HC summons top officials over Panchkula green belt contempt plea

The High Court here on Wednesday directed senior officers of the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) and the District Town Planner’s office to remain present before it in a contempt petition alleging violation of the directions concerning demolition of structures and removal of green belts in front of residential houses in Panchkula.

Justice Mandeep Pannu passed the directions while hearing a contempt petition and a related application filed by advocates Sandeep Kotla, Padam Kant Dwivedi and three others alleging violation of an order, dated September 21, 2023.

The court also allowed the application seeking impleadment of HSVP Chief Administrator Chander Shekhar Khare and Estate Officer Surinder Lather as respondents.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing, the petitioners contended that despite the pendency of the contempt petition and issuance of a notice of motion by the High Court, the proposed respondents were continuing with the process of issuing notices and taking steps for demolition and removal of green belts maintained in front of houses, allegedly in violation of directions issued by the court on September 21, 2023.

Justice Pannu observed, “Keeping in view the averments made in the application and for the just and effective adjudication of the present proceedings, the application is allowed. Dr Chander Shekhar Khare, Chief Administrator, HSVP and Surinder Lather, Estate Officer, are ordered to be impleaded as respondents in the present petition.”

The court also directed the issuance of a notice to newly added respondents for June 12. In its detailed order, the Bench took note of the allegations in the contempt petition that specific directions were issued by the High Court against demolition of structures without issuance of specific notices and passing of a specific order after following the principles of natural justice. Yet, the authorities initiated proceedings for removal of alleged encroachments and demolition of green belt structures.

The Court also observed that notice of motion was issued on June 8. At that time, the state had sought time to obtain instructions and file a reply.

The court had at that time directed that a responsible officer conversant with the facts of the case and the action proposed pursuant to orders dated April 16 and June 2, 2026, should remain present before it.

Justice Pannu added, “Today, no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-state. The state counsel submits that some more time is required to obtain complete instructions and file the reply. It is further noticed that though an official has appeared before the court, he is not the responsible officer from the department concerned as directed vide order dated June 8 and is not in a position to satisfactorily assist the court on the issues involved”.

Granting a final opportunity to the state, the Court directed the state counsel a final opportunity to file reply before the next date of hearing.

Justice Pannu further ordered, “It is further directed that on the next date of hearing, a responsible officer not below the rank of the competent authority from HSVP and a responsible officer from the office of the District Town Planner (DTP), fully conversant with the facts of the case and the action sought to be taken pursuant to the orders dated April 16 and June 2 shall remain personally present before this court.”