IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Saurabh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (East) & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 6595, 8455, 8588, 9408 of 2020 & CM APPL.23013, 27312 of 2020
Decided on : 07-04-2021
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 - Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Delhi Epidemic Diseases (Management of COVID-19) Regulations, 2020 - Fine For Not Wearing a Mask in a Public Place - Prayer for quashing of challans - Alleged Mental Harassment Publicly - Compensation Sought in Present Petition for Mental Harassment - Case of Petitioner is that since he was in his car alone, he had not put face mask on and that he had intended to wear mask as soon as he stepped out of car - It is highlighted that four windows of Petitioner’s car were closed - When police official stopped his car, he was informed that non-wearing of mask by him and a sum of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him as fine - In this petition, apart from quashing of challan bearing challan declaration is sought to effect that privately owned cars are private places for purpose of Regulations of 2020 - Apart from refund of amount of Rs. 500/- paid by Petitioner as fine, a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- is sought in the present petition for mental harassment.
Finding of the Court: A perusal of Regulations of 2020 shows that authorised persons under the Regulations would include a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, any officer of health department, who may be authorised, or of the State Government. It also includes officials, who hold the position of a Sub-Inspector or above, in Delhi Police. In present case, challans have been issued either by the District Magistrate or by the Executive Magistrate or by the Sub-Inspector concerned - Definition of authorised persons being inclusive and expansive in nature, District Magistrates are also vested with powers to further authorise any officers to issue challans - Since the inception of the pandemic, wearing of masks has been one measure that has saved millions of lives - In fact, wearing of a mask even in one’s own homes is encouraged if there are elderly persons or persons suffering from co-morbidities. A vehicle which is moving across city, even if occupied at a given point in time by one person, would be a public place owing to the immediate risk of exposure to other persons under varying circumstances.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. These are four writ petitions filed challenging the imposition of fine of Rs.500/-, on the Petitioners, for non – wearing of face masks while travelling alone in a private car. The brief facts of each of the cases are captured below.
2. In W.P.(C) 6595/2020, the Petitioner’s case is that he is a practicing advocate for the last 20 years. On 9th September, 2020, at about 11.00 A.M., he was driving a Honda City DL13CC 1479, and was stopped by the police near Geeta Colony, New Delhi. It is not disputed that he was travelling alone in his car. After the car was stopped, an Executive Magistrate, along with a Police Constable and a Delhi Police Inspector, informed the Petitioner that a fine of Rs. 500/- is being imposed on him for not wearing a mask in a public place. The Petitioner challenged such imposition of fine before the officials, on the ground that since he was travelling alone in his car, the said car does not constitute a public place and would be a private zone. Accordingly, it is prayed that the challan bearing challan no. 2993, dated 9th September, 2020, be quashed and the amount of Rs. 500/- be refunded. In addition, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is sought on the ground of alleged mental harassment publicly caused to the Petitioner.
3. In W.P.(C) 8455/2020, the facts are that the Petitioner is a lawyer who was stated to be on his way to his chambers at Tis Hazari Courts, around 12.00 noon on 9th August, 2020. He was driving his privately owned car, a Maruti Suzuki Swift and was stopped near Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines by the Police. The Petitioner was in his car travelling alone, with his mask hanging on his face, from one of his ears. The case of the Petitioner is that since he was in his car alone, he had not put the face mask on and that he had intended to wear the mask as soon as he stepped out of the car. It is highlighted that the four windows of the Petitioner’s car were closed. When the police official stopped his car, he was informed that the non-wearing of mask by him is in violation of the Delhi Epidemic Diseases (Management of COVID-19) Regulations, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations of 2020’) and a sum of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him as fine. In this petition, apart from quashing of challan bearing challan no. A-22062, dated 9th August, 2020, a declaration is sought to the effect that privately owned cars are private places for the purpose of the Regulations of 2020. Apart from refund of the amount of Rs. 500/- paid by the Petitioner as fine, a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- is sought in the present petition for mental harassment.
4. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 8588/2020 is also a practicing advocate who states that he was crossing Vikas Marg area near Laxmi Nagar Metro Station on 20th August, 2020 in his privately owned car, with all windows of the car closed. However, officials of the Delhi Police stopped his car on the ground that he was not wearing a face mask in his car. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him as fine for violations of the Regulations of 2020. In this case, a direction is sought that the Respondent-Authorities ought not to fine people for not wearing a face mask while in their own car. Refund of Rs. 500/- is sought, along with compensation of an unascertained sum.
5. In W.P.(C) 9408/2020, the Petitioner is a lawyer stated to be practicing at Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi. On 25th October, 2020, he was travelling in his i-10 Grand bearing no.DL8CAE1725, along with his wife and had reached a spot in front of the of D.C. Office, Nand Nagri at about 1.50 P.M. It is stated that a Civil Defence Personnel forced him to stop his car. After the Petitioner’s car was stopped, the Civil Defence Personnel, along with a member of the Enforcement Team of SDM, Shahdara, informed him that since he is not wearing a face mask but only a cotton safa/dupatta/scraf around his mouth and nose, he would be liable to pay a fine of
Rules and Regulations - Violation of Regulations, 2020 – Prevention of disease and controlling spread of disease - Not wearing mask – Challans – Challenged – A vehicle even if occupied by only one pe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of wearing masks during the Covid-19 pandemic and the need for proper research and material in public interest litigations.
The competence of the Central Government to issue notifications under Section 88 of the MV Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of the State Government to lay down rules for the uniform to be ....
The main legal point established is that a restriction cannot be imposed retrospectively, and in the absence of evidence of a quarantine directive, the petitioner's actions did not constitute a viola....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of e-pass requirements for movement during the COVID-19 pandemic was reasonable and not arbitrary, considering the acute surge ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance with legal provisions, the requirement for evidence to support charges, and the need for proper service through the Emb....
Courts may dismiss public interest litigations challenging public health measures if the petitioner lacks expertise in the relevant field and the measures are in line with global efforts to prevent t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.