ALLAHABAD HC EXTENDS INTERIM ORDERS PASSED BY IT AND SUBORDINATE COURTS TILL AUGUST 2
The Division Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Prakash Padia decided to extend all interim orders, etc. till August 2, 2021.
The order reproduced below:
· All interim orders passed by the HC od judicature at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow, all the District Courts, Civil Courts, Family Courts, labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and all other Tribunals or Quasi-Judicial forums in the State of Uttar Pradesh over which this court has power of superintendence which were subsisting on 15th March 2021 shall stand extended till 31st May 2021 (now August 2nd).
· The interim orders or directions of this Court or any court subordinate to this Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh which are meant to operate till further orders shall continue to remain in force until modified by specific order of the court concerned.
· The criminal courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh which granted bail orders or anticipatory bail for a limited period, which are likely to expire, on or before 31st May 2021 shall stand extended for a period till that date i.e. 31st May 2021 (now August 2nd).
· Any orders of eviction, dispossession or demolition, already passed by the High Court, District Court or Civil Court, if not executed till the date of passing of this order shall remain in abeyance for the period till 31st May 2021 (now August 2nd).
· The State Government, Municipal Authorities, other Local Bodies and agencies and instrumentalities of the State Government shall be slow in taking action of demolition and eviction of persons till 31st May 2021 (now August 2nd).
· Any Bank or Financial Institution shall not take any action for auction in respect of any property or an institute or person or party or anybody corporate till 31st May 2021 (now 2nd August).
SUPREME COURT STAYS ALLAHABAD HC ORDER GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL OVER FEAR OF DEATH DUE TO COVID-19
The Allahabad HC on 10th May stated while hearing the matter from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the UP Government (who said that the accused Prateek Jain who is granted the anticipatory bail till January, 2022 has 130 cases pending against him) that “If an accused dies on account of the reasons beyond control when he could have been protected from death by the court, the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail to him would be an exercise in futility. Hence, an apprehension to death on account of reasons like the present pandemic of novel corona virus can certainly be held to be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail to an accused.”
A vacation bench of Justices Vineet Saran and B R Gavai on Tuesday stayed “sweeping” directions issues by the Allahabad HC, which had granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a cheating case observing that apprehension of death due to Covid-19 infection can be a valid ground for granting the relief.
ALLAHABAD HC ASKS GHAZIABAD DM TO FILE HIS REPLY ON BLACK MARKETING OF OXYGEN
The Allahabad High Court directed the Ghaziabad district magistrate to file his personal affidavit in a PIL regarding black marketing of oxygen in the district which resulted in the death of 19 Covid-19 patients during the second wave of the pandemic.
The Court also asked him to file the report of the inquiry instituted by him in this regard by following a complaint filed by the petitioner Nand Kishore, a sitting MLA who accused the involvement of an ADM and some other persons in black marketing of oxygen.
A division bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sadhna Rani directed to post this matter on 7th June, 2021 for the next hearing.
‘HC SHOULD AVOID PASSING ORDERS WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT’: SC STAYS ALLAHABAD HC DIRECTIONS FOR IMPROVING HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OF UP
A vacation bench of Supreme Court comprising Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai stayed the directions issued by the Allahabad HC for upgrading the medical facilities in the state of UP on a war-scale footing after hearing the submissions made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta on behalf of the State of UP.
The Solicitor General told the SC that the HC’s directions, though well-meaning are difficult to implement.
The SC also submitted that the HCs ought to refrain from passing directions in policy matters, especially when they can have trans-state and even trans-national ramifications.
The SC made the following observations after taking note of the Solicitor General’s submissions:
“At the outset, we may appreciate the efforts of the HC pf Allahabad as well as various other High Courts for taking up the matter for management of COVID. However, while dealing with such matters and the concerns the Courts may have for patients and general public and the anxiety of Courts to give utmost relief to those suffering, sometimes, unwittingly the Courts overstep and pass certain orders that are not capable of being implemented.
Acknowledging the effort of the HC for looking into the matter in depth while passing the order, we state that the Court should avoid passing order, we state that the Court should avoid passing orders if they are impossible to be implemented. The doctrine of impossibility is equally applicable to the Courts.
In matters concerning national and trans-national ramifications, HC’s should refrain from passing orders.
The observations and directions may have been well-meaning and may have been passed in its anxiety and concern for general public. But the directions need be treated by the state government as observations and advice of the court and not directions or orders passed by the court. We hope and trust state will take every endeavour to follow the same.”