Chandigarh: Observing the decline in the Covid-19 case in the region, the Punjab High Court and Haryana on Friday closed the petition where he had passed several directions to the state and central government to manage pandemics.
“Recognized, the second wave in this region has now declined substantially and shows a downward trend.
So, thus, wants to give silence for this case,” observes the division bench consisting of justice of Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh.
The bench, however, has been occupied to record his appreciation for senior advocates of Khosla Rupinder, who examined various problems and helped the court as Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta which had appeared in related matters.
In March, HC has recognized the problems regarding the facilities and infrastructure available in the state of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh to overcome the Covid-19 pandemic.
On March 25, HC has appointed senior advocate of Khosla Rupinder as Amicus Curiae to help the court.
Since then, various directions are given by HC from time to time because the situation is requested and according to the help / suggestions provided by Amicus Curiae and other lawyers.
“We are happy to note that the instructions are carried out and according to Khosla, learning Amicus Curiae, the population of countries under the jurisdiction of this court gets relief,” observes the bench while closing the petition.
During the hearing of the case, the bench also refused to give any order in the application where HC lawyers looked for instructions on similar problems.
HC, however, rejected his request but he insisted on hearing his request.
In this case, HC, on the previous hearing date, has requested General Advocates (AG) Haryana to notify the court about the Introduction of the Petitioner’s lawyer.
When this problem appeared to hear on Thursday, Haryana AG B R Mahajan told the court that the applicant had never supported every social cause and on the other hand, he was a “habitigand”.
HC was also told that in a case, while ignoring his LPA, the HC division bench had imposed Rs 50,000 fees to him.
“However, as we have given the main case, we do not want to provide further orders in the application,” observing HC.