HC to examine if Patiala DC committed contempt

CHANDIGARH: Less than a fortnight after the Punjab and Haryana High Court was told about the nonfeasibility of implementing a judicial order following the enforcement of the model code of conduct in Punjab the Election Commission EC of India has put the onus on the Patiala Deputy Commissioner in an encroachment case

Updated At : 06:46 AM Feb 16, 2017 IST

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 15

Less than a fortnight after the Punjab and Haryana High Court was told about the non-feasibility of implementing a judicial order following the enforcement of the model code of conduct in Punjab, the Election Commission (EC) of India has put the onus on the Patiala Deputy Commissioner in an encroachment case.

The court was told on the EC’s behalf that there was no hitch in implementing the court order despite the code.

In his affidavit, the DC had earlier referred to the EC instructions for temporary suspension of demolition/eviction till the completion of the Assembly elections, resulting in non-implementation of the court order in the case.

Appearing before the Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta, Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) of India Chetan Mittal said orders passed by the writ courts had to be complied with despite the model code. Mittal added that the EC’s permission was not required.

Justice Gupta held: “It needs to be examined whether by taking a stand in an affidavit dated February 1, the authority concerned has committed contempt of court.”

The developments took place during the hearing of a contempt petition filed by Rajinder Singh and others, alleging encroachments in Rohar Jagir village of Patiala district.

The court was told that the petition was disposed of with a direction to the DC and other officers to ascertain the facts before taking remedial measures within four months. The directions, however, were never complied with. The state told the court that it may not be possible to implement the writ court order in view of the model code.

The state counsel added that a reference was made to the state Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) for advice. Justice Gupta said: “This raises a larger question about the powers of the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the validity of instructions issued by the Election Commission, as also the action of the government which, instead of implementing the order passed by this court, has referred the matter to the CEO…”