P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Imran Mohd. Salar Shaikh Vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (10 Jul 2020)

It is within the exclusive domain of the State Legislature to legislate as to whose services to be included into the essential services

MANU/MH/0764/2020

Civil

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking reliefs that, present Court by passing appropriate writ, order or direction, be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to exempt the lawyers, their staff from restrictions of lockdown for the purpose of their Court work only. Further, to direct the Respondent No.3 to revoke the challan issued against the Petitioner for alleged violation of lockdown rules.

The principal grievance raised in the Petition is that, the advocates services have not been included in the category of “essential services”, in spite of many lawyers all over the country are attending the Courts for delivering their legal services on humanitarian ground in prevailing pandemic situation. Hence, direction is sought to the second Respondent to include the advocates legal services as essential services by including the same in the category of “essential services” under the Maharashtra Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2017.

The State Legislature in their wisdom thought it appropriate to enact the Act, 2017 to provide for the maintenance of certain essential services and the normal life of the community; and to provide for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. As it is evident from reading the aims and object and Sections 2 (a) and 3 of the said Act, 2017 that, it is within the exclusive domain of the State Legislature to legislate as to whose services to be included into the essential services, keeping in view paramount interest of the community.

In the present Petition, the Petitioner has sought mandatory directions to the 2nd Respondent to include the advocates legal services into “essential services”. No mandatory directions, much less directions, can be issued to the State Legislature to include the legal services rendered by the advocates into “essential services”. The directions as sought by the Petitioner cannot be issued to the State Legislature to legislate in a particular manner, and it is for the State Legislature to take an appropriate decision. Hence, the reliefs claimed cannot be granted. Petition stands rejected.

Tags : RESTRICTIONS   LOCKDOWN   EXEMPTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved