The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the District Magistrate, Haridwar, and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Roorkee in Uttarakhand for demolishing "unauthorised" buildings without giving notice to the encroachers despite apex court orders.
The top court gave a last opportunity to the two officials to explain as to why they demolished the buildings despite it asking them to first issue the eviction notice to the encroachers and hear their objections.
A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph asked the counsel appearing for the two officers why have they not complied with the orders.
"You demolished the building despite apex court's order. You told that the apex court orders were received later. Your assistant magistrate said he is 2015 batch IAS officer and could not understand the order. What is this. Should we initiate contempt action against both of you," the bench said.
The counsel appearing for both the officers said that they tender an unconditional apology but the orders were received after the demolition exercise was over.
At the time, when the counsel was arguing the case, the bench saw a person raising her hand from the visitors gallery.
"Who is she raising hand from the visitors gallery. Is she an IAS officer. We can issue suo motu contempt against her for not behaving properly in the court and disturbing the proceedings," the bench said.
The counsel again tendered an unconditional apology on behalf of the officer raising her hand.
"You are liable for contempt on the face of it," the bench said, adding that if the contempt notice was issued and even if their apology is accepted, it would still reflect in their service record.
"It will reflect in your service record for ever. Why do you want this. We are giving you one last opportunity to reply to the contempt petition against you," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on December 10.
The bench also refused to hear the petitioner Noor Aslam, who has moved the court seeking contempt action against the officials for non-compliance of the court order.
"We will not hear you at this stage. You are encroacher", the bench said.
The apex court had on November 22, said: "We are inclined to take the view that before evicting any person the concerned authority is obliged to give a notice and hear the objections that may be raised."
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
