CHIRAG CHANANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General representing the State has placed before us a "Brief Note" and has referred to its contents in some details.

(2.) Having read the brief note, we find that the State is still in the process of exploring a workable solution applicable to employees/staff of all sectors. What has, however, emerged from such brief note is that staggering of office timings could be a viable solution for spreading the passengers, desirous of availing local train services, evenly across the day and thereby enabling all concerned to maintain social distancing as well as to avoid overcrowding in the trains.

(3.) Mr.Kumbhakoni has sought for more time on the ground that the Hon'ble Ministers could not be involved in the process, as desired by this Court earlier, and also because all stake holders could not be brought together for deliberations. He has also informed us that the State would like to obtain from the members of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa the approximate number of lawyers willing to avail the local train services for assessment of demand which would, in turn, enable the State to take an appropriate decision.