High Court directs GMADA, others not to set up unauthorised colony

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 16

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the GMADA Chief Administrator, Mohali Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police to prevent the setting up of an unauthorised and illegal colony in the district.

The direction by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudip Ahluwalia came on a petition by Jaideep Singh through senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram and Arjun Pratap Atma Ram. Taking up the matter, the Bench directed the officers “to ensure that no unauthorised and illegal colony is permitted to be set up in the revenue estate of Seonkh village in Majri tehsil of Mohali district”.

The Bench also issued a notice of motion for March 1, while calling for status report in the matter. The direction comes at a time when the election code was being cited as a reason for not acting.

Assistant Solicitor General of India Chetan Mittal has already referred to the model code issued by the ECI to say before another Bench in another case that orders passed by writ courts have to be complied with despite the election code promulgated in Punjab. Mittal had added ECI’s permission was not required.

The assertion came in a case where the Patiala Deputy Commissioner referred to the ECI instructions, according to which the commission had directed temporary suspension of demolition/eviction till the completion of the general elections, resulting in non-implementation of the High Court orders in an encroachment case.

The developments had taken place during the hearing of a contempt petition by Rajinder Singh and other petitioners alleging encroachments on a substantial part of land in Rohar Jagir village.

The Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta was told that the petition was disposed of with a direction to the Patiala Deputy Commissioner and other officers to ascertain the facts before taking necessary remedial measures within four months. The directions, however, were never complied with.

Responding to the High Court notice, the state told the Court that it may not be possible to implement the writ court orders in view of the election code. The Patiala Deputy Commissioner had, in fact, referred to EC instructions on temporarily suspension of the demolition/eviction drives in his affidavit placed before Justice Gupta’s Bench.

The State counsel had added a reference was made to the Chief Electoral Officer for advice in view of the EC decision.

Justice Gupta had then asserted: “This raises a larger question about the powers of the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the validity of instructions issued by the Election Commission as also action of the Government, which instead of implementing the order passed by this court, has referred the matter to the Chief Electoral Officer for advice and; whether the order passed by the writ court would prevail over the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India as well as decision of the Government to await orders from the Commission before implementing orders of the writ court.”