High CourtsDivision Bench(2020) 04 KAR CK 0070

Sandhya U. Prabhu vs State Of Karnataka & Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 21 April 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Abhay S. Oka, CJ · B.V. Nagarathna, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 6671 Of 2020 (GM-RES-PIL)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 486 words

Abhay S. Oka, CJ

1.

The first prayer in this petition is for quashing the order passed by the respondent No.4 allowing super markets to function 24x7. The respondent

No.4 is the Director General and Inspector General of Police. The submission of the petitioner appearing in person is that if the super markets are

kept open 24x7, large number of people will enter the super markets and will touch the articles which are displayed for sale. This will result in spread

of Covid-19. Her submission is that the working hours of super markets will have to be restricted.

2.

The second objection in the writ petition is for permitting the use of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) buses for facilitating

transport of people for ensuring that a provision is made for rendering essential services. Her submission is that cleanliness is not maintained in BMTC

buses and if permission to travel is granted to 20 passengers in a bus, it will again result in spread of Covid-19 and therefore, number of passengers

should be reduced.

3.

As far as first prayer is concerned, it cannot be disputed that in lockdown period, it is the duty of the State Government and Central Government to

ensure the uninterrupted supply of grocery and other essential articles to the citizens. Depending upon the circumstances and local situation, it is for

the Authorities of the State to take a decision regarding the time during which grocery shops and super markets can be kept open. The State

Government can always issue directions for strictly observing social distancing and other norms. Prayer (a) concerning the decision to keep open

super markets 24x7 relates to purely a policy decision. We do not find anything arbitrary in the said policy decision and therefore, no interference is

called for by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

4.

As regards the second prayer regarding use of 180 BMTC buses for transportation of persons for ensuring that a provision is made for rendering

essential services, it cannot be disputed that for the Government employees and for the employees of the local authorities, who are working in the

Departments providing essential services, transport arrangement has to be made by the Authorities. It is obvious from Annexure ‘D’ that

necessary measures are being taken for maintaining social distancing while traveling is allowed by BMTC buses. It is stated in Annexure ‘D’

that only 20 passengers can travel by BMTC buses at a time.

5.

Needless to add that all precautions will have to be taken while operating the buses and norms of social distancing will have to be strictly observed.

However, we do not find per se anything wrong, arbitrary or illegal in the decision taken to allow BMTC buses to be used for transportation of

persons who are connected with providing the essential services. Therefore, no case is made out to entertain this petition and the same is accordingly

disposed of.