Tag: Chhattisgarh High Court

  • Prashant Kumar Mishra to assume charge as Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court

    By ANI
    NEW DELHI: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra will assume charge as the Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court from June 1, said Ministry of Law and Justice on Monday.

    An official statement of the ministry said he is the senior-most Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice.

    “In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, senior-most Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from June 1, 2021, consequent upon the retirement of Justice Parappillil Ramakrishnan Nair Ramachandra Merlon, Chief Justice, Chhattisgarh High Court,” the statement said. 

  • HC asks Chhattisgarh government to modify COVID vaccination plan for 18-44 age group

    By PTI
    BILASPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the state government to modify its plan for the third phase of the COVID-19 vaccination drive for citizens in the age group of 18 to 44 years and fix the ratio of allotment of vaccines in an equitable manner.

    A division bench of Chief Justice P R Ramachandra Menon and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu passed the order on Tuesday after hearing a suo motu (on its own) public interest litigation (PIL), under which intervention applications were filed challenging the state’s order of giving priority in inoculation to economically weaker sections, said Palash Tiwari, advocate for one of the interveners.

    In an order issued on April 30, the Chhattisgarh government had announced that in the third phase of the vaccination drive, vaccines will be first given to the Antyodaya group (poorest among poor), followed by persons belonging to the below poverty line (BPL) category and then to those from the above poverty line category.

    Five persons had filed intervention applications challenging the state’s order, Tiwari said on Wednesday.

    Demanding that the order be quashed, the petitioners had contended that prioritising vaccination based on people’s ‘financial status’ is absolutely illegal, illogical and in violation of the constitutional provisions and the Centre’s vaccination policy, he said.

    During the hearing on Tuesday, the state’s Advocate General (AG) Satish Chandra Verma argued that as only a limited quantity of vaccine is available, a sub-classification was deemed necessary.

    The AG further said that the Antyodaya group mostly live in remote areas and are rather illiterate without much knowledge about the pandemic or the need to register for vaccination, as a result of which they are moving around freely, causing the disease to spread much faster.

    The High Court in its order said, “With regard to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that supply of vaccines has to be made on ‘first come first serve’ basis, according to this Court, this as such may not be appropriate to be implemented when it comes to the case of poor/rural sector that is Antyodaya and BPL groups.”

    “If any steps are taken by the state government to have the benefit extended to such people as well, the object cannot be doubted. But, such a step has necessarily to be in conformity with the constitutional mandate and in tune with the guidelines issued by the Central government at the national level. Prima facie, the sub-classification with reference to the ‘financial status’ alone as now ordered may not be correct or sustainable,” it stated.

    The court asked the state government to formulate a scheme for the poor and set up help desks for spot registration and administering vaccines, without compromising the right of the other segments who are entitled to have equal treatment with regard to the right to life, Tiwari said.

    “We are of the view that the state government shall fix a reasonable ratio of allotment of vaccines to the ‘Antyodaya Group’, the persons belonging to the BPL and APL, with reference to all the relevant aspects, including vulnerability, chance to spread the disease and the number of eligible persons in the group,” the order said.

    The court has directed the state government to hold a discussion with secretaries of the relevant departments at the higher level to distribute the vaccines in an equitable manner and said the implementation of the state’s order stands modified to the said extent, Tiwari said.

    The matter has been posted for next hearing on May 7, he added.

  • Chhattisgarh High Court gets two new judges

    In the meeting held in the collegium of the Supreme Court, it was decided to give 2 new judges to the Chhattisgarh High Court. Narendra Kumar Vyah and Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi have been appointed as judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court by the Supreme Court. Please tell Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi is currently posted as Principal Secretary in the Law Department of Chhattisgarh. Narendra Kumar Vyah is a senior advocate.

  • Chhattisgarh High Court increases the amount of accident insurance claim

    On appeal of a decision given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the High Court has ordered to increase the amount of one lakh 90 thousand rupees to four lakh 9 thousand rupees. Also, the petitioner has been asked to pay the said amount within 60 days.

    Hamendrau, 24-year-old son of Bhanu Bai, a resident of Balod district, died in a road accident in 2012. The deceased youth worked in the Tata Indicom company. After the son’s death, he submitted the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal case. In this case the tribunal ordered Reliance General Insurance Company to pay one lakh 90 thousand rupees.
    Bhanu Bai, through her lawyer, appealed against this decision in the High Court. It was told that the payment of the claim amount to the family of the deceased should be decided according to age. The case also cites the judgment given by the Supreme Court in the case of accident insurance, in which the Supreme Court has ordered payment of insurance amount on the basis of age.