'Policy Decision': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea For Distributing Pongal Gift Hampers To Sri Lankan Refugees Outside Camps

Update: 2022-01-31 10:19 GMT
story

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Retd. Professor Ramu Manivannan seeking directions to the government of Tamil Nadu to extend the Pongal gift hampers to the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees residing outside the rehabilitation camps.The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that those staying outside the camps without ration...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Retd. Professor Ramu Manivannan seeking directions to the government of Tamil Nadu to extend the Pongal gift hampers to the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees residing outside the rehabilitation camps.

The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that those staying outside the camps without ration cards won't be entitled to the benefits sought and there is no illegality in the policy decision of the government.

Opposing the public interest litigation filed by the former Madras University Professor, the Government Pleader argued that the refugees outside do not possess ration cards.

He also added that most of them have been doing business and other jobs outside the camps. According to the Tamil Nadu Pongal Scheme, 2022, those refusing to stay in the rehabilitation camps are not extended the benefit of gift hampers, he iterated.

About the decision to extend the benefits to all, including those staying outside the camps, during Covid-19 second wave, the Government Pleader argued that the second wave had a detrimental effect and many businesses were in turmoil during that time. Now, the government has taken a decision to exclude and not extend the scheme's benefit to those staying outside.

The High Court agreed with the contentions raised by the state and noted that the situation during the second wave was different since businesses/ jobs were severely affected then, which is not comparable to the present scenario.

Therefore, the court refused to entertain the petitioner's plea and dismissed it terming the state govt's decision as a matter of policy.

Case Title: Dr. Ramu Manivannan v. The Chief Secretary & Others (PIL)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 39

Case No: WP/1492/2022

Tags:    

Similar News