HC issues contempt notice to CHB Chairman, Secy

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 13

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has slapped a show-cause notice for contempt of court on Chandigarh Housing Board Chairman AK Sinha and Secretary Virat on a petition alleging that the move to carry out a demolition drive was in violation of the orders.

Directions have been issued for the filing of a compliance report/reply to the contempt petition. For the purpose, Justice Augustine George Masih has set a six-week deadline. The period would be calculated from the date of receiving the notice.

Justice Masih also warned the respondents of the possibility of imposition of costs if they failed to reply within the stipulated time.

The notice by Justice Augustine George Masih came on a petition filed by Rajiv Kumar and other petitioners through counsel Ashok Sharma Nabhewala. Appearing before Justice Masih’s Bench, Nabhewala contended that the conceded position on the behalf of the Chandigarh Housing Board and the UT Administration, after the passing of an order on July 19, 2013, was that a new policy for the regularisation of the need-based alterations and additions was under consideration. It was likely to be finalised soon. But no such policy had been formulated or notified till date.

Nabhewala further contended that the UT Administration has withdrawn all policies earlier in force without formulating any new policy. But notices were issued to the petitioners for demolition on the basis of the prevalent situation.

“Let a notice be issued to the respondents to show causes why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them,” Justice Masih asserted. The case will come up for further hearing later this week.

The High Court, in July, 2013, had made it clear that action could be initiated against city residents blamed for carrying out “need-based changes” in the Chandigarh Housing Board flats only under the yet-to-be-notified new policy. The order was expected to benefit no less than 50,000 residents.

Taking up the matter, the Bench had further directed that action would not be taken on the basis of the old policy stemming from the orders dated October 23, 2010. The directions came on a bunch of petitions filed by Sukhjit Singh and other petitioners. In one of the petitions filed through Nabhewala, the petitioners had contended that the allottees and occupants had been approaching the Board and the UT Administration for permitting them to carryout need-based additions and alterations in the dwelling units due to an increase in population and requirements.

In the petitions, directions were also sought to stop the demolition of dwelling units and construction by the board till the decision of the writ petition.