HC deprecates Sonepat district administration for 'casual conduct'

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, June 8

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has castigated “highly placed officers of the Sonepat district administration” for their “casual conduct”.

Taking note of a parole plea’s rejection in a mechanical manner, the Bench made it clear that the Superintendent of Police and the District Collector’s conduct deserved to be deprecated, more so when the orders related to lives and liberties of individuals.

The admonition by Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj came on a petition against the State of Haryana and other respondents by Ashok Kumar for directing his release on eight-week parole to get his house repaired and attend his daughter’s marriage scheduled to be held on June 15.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the State and going through the documents, Justice Bhardwaj asserted that a perusal of the impugned order, dated April 20, passed by the Sonepat District Collector clearly showed that an Executive Engineer had specifically conveyed that the house stood in his mother’s name and had not been repaired for long. It needed urgent repair as the walls were “condemned” and water dripped during the rainy season.

Gohana tehsildar, too, specifically reiterated that the wedding of the petitioner’s daughter was, indeed, on the scheduled date. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had a wife, son and 86-year-old father. The house stood in the mother’s name, but she had already expired.

Justice Bhardwaj observed that the impugned order’s perusal also showed that the petitioner’s prayer was rejected on the basis of a report by the SP, who expressed the possibility of danger to the State’s security and public order.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted that the report or the apprehension expressed by the Superintendent of Police was seemingly mechanical and not based on any cogent material. It had not been disclosed how the State’s security would be endangered on parole being extended to the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the circumstances, Justice Bhardwaj directed the setting aside of the order after observing that it was cryptic. The petitioner was also directed to be released on four-week parole for attending the daughter’s marriage and performing other pre and post marriage rituals, subject to furnishing adequate surety bonds.

No cogent evidence

The report or the apprehension expressed by the SP was seemingly mechanical and not based on any cogent material. It had not been disclosed how the state’s security would be endangered on parole being extended to the petitioner. Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, Punjab and Haryana High Court