Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and S.G. Dige, JJ., addressed a matter wherein an aspirant of M.B.B.S Course approached the Court praying that the petitioner be considered in State Quota from NRI Quota.

The present petition was filed seeking directions against the respondents to correct her NRI quota and to consider her from the State quota for Maharashtra for NEET-UG-2021.

The petitioner also challenged the communication classifying her in NRI Quota.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court expressed that as per Rule 4.8 of NEET-UG-21 Regulation’s children of employees of Government of India or it’s undertaking.

The said rule prescribed criteria for the employees of the Government of India or its undertaking. As per this rule, at the time of the last date of documents verification, said Government servant or employee must be serving in the State of Maharashtra.

In the present matter, the petitioner was the domicile of Maharashtra, her father’s job was out of Maharashtra and the SSC and HSC examinations of the petitioner were completed from Bhopal, hence the petitioner’s case did not fall under the above-stated rule.

Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Administrator to the Full-Time Professional Undergraduate Medical and Dental Course) Rules, 2016 prescribed the eligibility criteria for admission to the undergraduate medical courses affiliated to the Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences.

The Rule applicable since 2018 and followed consistently was that:

(i) the student should pass 10th and 12th standards from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and

(ii) must be domicile of State of Maharashtra

Exception in the above-stated Rule was that if a person has cleared 10th standard prior to the year 2017 from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra, he would still be eligible, provided he has passed 12th standard examination from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and he is also the domicile of Maharashtra.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka v. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10293, considered the requirement for claiming the benefit of State Quota.

This Court opined that as per the Admission Rules, criteria State Quota is given to the children of an employee of Government of India or its undertaking who are serving in State of Maharashtra and the said Rules have been modified time to time as per the requirements.

The petitioner had not challenged the regulations of NEET-UG-2021 and the Rules which were brought into effect for the admission process.

Therefore, the above petition was dismissed. [Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 530, decided on 11-3-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

Mr Shailesh P. Brahme, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr S. B. Yawalkar, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.1 Mr.S.G. Karlekar, advocate for respondent no.2.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and Vinay Joshi, J., directed UBER and other transport aggregators who have not obtained a license as per Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to apply for the license before 16th March 2022 otherwise they shall not be able to operate in the State of Maharashtra.

In the Public Interest Litigation filed, one of the prayers was a direction on respondents 1 and 2 to ensure implementation of Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines-2020.

Uber (Respondent 3) was a Transport Aggregator in the present matter.

Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 required an aggregator to obtain a license from such authority and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government. The said proviso provided that while issuing license, the State Government may follow such guidelines as may be issued by the Centre. Whereas Sub-Section 2 of 93 referred to matters which could be included as conditions of such license.

Analysis and Decision

High Court expressed that Section 93(1) is couched in negative language and once it is statutory mandate that no person shall engage himself as an aggregator unless a license is obtained, it is absolutely inappropriate for the State of Maharashtra (respondent 2) to allow such person to continue as an aggregator without he/it obtaining such a license.

Bench added that, no doubt that the Maharashtra Regulation of Aggregators Rules 2021 are still at the draft stage but till such time the said draft rules are finalized for being complied with, the 2020 Guidelines framed by the Centre would hold the field and any person willing to operate as an aggregator must follow the regulatory framework brought about by such guidelines.

Pained to observe that despite new statutory provisions having been brought into force in 2019 by amending Section 93 and the guidelines having been framed in November 2020, the respondent 2 permitted an aggregator like UBER to operate in Maharashtra without insisting for compliance of the statutory requisite.

Further, Court was also conscious of the fact that restraining the operation of UBER would cause immense prejudice and detriment of the passengers who avail of the services provided by it.

Therefore, High Court granted an opportunity to UBER and other unlicensed aggregators to apply for license as required by the provision concerned.

Lastly, the Bench directed the Transport Department of the State Government to issue an appropriate notification in the Official Gazette forthwith and not later than 9th March, 2022 empowering each and every Regional Transport Authority in the State of Maharashtra to act as the Licensing Authority for grant of license under sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Act.

All the Operators have been directed to apply for the license by 16th March, 2022 and in case the application before the said date is not received, then the unlicensed aggregator will not be permitted to carry on further operations in the State of Maharashtra.

PIL to be listed on 4-4-2022 for reporting developments. [Savino R. Crasto v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 490, decided on 7-3-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

Ms. Savina R. Crasto, petitioner-in-person, present.

Mr. Rajshekar V. Govilkar for respondent no.1.

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for respondent-State.

Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ankit Lohia, Ms. Sita Kapadia, Mr. Shashwat Rai, Mr. Akash Loya and Ms. Tvishi Pant i/by Keystone Partners for respondent nos.3 and 4

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Pained to record that the Court doors being knocked after completion of 75 years of independence seeking direction for the provision of regular water supply, Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., stated that,

State Government by providing water to its citizens only twice a month, and that too for a mere two hours, is not only depriving its people of their fundamental right, but in doing so is inviting criticism and tarnishing its image, especially when such is the scenario after 75 years of independence.

In the instant matter, petitioners who were being provided only two hours of water twice a month sought direction for a regular supply of water.

They alleged that from reliable resources, they came to know that officers of respondent 7 were supplying water illegally to political leaders especially councilors, tanker lobbies, industries, sizing companies/industries, warehousing complexes and construction sites, thereby earning lakhs of rupees against illegal supply of water. Further, it was submitted that the officials of respondent 7 were not interested in removing the illegal water tapping/connection and valves fixed on the main pipeline.

Deputy Engineer of respondent 7 informed the Court that they were making attempts to supply water to the petitioners on a daily basis but they were unable to do so due to various technical reasons.


High Court stated that it is the fundamental right of the petitioners to get regular water supply as sanctioned by the Authorities and if the water supply is provided to them only twice a month for two hours, the same amounts to a blatant mockery of their fundamental right.

Hence, Managing Director of respondent 7 company as well as Jai Jeet Singh, Commissioner of Police were directed to be present before the Court to inform the steps to be taken to resolve the problem along with the steps proposed to be taken to disconnect the illegal 300-400 water connections.

On 9th September, the Advocate General referred to the affidavit filed by respondent 7 wherein two types of measures to fulfill the increased demand for water due to the rise in population in village Khambe was proposed.

The long term measure proposed, is to change the 36 years old pipeline which currently supplies 11 MLD water to 34 villages ; after the old pipeline is changed, the 34 villages will receive additional 31 MLD water. For this purpose, the Respondent No. 7 is in the process of preparing a Detailed Project Report (‘DPR’) ; and to meet the technical and procedural compliances, the long-term measure proposed will take about three to four years. 

short-term measure proposed, is to lay “a new pipeline of around Rs.4 Crores bypassing or bifurcating from village Khoni directly to village Khambe …”. According to the Respondent No. 7, the short-term measure can be achieved within a period of one year.

High Court informed the Advocate General that the State cannot expect the poor villagers to wait for one year for laying a separate pipeline by-passing village Khoni and supplying water directly to village Khambe, and certainly not for a period of three to four years for providing an additional supply of 31 MLC to the 34 villages.

With respect to illegal water connections, High Court stated that,

State machinery or any Statutory Authority cannot tolerate any illegal activity to commence / continue only because a group of wrongdoers / antisocial elements / hooligans make an unlawful attempt to prevent legal action being taken against such illegal activity. It is the duty of the State to ensure that such unlawful activities are nipped in the bud.

 Court informed Advocate General to constitute a committee for the removal of every illegal water connection.

Deputy Commissioner of Police ensured full cooperation to all concerned in removing all illegal water connection from village Khoni.

Court informed the Advocate General that in the interest of the State, the orders pertaining to the subject matter will be forwarded to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra so that the problems of the citizens of Maharashtra can be looked into seriously. [Shobha Vikas Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, WP No. 5256 of 2021, decided on 9-09-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

Mr R.D. Suryawanshi for the Petitioners.

M A.A. Kumbhakoni, AG a/w. Mr A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P., Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP for the State.

Mr A.S.Gaikwad a/w. Mr B.R.Khichi, Mr Anjalai Kolapkar for Respondent 7. Mr Yogesh Chavan, DCP, Zone-II, Bhiwandi, present.

Dr Bahusaheb Bansi Dangade, Managing Director of Respondent 7, present.

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar and C.V. Bhadang, JJ., took suo motu cognizance of the rise on COVID-19 cases in the prisons of State of Maharashtra.

Instant Public Interest litigation was a Suo Motu PIL initiated Re: the rise in COVID-19 Virus cases in March-April 2021 in the prisons of the State of Maharashtra.

Newspaper reports, more particularly, Hindustan Times and Free Press Journal have highlighted an alarming rise in the COVID-19 cases in the prisons in the State of Maharashtra. It had been reported that almost two hundred prisoners amongst 47 prisons in the State have been tested positive as of 14th April 2021. For about 86 staff members working in the prisons have been tested positive.

Advocate General informed the Bench that the Court had taken up a similar cause in July 2020 where the measures taken by the State Government were noted and certain directions were issued.

“…reports show a sudden rise of the COVID-19 cases in the State prisons, indicating a need for the Court’s intervention to revisit the measures.”

Bench directed the Registry to register the Suo Motu (Criminal) Public Interest Litigation under Rule 4 of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.

The petition will be taken up today.

Court directed respondents to place the following information on record:

  • Status of the COVID-19 cases, both the staff members and the inmates in the prisons in the State of Maharashtra.
  • Measures being taken and proposed to be taken to control the spread of the Virus in the prisons
  • Measures to de-congest the jails in the State of Maharashtra.

[High Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra, Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation No. 1 of 2021, decided on 16-04-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

Mr A.A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate General a/w. Mr Deepak Thakare, Govt. Pleader for the Respondent – State

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and V.G. Bisht, JJ., held that offering of prayers only in the mosque during the period of Ramzan could not be considered due to the ongoing critical COVID situation which is serious in nature.

Petitioner sought direction to respondents to allow Muslims to offer 5 times prayers and Taraweeh namaz at the mosque from 14th April, 2021 till the end of Ramzaan adhering to social distancing and SOP’s in force.

Government of Maharashtra has issued an Order dated 13-04-2021 under the provisions of Disaster Management Act, 2005 stated that the State Government having been satisfied that the State of Maharashtra was threatened with the spread of COVID-19 Virus, and therefore it was imperative to take certain emergency measures to prevent and contain the spread of virus.

As per the Order, the State of Maharashtra had already enforced night curfew and restricted all activities except the activities falling under the essential category. State Government even banned all religious, social, cultural or political functions of any kind during the 14-04-2021 to 01-05-2021. It was specifically stated that the Religious Places of Worship shall remain closed. All the personnel engaged in the service of the place of Worship shall continue to perform their duties though no outside visitor shall be allowed.

In Court’s opinion, the restrictions were imposed after considering the prevailing circumstances and various other pros and cons.

Bench while expressing that Article 25 of the Constitution of India permits all persons equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, the same is subject to public order, morality and health, held that:

such congregation which is apprehended by the State, if such permission is granted, it is likely that it would seriously affect the public order and health. If such permission is granted, it would violate the condition imposed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

In Delhi High Court’ decision of Delhi Waqf Board v. Government of NCT of Delhi, it was clearly stated that the Union of India had agreed for allowing the petitioners to offer prayers subject to following COVID norms.

Bench opined that Delhi High Court’s decision could not be taken as a precedent in the present case.

Considering the prevailing situation and the ground reality prevailing in the State of Maharashtra, Court cannot permit the petitioner to perform any prayers in the said mosque in violation of the order dated 13th April, 2021 issued by the Government of Maharashtra which is issued in the public interest and for the safety of all the residents of Maharashtra.

In view of the above discussion, a petition was dismissed. [Juma Masjid of Bombay Trust v. State of Maharashtra, WP (L) No. 10152 of 2021, decided on 14-04-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

Mr M. A. Vaid a/w Ms Shagufa Ansari, Ms Vidhya Seth i/by M/s. Vaid and Associates for the Petitioner.

Ms Jyoti Chavan, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., directs railways to allow Advocates to travel by local trains for physical hearings on an “experimental basis”.

Possibility as to whether lawyers who are appearing in the High Court before the Benches which are taking physical hearing, permission to travel by local trains to be discussed.

Advocate General, as well as Additional Solicitor General, had fairly consented to consider the said request on an experimental basis.

Advocate General after taking instructions has placed on record a brief note which would set out the arrangements that can be made for lawyers who are attending the physical hearing before the High Court.

Further, Additional Solicitor General has also taken instructions from the railways and would state that in principle, the railways are also agreeable for this arrangement to be set into motion as suggested on behalf of the State.

Bench stated that in view of the present situation Court can only consider the request in regard to the advocates and no one else.

Accordingly, the Court accepts the arrangement as suggested on behalf of the State and as agreed on behalf of the railways which would be in effect from 18-09-2020.

In view of the above, Court passed the following order:

  • Advocate concerned intends to physically appear before the Benches of this Court at its principal seat at Mumbai shall apply to the designated Registrar of the High Court seeking a day’s pass relating to the particular date only on which his/her matter is listed for hearing before one of the four Benches of this High Court.
  • The designated Registrar only after confirming the correctness of the claim so made in the application in terms of the present arrangement via email will issue a certification of the requirement for a particular day to the advocate concerned.
  • Upon receipt of such certification from the designated Registrar, the advocate concerned will approach the railway authorities to obtain appropriate pass/document for travel or ticket permitting him/her to avail the local train services, for the particular day for which travel permission is required.
  • Railway authorities after verifying the pass so issued will issue appropriate travel documents/tickets etc., as the case may be, permitting travel by local train services to the advocate for the particular day.

The above-stated arrangement will be available to the advocate only who satisfies all the above conditions.

Bench states that in case the certification issued by the Registrar is misused, it would be open for the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take appropriate actions.

All the proceedings adjourned to 06-08-2020. [Chirag Chanani v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 929, decided on 15-09-2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and Madhav Jamdar, JJ., reiterated that in times of this peculiar pandemic, it is the duty of every right-thinking person to balance their religious duties with public duty and their responsibility towards the rest of mankind.

Petitioner sought directions against respondents to allow the members of the Jain community to visit the Jain Temples and to perform prayers.

Petitioners moved for urgent reliefs to the extent that during the holy period of ‘Paryushan’ they should be permitted to visit Jain Temples.

Court by its order dated 11-08-2020 directed the Secretary Disaster Management to consider the representation of members of the Jain Communityore particularly the submission of the petitioners that if the malls and market places, barber shops, spas, salons, beauty parlours, liquor shops, etc. can be operated with certain restrictions, why the Jain devotees should not be allowed to visit the places of worship to offer prayers and/or to perform rituals with similar restrictions.

Secretary Disaster Management stated that State of Maharashtra is amongst the most affected States in India and has been adopting various precautionary measures to contain the pandemic.

Further, it was added that the Government of India has in all its orders, consistently and consciously mentioned that, “States/UTs based on their assessment of the situation, may prohibit certain activities outside the containment zones or impose such restrictions as deemed necessary.”

Prevailing position in the State of Maharashtra demands a conscious policy decision of closure of all worship places and not to permit any religious congregations.

Hence, taking into consideration the prevailing circumstances and situation in the State of Maharashtra acceding to the petitioner’s request will not be possible.

High Court in view of the facts and submission of the Secretary Disaster Management stated that the members of the public should appreciate that the Centre as well as the State Government, who despite being over burdened, have left no stone unturned in taking all possible measures to safeguard the public health of its citizens, and that the said restrictions are imposed in their larger interest.

However, the bench did not dispose of the petition and placed the same for directions on 07-09-2020. [Ankit Hirji Vora v. UOI, OS-WP-LD-VC-259 of 2020, decided on 13-08-2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and R.I. Chagla, JJ., quashed and set aside the unreasonable restriction placed by the State of Maharashtra on prohibiting the actors, crew members, etc. who are above the age of 65 years from being present at the site of the shooting of films/television series/Over The Top Media (OTT) in light of the same being discriminatory.

Petitioner is an actor by profession who had challenged the condition imposed by the Government of Maharashtra’s Resolution according to which persons above the age of 65 years are prohibited from remaining present at the site of the shooting of films/television series/Over The Top Media (OTT).

Discriminatory and Arbitrary

The government resolution is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because at the time the same was issued, Central, as well as the Maharashtra Government, had relaxed the general prohibition on the movement of persons above the age of 65 years.

Right to Carry on Trade and Occupation

As against this, a prohibition on the movement of persons above the age of 65 years continued to operate in the film and television industry. It is also submitted that the impugned condition is an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners’ right to carry on their trade and occupation, as also the impugned condition deprives the petitioner of his right to earn a livelihood with dignity.

Government Pleader for the Respondent State, Purnima H. Kantharia submitted that the Government of Maharashtra’s Resolution is based on Centres’ order passed under the DM Act.

Further, he added that, the restrictions are in the interest of persons with low or weak immunity as the disease is easily communicable.

The restriction is not absolute. Persons above the age of 65 years may work from home, over video conferencing, email, video sharing etc.

Until the Central and State Governments relax the guidelines, the Respondent is bound to strictly implement the aforesaid Orders issued under the DM Act, as the MHA Orders specifically provide for strict enforcement of the Lockdown Orders by the respective State Governments.

“…though the Impugned Condition reads as a prohibition, no coercive action will be taken against anyone above the age of 65 years who chooses to remain present at the site of the shooting of films/television series / OTT. The prohibition is issued in the interest of the health and safety of persons who are above the age of 65 years and is to be read as such.”

Analysis and Decision

Bench while analysing the facts and circumstances of the case, started while stating that Sections 38 and 39 of the DM Act empower the State Government to take measures to deal with the disaster at hand, which in this case is the Covid-19 pandemic.

Keeping the above in mind and being fully conscious of the hardship and risks posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, Court first considered the challenge to the impugned condition under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Intelligible Differentia

In Court’s opinion, impugned condition was not based on any intelligible differentia.

Whilst there may be a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e. to protect vulnerable people from the Covid-19 pandemic, there is no intelligible differentia between persons who are 65 years of age or above in the cast/crew of films and TV shootings on the one hand and persons who are 65 years of age or above in other sectors and services, permitted under prevailing lockdown orders.

Thus, there is discrimination in the disparate treatment of persons who are 65 years of age or above in the film or television industry and in the other permitted sectors and permitted activities and no explanation on the said aspect has been given by the State Government.

Hence, Impugned Condition, therefore, cannot be sustained in view of the well-settled principles enunciated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Further, the said impugned condition also failed to take into consideration the relevant material, namely the relaxation contained in orders dated 30th May 2020 and 31st May 2020 issued by MHA and the Government of Maharashtra respectively, which reads as an advisory for persons above the age of 65 years.

Impugned Condition in light of Article 21 of the Constitution

Citing the decision of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545, it was stated that the Righto Earn a livelihood and the Right to Live with Dignity are well-established facets of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Court added that coming to the conclusion that the impugned condition cannot be sustained on account of it being discriminatory and arbitrary, stated 

“we are satisfied that the absolute prohibition as regards persons above the age of 65 years who earn their livelihood from the film industry (which is allowed to operate), is a measure that violates the Petitioner’s right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and the restriction imposed by the Impugned Condition in relation to a specific sector or industry that is now allowed to operate, cannot constitute a valid procedure established by law.”

Hence, on perusal of the above observations, the Court held that if there are no general prohibitions on persons above the age of 65 years from working or practicing their trade in those sectors and businesses which are allowed to operate, an age-based prohibition in only one industry namely the film industry/television / OTT, without any material to support its differential classification, would constitute an unreasonable restriction.

The stated impugned condition was quashed and set aside in view of being an unreasonable restriction. [Pramod Pandey v. State of Maharashtra,  2020 SCC OnLine Bom 846, decided on 07-08-2020]

Also Read:

Bom HC | How a physically fit person of 65 years age or above is expected to live a dignified life if not allowed to go out & earn livelihood? Maharashtra Govt to respond

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ, and A.S. Gadkari, JJ., deferred the hearing for PIL’s filed in view of the unnatural death of Sushant Singh Rajput, a film actor.

In the present two Public Interest Litigations, it has been sought that CBI should be entrusted with the investigation into the unnatural death of a film actor, Sushant Singh Rajput.

Advocate General for the State, A.A. Kumbhakoni informed the Court that a petition with similar relief was moved before the Supreme Court, but the same was dismissed.

The petitioner on being asked for the copy of the petition stated answered in negative and added that the Supreme Court while dismissing the petition granted liberty to approach this Court.

Another significant point that the Court noted was the Supreme Court’s order dated 5-08-2020 wherein a status report has been called for from the State of Maharashtra in regard to the stage of investigation by Mumbai Police.

Hence, the Advocate General for the State states that the Court may not pass any order on the present petition and may await the Supreme Court’s decision.

Additional Solicitor General, Anil Singh submitted that on acceptance of the request of the deceased father, the CBI has already registered an FIR, inter alia, under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. He has also questioned the approach of the Mumbai Police in quarantining an IPS officer of the Bihar cadre, who had come to Mumbai for the purpose of ascertaining facts, although four other officers of Bihar Police who had earlier visited Mumbai were not meted out such treatment.

Hence in view of the above stated, Court while deferring the hearing till 21-08-2020, stated that CBI has registered an FIR and it would not be appropriate, at this stage, to express any opinion either way.

It would be just and proper to await the orders of the Supreme Court in the pending Transfer Petition, referred to above. [Priyanka Tibrewal v. UOI, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 848, decided on 07-08-2020]

Also Read:

Sushant Singh Rajput death case| SC asks Mumbai Police to submit status of investigation so far; says truth must come out

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court:  A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and Sarang V. Kotwal, J., took up a matter highlighting the concern regarding the inflated charges for Personal Protective Equipment Kits (PPE) by private hospitals and nursing homes.

Petitioner raised the concern that in view of the pandemic, private hospitals and nursing homes have been charging for Personal Protective Equipment Kits on a cost more than the procurement costs.

In view of the above stated concern, petitioner sought a direction for imposing a cap on the prices of PPE Kits charged to COVID/NON-COVID patients in private hospitals and nursing homes.

P.P. Kakade, Government Pleader a/w Nisha Mehra, AGP for State.

Ish Jain a/w Kiran Jain a/w Amruta Thakur for respondent 4.

Therefore, Court directed the parties to file affidavit stating their responses after which on 07-08-2020, the present PIL will be taken up for further consideration. [Abhijit K. Mangade v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 827, decided on 28-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and R.I Chagla, JJ., asked State of Maharashtra to file their response on the following:

“how a physically fit persons who is 65 years or above is expected to live a dignified life if he is not allowed to go out and earn his livelihood?”

Petitioner sought quashment of the condition appearing in Government Guidelines dated 30-05-2020 stating that “Any cast/crew members above the age of 65 years will not be allowed at the site.”

Petitioner submitted that he does not have any other source of livelihood and is solely dependent on such jobs in the film studios. Though he is physically fit, he is not allowed to go to the studios and participate in shooting for earning his livelihood.

He additionally submits that if he is prevented from participating in any of the activities during the shootings, he won’t be able to survive with dignity and self respect.

Advocate appearing for the State had informed the Court that the guidelines also provides that when possible, castings should be done remotely via Facetime, Zoom, Skype, etc.

“…actors performing small roles are required to go to the studios and request for work to enable them to have their two meals, and no Producer/Director is going to shoot their role via Facetime, Zoom, Skype etc.”

Bench in view of the above, directed the respondents to interalia file its affidavit explaining how a physically fit persons who is 65 years or above is expected to live a dignified life if he is not allowed to go out and earn his livelihood.

Following are the questions on which the respondents shall set out their response in the affidavit:

Whether any data/reports/statistics were taken into consideration before issuing the impugned Guidelines restraining any cast/crew members above the age of 65 years from attending the studios/shooting sites;

Whether a similar rule is made applicable to individuals who are 65 years and above and are travelling by trains/buses/aircrafts etc.;

Whether a similar rule is made applicable to the employers/staff who are currently attending shops/private offices;

Whether a similar rule is made applicable to the individuals (approximately 30) who are allowed to attend funerals or marriage reception/s etc.

Matter to be listed on 24-07-2020. [Pramod Pandey v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 818 , decided on 21-07-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Allowance of Rs 50,000 annually for spectacles of Bombay High Court Judges approved by Maharashtra Government.

Maharashtra Government’s resolution dated 10th July, 2020 approved an annual sanction of Rs 50,000 for Judges of Bombay High Court to buy spectacles.

The said allowance will cover the cost and maintenance of spectacles for the spouses of the judges and the family members dependent on them.


Hot Off The PressNews

G.S.R. 873(E).—The following Proclamation issued by the President of India is published for General information:—


In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 356 of the Constitution, I, Ram Nath Kovind, President of India hereby revoke the Proclamation issued by me under the said article on the 12th day of November, 2019, in relation to the State of Maharashtra with effect from the 23rd day of November, 2019.

Ministry of Home Affairs

[Notification dt. 23-11-2019]