| Violation of HC direction in PIL on gair mumkin khud | | I&FC XEn, others get contempt notice | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 6: A high court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat has issued a contempt notice against an I&FC (Irrigation and Flood Control) executive engineer (XEn) and four others, including his three subordinates, for violating court directions issued in a PIL on gair mumkin khud.
The contempt notice has been issued against I&FC XEn Nazir Choudhary, assistant executive engineer Fangu Bhagat, assistant engineer Laxman Singh, junior engineer Ghulam Rasool Malik and one Balbir Singh of Santokh Vihar, Kaluchak.
The bench has sought their objections within three weeks and directed to list the case on April 21 next.
The petitioners' counsel submitted that I&FC officers had violated the final judgment of the court and arbitrarily demolished the structure of the petitioner No 2 and the gate and pillar of petitioner No 1 despite the high court direction to maintain status quo vide its February 12, 2016 judgment passed in OWP (PIL) 19/2014.
It was submitted in the petition that Balbir Singh had filed a contempt petition, alleging violation of the interim order of July 10, 2014.
It was also submitted that the PIL pertaining to 'gair mumkin khud' lands had been disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to frame a water policy and till the time such policy was framed by the state government, the July 10, 2014 order and status-quo with respect to such khud lands would remain in force.
The counsel submitted that the XEn and his three subordinates were well aware of the said judgment as their chief engineer and department were a party to the PIL, but in sheer violation to the status quo order, they demolished the structure of shops and gate despite the fact that petitioner No 2 had also showed this order to the respondents.
It was alleged in the petition that respondent No 5 had committed contempt and perjury as he had not submitted that the main PIL No 19/2014 had been disposed of and there was a status quo order in the same and also that the March 2, 2016 order had been taken by him to the aforestated official respondents and in league with each other, the respondents had caused loss to the petitioners in sheer violation to the February 12, 2016 judgment for maintaining status quo.
He was alleged to have suppressed and concealed the order of status quo from the court, which amounted to misleading the court.
"Therefore, without verifying the facts, the offical respondents in a haste and in connivance with respondent No 5 have caused damages to the property of petitioners, which they claim to the tune of about Rs 5 lakh," he submitted, seeking a direction to respondents to pay to the petitioners for their alleged arbitrary and illegal action. (JNF) |
|
