WP(PIL)/3/2020 of Prashant Sharma Vs State of Sikkim and ors. on 30 March 2020

WP (PIL) No. 03/2020

PRASHANT SHARMA

PETITIONER (S)

VERSUS

STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS.

RESPONDENT (S)

Date: 30/03/2020

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ.HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.

…

(ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ)

Heard Ms. Mingma Lhamu Sherpa, learned counsel for the petitioner.Also heard Mr. Hissey Gyaltsen, learned Assistant Government Advocate forthe respondents.

This petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation on 25.03.2020 withdefects. Defects were removed on 28.03.2020 and thereafter, the matter isbeing taken up for consideration today.

It is to be noted that in view of spread of COVID-19, the Hon’ble PrimeMinister of our country had imposed National Lockdown with effect from25.03.2020. However, the Central Government is not made a party in thisproceeding and nothing has been said about such lockdown. In paragraph10, an averment is made that respondents had passed a number of ordersrestricting regular human activity. None of the orders are placed on record. Ahost of issues like Public Distribution System, Mid-Day Meal, SupplementaryNutrition of Anganwadis, etc. are raised. No instance is given indicating anyfailure on the part of the State Government to address the issues. Generalaverments have been made that there will be difÏculty. When the wholecountry is asked to maintain physical or social distancing, the petitioner saysthat the concept of social distancing makes it difÏcult for the people who are undergoing tuberculosis treatment etc. to access their drugs. There is noaverment that they have been denied access to drugs.

It is not understood why the petitioner has brought on record an orderdated 22.03.2020. The relevant averments read as follows:

“That the state of Sikkim being one of the small geographicallyarea and least populated State is being danger to the life of peoplewho have been suspected of Covid due to travel history as their namesare being flashed out and shared virally in Social Media resulting intolashing out in media and physically. FIR against Mr. Diwas Gurung isANNEXURE:P-3.”

By the order dated 22.03.2020, action was initiated under Section 270of IPC on the ground that the gentleman in question had breached the safetyprotocol having returned from a tour of Europe by attending a function,thereby, by his irresponsible act had exposed a number of people to theinfection of COVID-19.

Mr. Gyaltsen, learned Assistant Government Advocate submits that anumber of notifications had been issued to safeguard the interest of thepeople of the State and the State Government is acting in tandem with theCentral Government to redress many of the issues that have arisen and arelikely to arise in the wake of National lockdown imposed to combat thespread of COVID-19. He submits that the State Government is alive to thesituation and is taking all possible steps to mitigate the difÏculties of thepeople. A State Task Force Committee is also set up in this regard.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and bearing in mindthe materials on record, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in thispresent form. However, we reserve liberty to the petitioner or any otherpublic spirited person to raise issues arising out of COVID-19 at the firstinstance before the State Task Force Committee. If the grievances, if any,are not redressed, certainly recourse can be taken to this Court.

Before parting with the records, we, however, observe that the StateGovernment will take all necessary steps to tide over the unprecedentedsituation created by COVID-19.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations.

Judge

Chief Justice

jk/