JUDGMENT :

S. VAIDYANATHAN, G.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.

(Common Prayer: Two Habeas Corpus Petitions with similar relief filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of G.O(Ms).No.371 dated 08.05.2021, G.O. (Ms)No.386 dated 22.05.2021, G.O(Ms)No.394 dated 05.06.2021, G.O(Ms)No.401 dated 13.06.2021 and others pertaining corona virus and declare them as null and void as per Article 13 (2), (3), 14, 19 (d), (e), (g) thus protecting the petitioner's life and personal liberty in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution and directing the respondent to pay the petitioner a monetary compensation of Rupees 5 lakhs allowing these petitions with cost.)

1. The Party-in-person appeared before this Court filing these Habeas Corpus Petitions to declare the orders issued by the Government pertaining to Corona epidemic restriction as unconstitutional, null and void against Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also seek monetary compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs only) since the lock-down has not only crippled his fundamental right but also crippled his income. Since the Registry has rightly found that these petitions are not maintainable, returned it thrice, however, the petitioner-in- person not being convinced, quoting all the judgments of the Courts pertaining to Habeas Corpus Petition, has insisted for hearing and thus, he is before us today.

2. Before adverting to the content of his affidavit, this Court wanted to ensure whether the petitioner herein had really come to this Court with any public interest or he is a busybody have no other work but to waste the Court time. Hence, the petitioner-in-person was enquired about his back ground. He replied that he is a diploma holder discontinued B.E. Course, now aged about 63 years. He also claims though he was employed in Electricity Board for two years, later resigned. He is not ready to disclose, why he resigned and when he resigned, He further claims that he is doing contract work for Electricity Board, but he is not a registered contractor.

3. With these background, he claims that the Covid-19 virus and its variants are not deadly disease, but curable in ordinary course, if the health department is vigilant and gives proper health care to the public. Instead of doing as he suggest, the Government has passed impugned orders violating the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, same to be declared unconstitutional.

4. When this Court posed a question whether he is conversant with the Disaster Management Act, 2005, its scope and ambit, the petitioner-in-person answered in affirmative. This Court, after being satisfied that, he is a busybody come to this Court only for the sake of publicity warned him that he cannot waste the Court time by filing such frivolous petitions. Despite that, repeatedly he made the same submission, which is oppose to common sense. Mocking the sincere efforts taken by the State to curb the pandemic, he was condemning the preventive measures taken by the State Government and Central Government to curtail the spread of Pandemic.

5. This Court firmly believes that the attitude of persons like the petitioner herein is detrimental to the selfless service rendered by the Doctors, health workers and other Covid warriors, who have lost their lives while treating Covid patients. Unless busybody like the petitioners herein are punished for their senseless activity, approaching the Court with frivolous petitions, this Court fears that the sacrifice of the selfless people will go in vain.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.B.Singh vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1923 heavily condemned the practice of filing a Public Interest Litigation for a cheap popularity. The said judgment has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court, comprising one of us (SVNJ) in K.R.Ramaswamy vs. Secretary, reported in MANU/TN/2118/2014, which has been uph