NT NETWORK

Panaji

The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Monday observed that some lessons will have to be necessarily learned from the experience of the disastrous consequences of the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic, as during the interval between the first and second waves, the state of Goa was brimming with tourists and others who were granted entry without any restrictions.

Hearing petitions related to the COVID management in the state, the High Court’s division bench comprising Justice M S Sonak and Justice M S Jawalkar said, “We feel that the expert committee should invariably meet and deliberate on this vital issue and offer its opinion or recommendations in writing to the state taskforce and the authorities under the Disaster Management Act. These authorities, or for the matter the district magistrates, must take into account such opinions and recommendations before they take any decisions on such vital issues concerning the curtailment of curfew, unlocking procedures, etc.”

Some of the petitioners had raised the issue of imposition of lockdown and curfew, or unlocking procedures.

The High Court observed that the state administration, guided by its expert committee, will have to

anticipate the oxygen requirement and other difficulties in the supply chain, at this stage itself and, thereafter, take steps to ensure to the utmost extent possible, that there is no repetition of what happened in May 2021.

Some of the petitioners had pointed to vaccination to prevent the spread of the COVID pandemic.

The state authorities have filed reports, explaining the position of vaccination in Goa.

The Advocate General assured the High Court that vaccination drives are on, and it is expected that most of the population in the state will be vaccinated within the next two-three months.

He submitted that the state authorities are making all-out efforts to ensure that most of the population is vaccinated as early as possible.

The HC accepted this statement and directed the state authorities to act accordingly.

The issue of door-to-door vaccination for persons with disabilities or senior citizens, who are unable to access the vaccination centres, will be considered separately.

The Advocate General assured the court that state will see how this issue can be addressed; a suitable response will be filed on this issue before July 12, 2021.

The High Court directed the expert committee to also go into the issue as to whether the persons tested negative based on the rapid antigen test or RAT can be permitted to enter into Goa, or whether only the persons tested negative by undergoing the RT-PCR, or TrueNat, or CBNAAT tests, should be permitted to enter into the state.

“The state authorities to place before the expert committee the statistics which are to be found in the affidavits filed in these petitions where the emphasis is only on the adoption of RT-PCR or TrueNat, or CBNAAT tests as a precondition for entry into the state of Goa. The expert committee to take appropriate decisions on this issue and forward its observations and recommendations to the state taskforce. The state taskforce to then take appropriate decisions on this issue based upon the observations and recommendations of the expert committee. This exercise to be completed before the next date which shall be July 12, 2021 and necessary compliances filed before this court,” the High Court ordered.

The HC also observed that it will not be appropriate to consider the issue of setting up a judicial commission to inquire into the deaths at the Goa Medical College in May 2021 or the issue of payment of compensation in these petitions.

The High Court said, “This is because there are no proper pleadings in any of the petitions on this issue. By merely filing some miscellaneous application, which is also quite vague, the petitioners cannot seek such a relief. There are no particulars as to whether any of the victims have authorised any of the petitioners to raise such a claim. In the state of such pleadings, we refrain from going into the issue of either appointment of a judicial commission, or the issue of payment of compensation.”