Cut VIP cover, but give security for demolition drives: HC to Bathinda DC, SSP

Seeks detailed affidavit on the action taken pursuant to this order on March 20; during the hearing, the Bathinda Development Authority (BDA) had told the court that illegal encroachments have been found in all five phases and in M/s Narwana Estate and Milk Plant Colony

Taking serious note of enforcement teams not getting security cover for demolition exercise, the Punjab and Haryana high court has asked the deputy commissioner and senior superintendent of police that even if they have to withdraw the security from police officers or political leaders, the same be done to provide force for demolition of illegal structures in Bathinda.

The petitioner’s counsel Rau PS Girwar had claimed that encroachments have been made by influential persons and the administration was trying to protect them and that was why such “excuses” were being made.

“...if the necessary police force is not provided by the district magistrate and the SSP concerned, a serious view of their inaction would be taken and their inaction shall also be treated as inviting contempt proceedings on account of putting hurdles in administration of justice,” the bench of justice Rajbir Sehrawat observed, posting the matter for hearing on March 20 and seeking compliance.

The court was hearing a bunch of contempt petitions filed in pursuant to the first round of litigation of 2022-2023 petitions seeking removal of encroachments. The petitioner’s argument was that even though the structures have been identified as illegal and the court has ordered removal of the same, action was not being taken by the authorities.

During the hearing, the Bathinda Development Authority (BDA) had told the court that illegal encroachments have been found in all five phases and in M/s Narwana Estate and Milk Plant Colony. The necessary demolition drive was decided to be carried out for removal of the said encroachments from March 2 to March 15, and the DC was requested to provide the necessary police force to obviate any obstruction to the demolition drive. However, the demolition drive could not be started because the DC has not provided the police force, the DBA had told the court.

On the other hand, the petitioner’s counsel Rau PS Girwar had claimed that encroachments have been made by influential persons and the administration was trying to protect them and that was why such “excuses” were being made.

Taking note of submissions, the bench ordered that the DC could scale down security cover of the officers or political leaders to provide police personnel for the demolition drive to remove the illegal encroachments. The DBA would specify the house numbers and names of their owners who have been found by them to be in illegal encroachments, the bench said adding that a detailed affidavit on the action taken pursuant to this order be filed on demolition carried out on March 20.