Dynamite News SC refuses to hear pleas seeking stay on bulldozer demolition
A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan said that NFIW cannot be said to be an aggrieved party and thus dismissed the plea. Read further on Dynamite News:
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a contempt plea filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) alleging contempt for a demolition stay order, saying there is no direct involvement by the petitioners.
A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan said that NFIW cannot be said to be an aggrieved party and thus dismissed the plea.
Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by NFIW alleging contempt of Court’s interim direction of stay on demolitions (passed in the Bulldozer matter) by UP, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand authorities
Plea alleged
The contempt plea alleged that there was a violation of the top court’s order staying demolitions of properties of accused without prior permission.
The plea cited three instances of demolitions from Haridwar in Uttarakhand, Jaipur in Rajasthan and Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh. The district magistrates of the three cities were made a party to the contempt plea.
Advocate said
Advocate Nizam Pasha said that demolitions were carried out despite the Court's direction that it can't be done without Court permission. There have been instances at Haridwar, and Jaipur.
Also Read |
Supreme Court pulls up former Uttarakhand Minister, DFO for destruction of Jim Corbett Park
“Even if the concerned State Authorities thought that the structures were illegal, the said structures were not covered by the categories as exceptions to the general prohibition on demolition imposed viz. unauthorized structures in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies or cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law,” the plea argued.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj (for UP) said, “He is a third party, based on the news report, he has filed this petition. There was footpath encroachment.
Justice Gavai said that the court is not inclined to entertain at the instance of the present applicant. We don't want to open Pandora's box."
Justice remarked
Justice Gavai remarked, “Somebody aggrieved, or from that area, can come...only based on newspaper reports...
Advocate Nizam Pasha said, “ some journalists have to suffer due to demolitions being carried out.
Also Read |
SC To Hear On Jan 2 Pleas Challenging State Laws Regulating Inter-Faith Marriages
Justice Gavai said, “Let the journalists come then, We are not inclined to entertain the present petition, filed by persons who are neither directly nor indirectly related. If somebody genuine comes, we will consider it.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for one Tripathi and said, “Earlier, this court granted protection to another journalist Abhishek Upadhyay...against him, only 1 FIR was registered...against me, there are 4.”
The Bench then issued notice and directed the authorities that no coercive steps to be taken in the meantime.