HUIDROM RAJESHWAR SINGH v. STATE OF MANIPUR AND 7 ORS
Court: High Court of Manipur
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KH NOBIN SINGH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Manipur judgment dated 2020-06-08. HUIDROM RAJESHWAR SINGH v. STATE OF MANIPUR AND 7 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL PIL No. 19 of 2020 Shri Huidrom Rajeshwar Singh aged about 54 years, S/o (L) Huidrom Jugeswar Singh of Keisampat Leimajam Leikai P. O. & P. S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795 001. …. Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur office at Secretariat, South Block, Babupara, P. O. & P. S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795 001. 2. The State Executive Committee of the State Disaster Management Authority represented by the Chairperson, State Executive Committee office at Secretariat South Block, P. O. & P. S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795 001. 3. The Director General of Police, Manipur, PHQ, Babupara, P. O. & P. S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795 001. 4. The Commissioner/ Secretary (Home) Government of Manipur office at Secretariat, South Block, Babupara, P. O. & P. S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795 001. 5.
The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, P. O. & P. S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795 001. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, P. O. & P. S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Imphal East, P. O. & P. S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795 001. 8. The Superintendent of Police, Imphal West, P. O. & P. S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001. …Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH For the petitioner : Mr. Juno Rahman, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Lenin Hijam, Additional A. G. Date of Order : 08. 06. 2020 Page 1 ORDER R. S. C. J. 08. 06. 2020 [1] Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents. [2] On 02. 06. 2020, the following order was passed :- “[1] Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents. [2] Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General referred to order of the Government of Manipur, Home Department, No. st 9/6(1)/2020-H(Pt) dated 1 June, 2020, whereunder the Chief Secretary issued an order modifying the earlier order in relation to the lockdown and curfew on the aftermath of COVID-19 pandemic. [3] The order speaks about the total lockdown and curfew in containment zones, and partial curfew in Imphal city and other District Headquarters from 2 p. m. to 5 a. m. on all days till 15. 06. 2020. In so far as other areas are concerned, the curfew is from 5 pm to 5 am till 30. 06. 2020. [4] In the light of the above, the prayer of the PIL has to be revisited. The Government has also indicated that the High Court of Manipur can plan its activities in respect of judiciary as deemed fit, subject to lockdown orders and guidelines.
[5] In view of the above circumstances, the issue will be considered both in respect of the High Court and the District Courts. [6] Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for adjourning the matter so as to consider the scope of order dated 01. 06. 2020 issued by the Government of Manipur. ” [3] Today, when the matter is listed, Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out certain difficulties faced by particular strata of persons/communities, namely, :- (i) Shops dealing with raw materials for handlooms between 6 am to 2 pm. Page 2 (ii) Shops dealing with construction materials like cement and steel between 6 am to 2 pm. (iii) All shops dealing with motor spare parts and lubricants from 6 am to 6 pm. (iv) All mobile sale shops and mobile repairing shops between 6 am to 2 pm.
(v) continuation of works in construction projects, within limits of municipal corporation and municipalities, where workers are available on site and no workers are required to be brought in from outside (in site construction) (vi) Private vehicles for emergency services including medical and veterinary care. (vii) All exempted category of employees attending work place. [4] This is for the Government to take a decision in this regard, as to which sector will be allowed to work which is permissible within the provision of Disaster Management Act. [5] The petitioner shall address these issues to the Government by way of separate representation because they are specific issues of a particular group of business community. As and when such a representation is made to the Government, the same shall be dealt with expeditiously. [6] In view of the order already passed, we disposed of the PIL as above.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep Digitally WAIKH signed by WAIKHOM OM TONEN MEITEI Date: TONEN 2020. 06. 08 16:01:42 MEITEI +05'30' Page 3
Source: High Court of Manipur. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.