Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday issued notices to the State Government and the Union of India about the PIL seeking to sue State Tourism Minister Satpal Maharaj, in violation of a Home Quarantine order holding outside his house in Deadadun.
"Why different degrees of severance are being taken at home; and if an action against an ordinary person, why no action is taken against those in charge of constitutional offenses, they should be identified," the bench said. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe noted it.
On May 20, District Magistrate and Chief Health Officer, Dehradun had lodged an announcement outside Minister Tousim's home, suggesting that the home solitude was 14 days, as his wife tested Corona.
PIL claims that despite ignoring this, the Minister participated in the Cabinet meetings held on May 21 and May 29, in the presence of the Prime Minister, other Cabinet ministers and various secretaries of various departments, without letting them know his wife had been tested positive for Covid.
The Applicant pointed out that while the MOT was registered under sections 188 (disobeying order was announced by public servants) and 307 IPC (attempted murder) ordinary citizens for the same violation, no action was taken to file the same FIRE as the Minister.
The court said it saw no reason to express any opinion on the implementation of the Section 307 IPC, but was satisfied that Section 188 the IPC might be drawn if these allegations were found to be true.
"If, as disputed on behalf of the applicant, the fourth respondent was sitting in the house while participating in the Cabinet Meetings, then, he may be held liable for the charge of subordinate to him. it has led to the risk of his infection infecting others, "the bench said.
The matter may be listed within three weeks, for consideration.
During the hearing, the Senior Counsel for the Position of the State of Uttarakhand emphasized that the Minister may not reside in the house where the notice was lodged.
This fact, said the Court, was whether the Minister (4th Respondent) had been appointed for the appointment, with the filing of the affidavit setting out the nature of the incidents.
"As cabinet meetings were, it is permissible, held in Deadadun it is clear that the fourth respondent was also present in Dehradun," the court said.
86540
103860
630
114
59824