Locals demolish illegal properties in Bahraich
Credit: PTI Photo
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government on why it has not filed a detailed response till date despite clear directions in a case of issuing notices of demolition in Bahraich district.
A Lucknow bench expressed annoyance as to whether the spirit of the order could not be understood by the state authorities.
The bench was of the view that it had specifically asked Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Singh to obtain complete instructions in the matter regarding category and norms applicable about the road in question but the only objection was being raised about maintainability of the PIL yet again.
The bench, however, asked Singh to file the objection on maintainability of the PIL in the registry of the court, deferring the hearing till November 4.
A bench of justices AR Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a PIL filed by Association for Protection of Civil Rights.
Hearing the PIL on Sunday after constituting a special bench, the court had extended the time enabling the affected dwellers to file their response to notices within 15 days instead of three days as granted by the PWD.
This had thwarted the preparations of the district authorities for removing the alleged illegal constructions made by the dwellers who had been slapped short notice. In course of hearing on Wednesday, the state counsel sought to file objection against maintainability of the PIL.
At this, the bench reacted strongly as to whether the spirit of the previous order passed on Sunday was not understood by the state authorities.
In the previous order, the bench had asked the chief standing counsel to complete his instructions regarding category and norms applicable on the road in question. The bench had stressed that besides maintainability, it would consider all aspects of the matter.
Hearing the PIL on Sunday, the bench had said that the concerned persons may file their response to the notices within 15 days and also directed the state authorities to consider these replies and pass speaking and reasoned order on the reply.
Filing the PIL, it had been argued that the state has issued the demolition notice in illegal manner and its action to initiate demolition drive is in violation of the Supreme Court's recent directives, banning bulldozer action except in certain cases.
On behalf of the state government, the chief standing counsel had raised the objection about maintainability of the PIL and he yet again pointed out this on Wednesday as well.
Ram Gopal Mishra (22) of Rehua Mansoor village died of a gunshot wound he suffered on October 13 during a communal face-off in a village in Bahraich district over music being played during a procession.
Notices were served to 23 establishments, including 20 belonging to Muslims, in the area by the public works department (PWD).
The PWD had carried out inspections in the Maharajganj area last Friday and took measurements of 20-25 houses, including that of Abdul Hamid, one of the accused in Mishra's killing.
The notices were served under the Road Control Act, 1964.