GAJENDRA SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 835, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Holding
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
835
GAJENDRA SHARMA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 825 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 27, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Disaster Management Act, 2005: Covid-19 relief – Petitioner
had availed home loan of Rs.37.48 lakhs from ICICI Bank –
Aggrieved by Notification dated 27.03.2020 issued by Reserve Bank
of India, petitioner filed writ petition for declaring said Notification
as ultra vires to the extent it charged interest on loan amount during
moratorium period – In writ petition, affidavits were filed on behalf
of the Union of India which reflected that Central Government was
fully conscious of the difficulties faced by various sectors and the
stakeholders of the different sectors and different measures were
also taken by the Ministry of Finance – One such measure was
Order dated 23.10.2020 issued by the Ministry of Finance with
regard to Covid-19 relief – The object of the said scheme was to
provide ex-gratia payment of difference between compound interest
and simple interest by ways of relief for the period from 1st March
2020 to 31st August 2020 to borrowers in specified loan accounts
– The case of the petitioner, who had taken housing loan was fully
covered by Order dated 23.10.2020 since the benefit was available
to the housing loan upto Rs.2 Crores – Petitioner expressed his
satisfaction on the measures taken by the Central Government – In
view thereof, writ petition disposed of.
Disposing of the Writ Petition, the
Court
HELD: 1. The pandemic COVID-19 has not only caused
serious threat to the health of the people but has also cast its
shadow on the economic growth of the country as well as other
countries in the entire world. Due to lockdown imposed by the
Government of India, most of the businesses including private
sector as well as public sector has been adversely affected. For
several months, large number of industries were not allowed to
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 835
835
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
function and exemptions were granted only to few of the industries
to run and carry on its activities, which were found essential and
necessary in the fact situation. Although, gradually, due to Unlock-
1, 2 and 3, the industries and other business activities have been
restored and the economy of the country is on track although at
a slow pace. The moratorium period as granted by the Reserve
Bank of India by orders dated 27.03.2020 and 23.05.2020 have
continued from 01.03.2020 to 31.08.2020, i.e., for the period 16
of six months. As reflected by the affidavits filed on behalf of the
Union of India, Central Government was fully conscious of the
difficulties faced by various sectors and different measures by
Finance Ministry have been taken. [Para 9][842-C-F]
2. The case of the petitioner, who has taken housing loan is
fully covered by the decisions of the Union of India, since the
benefit has been extended to the housing loan upto Rs.2 Crores,
i.e., in pursuance of the decisions of the Government of India,
the Ministry of Finance had issued order dated 23.10.2020 –
Operational Guidelines with regard to COVID-19 Reliefs.The
Union of India having taken specific measures by its circular dated
23.10.2020, and follow-up measures have also been taken in
consequence thereof, the respondents are directed to ensure
that all steps be taken to implement the decision dated 23.10.2020
so that benefit as contemplated by the
Government of India
percolates to those for whom the financial benefits have been
envisaged and extended. [Paras 11, 14][844-C-D; 846-G-H;
847-A]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
825 of 2020
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Tushar Mehta, SG, N. Venkatraman, ASG, Rajiv Dutta, V. Giri,
Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Advs., Kumar Dushyant
Singh, Siddharth Dutta, Devesh Chauvia, Rahul Sharma, Utsav Trivedi,
Chirag Shah, Abhinay, Ms. Pragya Wal, Himanshu Sachdeva, Ms. Srishti
Kumar, Ashok Panigrahi, Rajat Nair, Kanu Agrawal, Ms. Sansriti Pathak,
B.V. Balram Das, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ramesh Babu M. R., Ms. Manisha
Singh, Ms. Nisha Sharma, Sanjay Kapur, V.M. kannan, Ms. Megha
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
Karnwal, Sambit Panja, Nishi Chaudhary, Manjeet Kirpal, Yashartha,
Arnav Narain, Vinayak Bhandari, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms. Roohe Hina
Dua, Cheitanya Madan, Mahesh Agarwal, Vijayesh Atre, Ankur Saigal,
Rohan Sharma, E.C. Agrawala, K. Rajeev, Shinoj K. Narayanan, Bijo
Mathew Joy, Biswajit Das, Abhigya, Ms. Anamika Sharma, Ms. Sunita
Yadav, Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Ms.
Anamika Kushwaha, Ms. Nandita Rao, Mrs. Mahija Reddy, K.N.
Agnihotri, Virender Arora, Siddharth Jain, Akarsh Garg, T.N. Durga
Prasad, Anoop Kumar, Bhanu Pant, Ms. Swati Setia, Raghwendra Tiwari,
Ms. Amrita Kumari, Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Ravi Mishra, Ajay Kumar, Pankaj
Garg, Milind Garg, Ms. Nikita Jain Garg, Yaksh Garg, Suvidut M.S.,
Mrs. Anu B., Vibhor Ahlawat, Yogesh Kumar, Abhijeet Singh, Kunal
Cheema, Jeetendra Ranaawat, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Ms. Aagam Kaur,
Ajinkya Shinde, Ms. Aadya Yadav, Gaurav Goel, Rajesh Kumar, Rishi
Matoliya, Alok Chaturvedi, Ms. Sumati Sharma, Mukul Lather, Ms. Pooja
Singh, Ashutosh Thakur, Abhishek Pandey, Neeraj Shekhar, Vishal
Meghwal, Dr. Charu Mathur, Kush Chaturvedi, Aditya Shekhar, Ms.
Priyashree Sharma, Pranav Diesh, Baibhaw Gahlaut, Kumar Dushyant
Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution,
the petitioner has prayed for directions declaring the notification dated
27.03.2020 issued by Reserve Bank of India as
ultra vires to the extent
it charges interest on the loan amount during the moratorium period.
2. The petitioner’s case and the pleadings in the writ petition briefly
noted are:-
2.1 The petitioner has availed a home loan of amount of
Rs.37,48,000/- from the ICICI Bank. After declaration of Coronavirus
(COVID-19) as a pandemic by World Health Organisation, the National
Disaster Management Authority exercising the jurisdiction under Section
6 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to take effective measures to
prevent the spread of COVID-19 across the country and for mitigation
of the threatening disastrous situation has issued notification dated
27.03.2020 directing the Ministry, Departments of Government of India,
State Governments and the State authorities to take measures for ensuring
social distancing so as to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the country.
Necessary guidelines were also issued under Section 10(2)(1) by the
GAJENDRA SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
National Executive Committee.
2.2 The Reserve Bank of India on 27.03.2020 issued Statement
of Development and Regulatory Policies where inter alia certain regulatory
measures were announced to mitigate the burden of debt servicing brought
about by disruptions on account of COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure
the continuity of viable businesses. The notification dated 27.03.2020
was issued by the Reserve Bank of India for rescheduling of payments
– Term Loans and Working Capital Facilities. Relevant part of the
notification relevant for the present case is as follows:-
“(i) Rescheduling of Payments – Term Loans and Working
Capital Facilities
2. In respect of all term loans (including agricultural term loans,
retail and crop loans), all commercial banks (including regional
rural banks, small finance banks and local area banks), co-
operative banks, all- India Financial Institutions, and NBFCs
(including housing finance companies) (“lending institutions”) are
permitted to grant a moratorium of three months on payment of
all instalments falling due between March 1, 2020 and May 31,
2020. The repayment schedule for such loans as also the residual
tenor, will be shifted across the board by three months after the
moratorium period. Interest shall continue to accrue on the
outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium
period.”
2.3 The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that when all the
means of livelihood
have been curtailed by the Government of India by
imposition of complete lockdown pan India, due to worldwide spread of
COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner has no way to continue to his work
and earn livelihood. The petitioner’s case is that imposition of interest
during the moratorium period is ultra vires and shall defeat the purpose
of permitting the moratorium of loans.
2.3 Referring to notification dated 27.03.2020, petitioner pleads
that Reserve Bank of India has by the notification made it clear that
interest shall continue to accrue on the outstanding portion of the term
loans during the moratorium period. Petitioner’s case is that the above
action of imposition of interest during the moratorium period is completely
devastating and causes hindrance and obstruction in right to life
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Petitioner’s case is that the
additional interest burden for three months’ moratorium period is also
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
839
equally divided in all future EMIs, which is to increase the monthly bill of
the customer.
 2.5 The petitioner’s case is that the notification qua payment of
interest violates the principle of natural justice as the Government on
one hand ceased the working of the individuals and on other hand asking
to pay the loan interest during moratorium. The petitioner’s case is that
although the initial lockdown was for a period of three weeks but it was
extended further. The Reserve Bank of India by a subsequent notification
dated 23.05.2020 due to the extension of the lockdown and due to
disruption on account of COVID-19 has directed all commercial banks
to extend the moratorium by another three months, i.e., from 01.06.2020
to 31.08.2020 on payment of all installments in respect of term loans.
The notification dated 23.05.2020 directed for repayment schedule for
term loans as also the residual tenor will be shifted across the board.
Notification further stated that “interest shall continue to accrue on the
outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium period”.
2.6 The petitioner in the writ petition has prayed for following
reliefs:-
a)
Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or Direction
declaring the portion of impugned Notification dated
27.03.2020 issued by Respondent No.2 as ultra vires to the
extent it charges interest on the loan amount during the
moratorium period, which create
hardship to the Petitioner
being borrower and creates hindrance and obstruction in
“right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of
India; and
b)
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus
thereby directing the Respondents to provide relief in
repayment of loan by not charging interest during the
moratorium period declared by Notification dated 27.03.2020;
and/or
 c)
Pass any other order or orders which may be deemed fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the interest of justice.”
2.7 Notices were issued in the writ petition. While hearing the
matter on 17.06.2020 the submission of the learned counsel for the
GAJENDRA SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
petitioner have been noted to the following effect:-
“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s).
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that under
the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the Central Government has
ample power and jurisdiction to grant relief with regard to loan
which is specifically provided for. It is submitted that the circular
of the Reserve Bank of India dated 27.03.2020 although grant
moratorium but substantially no relief is given to the borrowers.
The two-fold submissions have been made by learned counsel for
the petitioner(s). It is submitted that if moratorium is being granted
for a period of three months, the entire amount payable including
principal and interest should not be charged during moratorium 3
period. Secondly, at least the demand of interest on interest should
not be made and these reliefs can be extended by the Central
Government and the Reserve Bank of India.”
2.8 In the writ petition, affidavits have been filed both by the Union
of India as well as the Reserve Bank of India. In the affidavits filed on
behalf of the Union of India, it was pleaded that the Central Government
is fully conscious of the difficulties faced by the various sectors and the
stakeholders of various sectors within the purview of the Ministry of
Finance and other Ministries. It is further pleaded that Finance Ministry,
after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic globally, has taken several
measures of relief dealing with the potential problems faced by several
sectors and in several spheres of all financial worlds. In the affidavit
filed dated 31.08.2020, details of number of measures to mitigate financial
suffering have been enumerated. It has been further pleaded that Finance
Ministry took the initiative and interacted with Reserve Bank of India
requesting the Reserve Bank of India to provide for various measures
of relief to the borrowers. The affidavit also enumerates different reliefs
and measures taken by Reserve Bank of India with regard to moratorium.
Reference has been made to two circulars dated 06.08.2020 issued by
Reserve Bank of India facilitating revival of real sector activities and
mitigating the impact on the ultimate borrowers by enabling lenders to
grant concessions to borrowers for COVID- 19 related stress in personal,
MSME and corporate loans. The Union of India has filed further affidavits
dated 09.10.2020, 23.10.2020 and 17.11.2020.
 2.9 The Reserve Bank of India has also filed a counter affidavit,
a consolidated counter affidavit dated 09.10.2020, additional affidavit
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
dated 09.10.2020 and further additional affidavit dated 01.11.2020. Indian
Bank Association has also filed affidavits bringing on record various
circulars issued by Reserve Bank of India, State Bank of India etc.
3. We have heard Shri Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, Shri V. Giri,
learned senior counsel and Shri Ramesh Babu M.R., learned counsel
appearing for the Reserve Bank of India and some of the counsels, who
had appeared for intervenors.
4. Hearing of this writ petition took place alongwith other writ
petitions on different dates. When the matter was heard on 19.11.2020,
learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Rajiv Dutta submitted
that in view of the affidavits, which have been filed in the present writ
petition by the respondent No.1, this writ petition be disposed of. We,
thus, proceed to decide the Writ Petition (C) No. 825 of 2020.
5. In course of hearing of these petitions, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner, Shri Rajiv Duta has expressed satisfaction on the
measures taken by the Government of India with respect to borrowers
in which category the petitioner belongs. Learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the decision of the Central Government to forego
interest on eight specified categories of loans paid upto Rs.2 Crores has
come as a great relief.
6. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General submits that the
Central Government is fully
conscious of the difficulties faced by the
various sectors and the stakeholders of various sectors and the Finance
Ministry, after the outbreak of COVID-19, has taken several measures
of reliefs dealing with the potential problems faced by several sectors
and in several spheres of all financial worlds. Shri Mehta has referred to
number of measures taken by the Central Government to mitigate the
financial suffering as detailed in its affidavits as noted above. In its
affidavit dated 23.10.2020, it is stated that the decision taken by the
Central Government for granting various reliefs for the COVID-19
pandemic for benefit of waiver of interest upto Rs.2 Crores in eight
categories has been approved by the Union Cabinet in its meeting dated
21.10.2020 and Ministry of Finance has issued directions dated 23.10.2020
on the subject, which has been brought on record alongwith the affidavit.
Shri Mehta submits that in pursuance of circular dated 23.10.2020, as a
follow-up towards the implementation of the aforesaid decision, the State
Bank of India has informed that as on 13.11.2020, as per provisional,
GAJENDRA SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
unaudited information received so far from various lending institutions,
such lending institutions have released ex-gratia amount of an aggregate
exceeding Rs.4,300 Crores in over 13.12 Crore accounts of borrowers
covered under the Scheme.
7. Shri Giri also submits that Reserve Bank of India has also taken
follow-up action in pursuance of the policy decision taken by the Finance
Ministry. He submits that the Reserve Bank of India has issued Circular
dated 26.10.2020 to all commercial banks, all primary co-operative banks
and all All India Financial Institutions and all non-banking financial
companies and were advised to be guided by the Scheme announced by
the Government of India dated 23.10.2020.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the records.
9. The pandemic COVID-19 has not only caused serious threat
to the health of the people but has also cast its shadow on the economic
growth of the country as well as other countries in the entire world. Due
to lockdown imposed by the Government of India in exercise of powers
under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, there can be no denial that
most of the businesses including private sector as well as public sector
has been adversely affected. For several months, large number of
industries were not allowed to function and exemptions were granted
only to few of the industries to run and carry on its activities, which
were found essential and necessary in the fact situation. Although,
gradually, due to Unlock- 1, 2 and 3, the industries and other business
activities have been restored and the economy of the country is on track
although at a slow pace. The moratorium period as granted by the Reserve
Bank of India vide orders dated 27.03.2020 and 23.05.2020 have
continued from 01.03.2020 to 31.08.2020, i.e., for the period of six months.
As submitted by the learned Solicitor General and reflected by the
affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India, it is clear that Central
Government was fully conscious of the difficulties faced by the various
sectors and the stakeholders of various sectors and different measures
by Finance Ministry have been taken in the above reference, which has
been detailed in the affidavits dated 31.08.2020, 09.10.2020 and
23.10.2020.
10. For the purposes of the present case, it is relevant to notice
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit dated 23.10.2020 filed on behalf of
the Union of India in which following has been stated:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
“3. I state and submit that as submitted in the previous affidavits,
the Central Government took many Policy decisions for granting
various reliefs for the Covid pandemic which is a 'disaster' within
the meaning of the Disaster Management Act, including a policy
decision whereby the following borrowers were declared eligible
for the benefit of waiver of 'interest on interest':
(i)
MSME loans up to Rs. 2 crore
(ii)
Education loans up to Rs. 2 crore
(iii)
Housing loans up to Rs. 2 crore
(iv)
Consumer durable loans up to Rs. 2 crore
(v)
Credit card dues up to Rs. 2 crore
(vi)
Automobile loans up to Rs. 2 crore
(vii)
Personal loans to professionals up to Rs. 2 crore
(viii)
Consumption loans up to Rs. 2 crore
It is submitted that the preparation of the Scheme in this behalf
was under contemplation and it was also necessary to formalise
the said policy decision by following certain mandatory procedure
required by law.
4. I state and submit that the aforesaid decision taken by the
Ministry of Finance Government of India, has been approved by
the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 21.10.2020. Pursuant to
approval by the Union Cabinet, the Ministry of Finance has issued
Scheme providing for, broadly, the following mechanism,
(a) The eligible borrowers mentioned in the previous Affidavit
[and described in detail in clause 4 of the Scheme annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure R-1] will be "eligible
beneficiaries" under the Scheme.
Under the Scheme, all lending
institutions [as defined under
clause 3 of the Scheme] shall credit the difference between
compound interest and simple interest in the respective
accounts of eligible borrowers for the period between 1.3.2020
to 31.8.2020.
This amount shall be credited by each of the lending
institutions referred to in clause 3 of the Scheme, irrespective
GAJENDRA SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
of whether such eligible borrowers have fully availed or
partially availed or have not availed of the moratorium viz.
deferment in payment of instalments as per the Circulars
dated 27.3.2020 and 23.5.2020 issued by RBI.
(b) After crediting the said amount in the respective accounts of
eligible borrowers, the lending institutions would claim
reimbursement from the Central Government through the
nodal agency of State Bank of India as stipulated under the
Scheme.
It is submitted that the aforesaid decision is taken after careful
consideration, keeping in mind the overall economic scenario,
the nature of borrowers, impact on the economy and such
other factors as a policy decision earmarking the above
referred class of borrowers for grant of benefits.”
11. The case of the present petitioner, who has taken housing loan
is fully covered by the decisions of the Union of India as noted above,
since the benefit has been extended to the housing loan upto Rs.2 Crores,
i.e., in pursuance of the aforesaid decisions of the Government of India,
the Ministry of Finance had issued order dated 23.10.2020 – Operational
Guidelines with regard to COVID-19 Reliefs, details of order dated
23.10.2020 contains a heading “COVID-19 Relief”, relevant portion of
the Scheme is to the following effect:-
“COVID-19 Relief
Scheme for grant of ex-gratia payment of difference between
compound interest and simple interest for six months to
borrowers in
specified loan accounts (1.3.2020 to
31.8.2020)
Operational Guidelines
1. Name of the scheme
This scheme shall be called "Scheme for grant of ex-gratia payment
of difference between compound interest and simple interest for
six months to borrowers in specified loan accounts (1.3.2020 to
31.8.2020)".
2. Object of the scheme
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
845
In view of the unprecedented and extreme COVID-19 situation,
the object of the Scheme is to provide ex-gratia payment of
difference between compound interest and simple interest by ways
of relief for the period from 1st March 2020 to 31st August 2020
to borrowers in specified loan accounts. Such payment does not
constitute a contractual, legal or equitable liability of the Central
Government and is only an ex-gratia payment to the following
designated class of borrowers in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Applicability of the scheme
This scheme shall apply to all lending institutions, which must be
either a banking company, or a Public Sector Bank, or a Co-
operative Bank [i.e., an Urban Co- operative Bank or a State Co-
operative Bank or a District Central Co-operative Bank], or a
Regional Rural Bank, or an All India Financial Institution, or a
Non- Banking Financial Company or a Housing Finance Company
registered with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) or National Housing
Bank as the case may be. A Non-Banking Financial Company—
Micro Finance Institution should be a member of a Self- Regulatory
Organisation (SRO) recognised by RBI.
4. Eligibility criteria under the scheme
(1) Borrowers in the following segments/classes of loans, who
have loan accounts having sanctioned limits and outstanding amount
of not exceeding Rs. 2 crores [aggregate of all facilities with lending
institutions] as on 29.2.2020, shall be eligible under the Scheme:
(i)
MSME loans
(ii)
Education loans
(iii) Housing loans
(iv) Consumer durable loans
(v)
Credit card dues
(vi) Automobile loans
(vii) Personal loans to professionals
(viii) Consumption loans
Any borrower whose aggregate of all facilities with lending
GAJENDRA SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
institutions is more than Rs. 2 crores (sanctioned limits or
outstanding amount) will not be eligible for ex-gratia payment under
this scheme.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
12. The decision of the Government of India dated 23.10.2020
has also been communicated to all the banks and other financial institutions.
The Reserve Bank of India has also issued necessary instructions in the
above regard. In the affidavit filed on 17.11.2020 on behalf of the Union
of India, in paragraphs 3 and 4 following has been stated:-
“3. It is submitted that as a follow-up towards the implementation
of the aforesaid Scheme, the nodal agency, i.e. State Bank of
India, has informed that as on 13.11.2020, as per provisional,
unaudited information received so far from various lending
institutions, such lending institutions have released ex-gratia amount
of an aggregate exceeding Rs. 4,300 crore in over 13.12 crore
accounts of borrowers covered under the said Scheme. The data
received is subject to final reconciliation and audit. Information
from some remaining lenders are still being received.
4. It is further submitted that various lending institutions have put
in place Board-approved policies for restructuring of accounts as
per RBI circular dated 6.08.2020. Restructuring/resolution of
eligible accounts are being undertaken by lending institutions on
case-by-case basis. Resolution plans in respect of eligible personal,
MSME and corporate loans are to be
invoked by 31.12.2020, and
time is still available to the account holders for such invocation.”
13. Learned Solicitor General referring to above measures taken
by the Union of India submits that above measures have been taken by
the Government of India in exercise of jurisdiction under the Disaster
Management Act, 2005 to mitigate the hardships and miseries of few
sectors. Shri Mehta submits that with regard to other specified sectors,
different other measures have been taken, which we need not note for
the purposes of this case and which shall be separately considered while
considering writ petitions raising such issues.
14. As noted above, Shri Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner has expressed its satisfaction on the measures taken by
the Government of India redressing grievances of the petitioner to the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
847
Devika Gujral
      Writ Petition Disposed
extent as noted above. The Union of India having taken specific measures
vide its circular dated 23.10.2020, which has been brought on the record
and follow-up measures have also been taken in consequence thereof,
we dispose of the present writ petition with directions to the respondents
to ensure that all steps be taken to implement the decision dated
23.10.2020 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance so that benefit
as contemplated by the Government of India percolates to those for
whom the financial benefits have been envisaged and extended. All IAs,
impleadment applications stand disposed of.
GAJENDRA SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]