The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted liberty to the petitioner to file a contempt application against the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) in the sessions court.

A Single Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan disposed a Petition filed by one Nitiyanand Mishra.

In this petition the order of the Revision Court is in favour of the petitioner. The order was passed in a dispute arising from the possession of the property in between the petitioner and the private respondent which has gone through the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate.

The said order was challenged in a revision before the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions has set aside the order of the S.D.M. and has passed the order in favour of the petitioner and directed the S.D.M. to place the petitioner in possession.

The grievance of the petitioner in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P..C. is that the respondents/State has not complied with the order of the Court of Revision till date.

It is observed by the Court that the petition is misplaced as so is the prayer therein as if the order of the Court below has not been complied with, the proper recourse would be to approach the learned Court below and move for contempt of its order.

“Under the circumstances, this petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Court of revision under the appropriate law”, the order reads.

Advocates Nilesh Kotecha, Manoj Chaturvedi and Amitabh Bharti appeared on behalf of petitioner.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the parties to maintain status quo till October 22 on a matter related to land encroachment by the residents of Lama Garden Awas Yojana, Jabalpur.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan observed on October 11 that the petitioners have allegedly been in unlawful possession of the said properties in question for more than one-and-a-half years. Prima-facie it appears that action has been taken belatedly and the impugned notices have been issued in the month of September, 2021 and action is sought to be taken against the petitioners during the period when the Court is on vacation.

“Under the circumstances, till the next date of hearing, status quo as it exists today, shall be maintained by the parties and no further action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, this order does not prevent the respondent/Corporation from going ahead with the process of identifying appropriate and legitimate allottees to the properties in question by way of draw of lots,” noted the Court.

A petition was filed in the High Court by Mohd Vahid and others, challenging the notice issued to them by the Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur on September 8, 2021, directing them to vacate the premises within seven days of receipt of the notice, as according to the Corporation, the premises was under illegal occupation of the petitioners.

The Court noted that the first document was brought before it on January 11, 2021, which was an order passed by the Jabalpur Collector, directing constitution of a three-member Committee to identify the encroachers of the properties in question. On January 14, the Additional Collector of Jabalpur asked the Committee to expeditiously prepare a list of persons who are in unlawful possession of the dwelling places in question.

The Bench observed that by the letter of the Additional Collector issued on January 27, it becomes clear that on that date itself, the list of unlawful occupants of the properties in question was already prepared.

The Court asked the Counsel for the State as to why there was delay in issuing these notices to the petitioners, to which the Counsel was not able to give a clear answer. The Court then ordered maintenance of status quo and listed the matter on October 22 in “Top of the List as Item No 1”.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has noted that the state government has not received even half of the promised quantity of vaccine doses for May 2021, either from the Central government or from two major manufacturers within the country in response to orders placed by them. The court opined that the Central government ought to reconsider efficacy of its vaccination policy.

The bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan noted: “The Central government should consider taking upon itself the responsibility of providing required number of vaccination doses to the state by setting up more and more units in all the states with required licence from the local manufacturers, to ramp up the production of the vaccination on war footing.”

The state’s Advocate General informed the court that the state has received a total of 96.12 lakh doses of vaccine from the Government of India against which, a total of 87.61 lakh doses have been administered to healthcare providers, frontline workers and citizens of the age group of above 45 years. He submitted that the state has made payment for 15 lakh doses of the vaccine, of which 2.5 lakh doses have been received by the state and accordingly vaccination of age group of 18 to 45 years begun from May 5. He further informed the court that by the end of January 2022, vaccination may be administered to almost all the beneficiaries in the State falling within the age group of 18 to 45 years, provided the required number of doses are regularly supplied by the Central Govt. and the local manufacturers.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the state government under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is under an obligation to procure and provide doses to all the citizens regardless of the price, as health is the subject matter of the State under entry 6 of List VII of the Constitution of India.

Amicus Curiae Naman Nagrath submitted that major manufacturers in the international market like Pfizer and Moderna, in response to global tender issued by different states, have categorically stated that they will directly deal with only the Central government and not the states. He further submitted that in view of the order dated 15.4.2021 issued by the Central Drugs and Standard Control Organization, several restrictions have been put in place before an outsider manufacturer is allowed to supply the vaccination for use by different State Governments, which would further impede the process of procurement.

In this regard, the Court urged the Central Government to consider the suggestion made by the Amicus for relaxing the rigour of the order dated 15.4.202 issued by the CDSCO. The Bench further noted: “The Central Government should by itself consider procuring the vaccination doses in sufficient quantity from the manufacturers from outside the country to provide the same to the States, rather than leaving it upon the States to do so.”

Read Also: Delhi High Court to hear plea challenging constitutional validity of IT Rules, 2021

Vikram Singh, counsel for the Union of India, sought time to seek instructions regarding the stand of the Govt of India in this behalf. The Advocate General also sought time to file a detailed affidavit/Action Taken Report to apprise the court regarding preparedness of the State Government for apprehending third wave of Covid-19. The matter is listed for May 31.

Source: ILNS

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday allowed a Habeas Corpus writ petition where the petitioner’s wife was sent to Nari Niketan and said the government official’s attitude of sending her to Nari Niketan was unfair.

The petition was filed by Aman Guheriya challenging the order of March 17 this year passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Division Adhartal, Jabalpur whereby the SDM has directed the Incharge Officer, Nari Niketan, Police Line, Jabalpur to keep the woman (detenu) in its custody till the order for handing her over to her family is received.

Advocate Maqbool Khan, on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the petitioner married the woman and both of them became husband and wife of their own accord. Her parents were not happy with the marriage. Therefore, the administrative intervention was sought on their behalf. Under which the SDM , Adhartal passed an order to send her to Nari Niketan. The petitioner then sought relief from the High Court.

Ritwik Parashar, the counsel for the state, submitted that he was informed by the SDM, Adhartal, Jabalpur that though the woman wanted to go with the petitioner, whom she claims to have married, for the time-being she has been kept in Nari Niketan, Jabalpur on the insistence of her parents.

After hearing the arguments, the division bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan said, “We do not appreciate this kind of approach on the part of the Government authorities.” It is not in dispute that the woman, aged 22, is a major. She is free to make her choice whom she wants to marry.

Read Also: UP Panchayat Polls: Supreme Court allows vote counting on Sunday with strict safety measures

“We are therefore persuaded to set aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2021. Accordingly, we direct the SDM, Adhartal, Jabalpur to allow her to go to the petitioner if she wishes so,” ordered the Bench while allowing the petition.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought the response of the State Government on a plea filed by Mohammed Ganja aka Hasnain Quaraishi challenging the action against him under the National Security Act (NSA). 

The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla issued notice to the state government to file reply in this regard within two weeks. 

The petition has been filed by Mohammad Hasnain alias Ganja, a resident of Damoh’s butcher Mohalla through Advocate Manoj Chaturvedi and Vijay Raghav Singh. The Counsel argued that arbitrary action has been taken against the petitioner. 

This case does not meet the criteria that is required for action under the NSA. The petitioner is not such a big criminal that because of him the security of the country is endangered or normal life is being severely affected, claimed the petitioner.

During the hearing, it was informed that Damoh Collector has taken action against the petitioner on December 14, 2020. The petitioner stated that 12 cases have been registered against him since 2007, of which he has been acquitted in 10 cases.  Only two cases are under consideration.

The Counsel further stated that the petitioner had not yet committed any such offence, due to which action under NSA should be taken against him.  

Also Read: Supreme Court to hear plea seeking permanent commission for Navy women officers next month

After the initial hearing, the High Court issued a notice to the state government. The next hearing of the case will be held on January 13. During this time, the state will have to clear the concrete basis of the action of applying the NSA.