ILNS: The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court today dismissed a PIL seeking action against Government authorities, including Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s ‘Team-11’ and other Health authorities, for failing to provide proper medical facilities.
The Division Bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Rajeev Singh passed this order, while hearing a PIL filed by Pal Singh Yadav.
The petitioner approached the High Court, stating that he is aggrieved due to carelessness, mismanagement and denial of guarantee of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution by the government authorities.
The petition said that the respondents failed to provide medical facilities, such as medicines, oxygen, proper treatment, bed in hospitals, ventilators and many more services to the last person in the state of Uttar Pradesh in this current pandemic situation, leading to a large number of deaths in the state, especially in Lucknow.
In such circumstances, the respondents are also liable to be prosecuted, as they are responsible for present situation, prayed the plea. It sought direction to the authorities to provide proper medical services for the patients.
The Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the state regarding maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation in view of Chapter XXII Rule 1 (3A) of Allahabad High Court Rules, stated that the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials and locus for filing the PIL.
He further raised another objection, stating that in PIL No 574 of 2020: In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres and For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive vs State of UP, a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad had taken suo motu cognisance and passed a detailed order and directions on April 27, in which grievance of the petitioner is being taken care of.
The matter is still sub-judice before the Court, which has fixed May 3 as the next date of hearing, he added.
The Court held that the petitioner has filed an affidavit with respect to the locus, however, there was no satisfactorily reply with regard to the second leg of the issue raised by the state.
“After examining the preliminary objection raised by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, we find that so far, as the locus of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has disclosed his credentials as per Chapter XXII Rule 1 (3A) of Rules of the Court in his affidavit filed in support of the PIL, but so far as the other preliminary objection raised by the State Counsel regarding the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Court on April 27, 2021 in the PIL, the matter is sub-judice and the Court is monitoring the situation, for which the petitioner has also prayed for relief particularly in the prayer no. (iii) of the present PIL, the petitioner in person could not satisfactorily meet out the same,” said the Court.