Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (IPL) seeking disbanding of district disaster management committee and crisis management groups saying that the petition appears to have been filed only to gain publicity.
The petition was filed by Indore-1 MLA Sanjay Shukla, city Congress president Vinay Bakliwal and Congress leader Fozia Sheikh claiming that the disaster management committee and crisis management groups have on board inexperienced people while some of them have criminal background. The trio had demand disbanding of the committee/groups and constitution of other committee/groups in accordance of rules.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla stated that the petition is bereft of any details or particulars. “No such person, who is lacking in experience or is having criminal background has been named anywhere in the writ petition. The petition appears to have been filed only to gain publicity. We do not find any bona fide in the writ petition,” the judgement reads.
The state government on May 10 had directed for constitution of ward-wise crisis management groups. Its responsibility was entrusted to a nodal officer who was required to constitute such groups in all the 85 municipal wards of the city comprising area public representatives, social workers, representatives of NGOs and women self-help groups.
When crisis management groups were formed, the petition was filed in the court claiming many of the groups’ members lack experience while some of them have criminal background.
“The court noted that no inexperienced person or people with criminal background was named in the petition. The court did not find any bona fide in the writ petition,” said, additional advocate general Pushymitra Bhargava.
The court said, “If the state government has constituted ward-wise groups for monitoring the situation of coronavirus, there is no reason why it will not exclude any person with criminal background. It is not for the High Court to interfere in the matter.”