the writ petition has been filed.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
9. The second aspect is also relevant and it goes to the root of
the case. The wearing of mask was made compulsory by an order
giving out specific period therein in view of the fact that Covid-19
pandemic had taken lives of not thousands, but lakhs of people. On
the recommendation of the medical experts, wearing of mask was
made compulsory when Covid-19 was spreading. It is only to save
people from getting affected by Covid-19.
10. According to the petitioner, no other country has imposed
a condition of wearing a mask and imposition of penalty. However,
to substantiate the aforesaid, no material has been produced by
him. The statement aforesaid has been made even in ignorance of
the fact that many other countries also made wearing of mask
compulsory and even by many States of our country. Thus, what we
find is that the writ petition has been filed without any material or
without making a proper research.
11. The filing of public interest litigation without proper
research and in a casual manner has been deprecated by the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
Supreme Court time and again. The Apex Court in B.P. Singhal v.
State of T.N. [(2004) 13 SCC 673], while dealing with a public
interest litigation, dismissed it on the ground that it lacked material
particulars and the averments were made by and large based
merely on newspaper reports and not with personal knowledge.
12. In the Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court has
time and again cautioned that the Court has to be satisfied about
(a) credentials of the petitioner; (b) prima facie correctness or
nature of information given by him; and (c) the information should
not be vague and indefinite. In the case on hand, the averments
are vague and unsubstantiated.
13. The Apex Court in the case of S.P. Anand v. H.D.Deve
Gowda [(1996) 6 SCC 734], held that a person filing a public
interest litigation owes it not only to the public, but also to the
Court that he does not rush to the Court without undertaking any
research to raise the issues in the public interest litigation. The
Apex Court warned that “a good cause can be lost if petitions are
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
filed on half-baked information without proper research or by
persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as
the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights.”
14. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court, if we
analyse the case, we find that the writ petition has been filed
without causing research and even without any material to support
the statement made in the public interest litigation. No report of the
experts has been produced to indicate that wearing of mask may
affect the health or cause difficulty to inhale. The casual filing of the
public interest litigation otherwise remain at the cost of litigants
who may get hearing of his case because of the waste of Court's
time in dealing with such public interest litigation.
15. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with
cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to the
Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within fifteen days. The
Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Madras is directed to see the
compliance of payment of cost within the stipulated time and if
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
payment of cost is not made, the disposed of writ petition may be
listed again before this court to take appropriate proceedings in the
matter. Consequently, WMP No.19622 of 2022 is also dismissed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
11.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
kpl
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Health and Family Welfare
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Park Town
Chennai 600 003.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
M.N.BHANDARI, CJ
AND
N.MALA,J.
(kpl)
W.P.No.20486 of 2022
11.08.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
