Spread Of Vector Borne Diseases: Delhi High Court Calls For Stakeholder Meeting To Evolve Common Prevention Protocol
The Delhi High Court on Friday called for a meeting of all the stakeholders and departments concerned in order to evolve and finalize a common protocol for controlling the spread of vector borne diseases in the city. The Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh added that responsible officers of the said departments will also be present in the meeting in order to discuss the...
The Delhi High Court on Friday called for a meeting of all the stakeholders and departments concerned in order to evolve and finalize a common protocol for controlling the spread of vector borne diseases in the city.
The Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh added that responsible officers of the said departments will also be present in the meeting in order to discuss the common protocol.
The bench had taken suo moto cognizance of the menace of mosquito infestation in the city, resulting in vector borne diseases such as Malaria, Chikungunya and Dengue every year. It had then directed all the city local bodies, including the three municipal corporations and Delhi Cantonment Board, to constitute their task forces and monitor and control the situation.
Earlier, the Court had asked the municipal corporations and local bodies to examine and identify steps for incorporating a 'common protocol' to be followed by all the authorities in this regard.
Accordingly, a common status report cum compliance affidavit was filed in the Court by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, the the nodal corporation in the matter.
During the course of hearing, Advocate Divya Prakash Pande appearing for the NDMC submitted that apart from the local bodies and departments participating in the meeting, the role of several other bodies in the city was also discussed.
He added that accordingly, a protocol was evolved wherein the duties and responsibilities were assigned to various organizations, including those who were not present in the meeting.
On the other hand, Advocate Satyakam submitted that the Public Works Department (PWD) and the irrigation department of Delhi Government have also been assigned certain roles to be played in the drafted protocol, although the said departments were not present in the meeting.
He further pointed out that the National Vector Borne disease control programme which comes under the Director General of Health Services of the Central Government would also have a role to play in providing guidance.
"Keeping in view the aforesaid, it would be advisable that another meeting is called by the nodal officer with participation of all departments and agencies to whom roles have been or maybe assigned in the mater of control of vector borne diseases in the NCT of Delhi," the Court directed.
It added "The nodal officer shall issue notices to all such departments and they are directed to respond to the notices and ensure that their responsible officers from concerned department are present in the meeting to discuss the common protocol to be evolved and finalized."
The Court also took note of the fact that the draft protocol also enlisted the role of the irrigation department of the State of Uttar Pradesh which was adjoining several areas of the city, which were the hotspots where mosquito breeding was taking place.
"We direct the irrigation department of the State of UP to ensure that a senior responsible representative of the said department also attends the meeting," the Court added.
"Once the meeting is held, let the draft protocol which has been finalized be placed on record before the next date," the Court said while posting the matter for further hearing on February 25.
Earlier, the Court had appointed Advocate Rajat Aneja as amicus curiae for assisting it in the matter.
It had also expressed displeasure on the failure of municipal corporations to control the surge of vector borne diseases like Dengue, malaria and Chikungunya in the national capital, observing that it's earlier directions to control the same had fallen on deaf ears.
Case Title: Court in its own motion v. State