HC tells MC to file affidavit in 15 days

Tribune News Service

Ludhiana, July 20

During a recent hearing of the contempt of court petition (No. 27 of 2013), the Punjab and Haryana High Court asked the Municipal Corporation authorities to file an affidavit (with details of the action taken report, how many encroachments are yet to be removed and the reason for the delay in action) within 15 days. If the authorities fail to do so, the MC Commissioner will need to personally appear before the court on the next hearing on August 3. The last hearing of the case was on July 17.

Sources in the Municipal Corporation said the officials, especially those in the building branch, were on toes to prepare an affidavit as per the expectations of the court. “During the recent hearing, the petitioner brought it to the notice of the court that the MC swings into action only when the date of hearing in the case approaches. In the past one year, just three demolition drives were conducted (September 2014, January 2015 and June-July 2015) by the department. Still, there are many encroachments and action against these is required, said the petitioner. Now, an affidavit is being prepared, which will be submitted to the court well on time or else the MC Commissioner will have to appear before the court on August 3,” said the official.

A civil writ petition was filed in the High Court by an RTI activist in 2003. The court had issued orders to take action against encroachments. When the authorities failed to take action as per the court’s directions, a contempt of court petition was filed in 2009, which was decided in 2012. Still, the authorities failed to adhere to the court’s directions. Finally, another petition (No. 27) was filed in 2013, hearings on which are going on.

The MC authorities maintained that there were 822 “clear-cut” encroachments in different areas, which need to be removed. Apart from that, there were 400 cases which were sub judice. Apart from that there were 1945 encroachments, about which a file was sent to the state government for consideration but the government, too, “rejected” the cases on the pretext that amendments to the town planning scheme cannot be made.