Panchkula dairy owners seek action after 16 years of non-compliance with High Court order

Nearly 16 years after the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the allotment of alternative sites to dairy owners displaced in Panchkula's Sector 19, an affected resident has approached the court again, alleging continued non-compliance with the 2009 directive.

Advertisement

Pyare Lal, a resident of Sector 19, Panchkula, has filed a petition under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act against Panchkula Deputy Commissioner Monika Gupta of willfully failing to implement the judgment dated April 29, 2009.

Justice Suvir Sehgal’s Bench was told that the original writ petition was filed in 2007 after residents, whose village lands were acquired for developing Sector 5, Panchkula, were allotted plots in Sector 19. Many continued running dairies and small shops from their homes, but the authorities began taking action against them for misuse of residential premises. The High Court had then directed the Deputy Commissioner to convene a committee meeting “immediately” to identify alternative sites for the dairy owners and forward recommendations to the state government within two months.

The state government was further directed to take a final decision within three months thereafter.

However, according to the latest contempt petition, alternative sites were not allotted despite the lapse of over 16 years.

Lal contended that he sent a representation as recently as June 28, 2022, complaining of non-compliance, but no action was taken.

The Bench was told the authorities concerned, during the hearing of a previous contempt petition, submitted that land had already been earmarked and only the development process remained pending. The Bench, following the assurance, dismissed the contempt plea as infructuous on January 29, 2024.

Yet, “till today no action has been taken by the respondent regarding the compliance of the order dated 29.04.2009, even after the assurance given as per the order dated January 29, 2024,” the petitioner argued.

Alleging that the authorities’ continued inaction was ‘arbitrary and illegal’, the petitioner prayed that “the respondent authority may kindly be prosecuted under Contempt of Courts Act and further direction be issued to comply the judgment forthwith, in the interest of justice”.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sehgal observed: “The copy of the contempt petition has been supplied to the state counsel, who requests for deferment to get instructions”.

The case will now come up for further hearing on July 21.