Babus consider themselves above judiciary, says Justice GR Majithia | punjab$chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 26, 2017-Wednesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Babus consider themselves above judiciary, says Justice GR Majithia

The seriousness with which bureaucrats in Chandigarh pay heed to court orders became evident when a local court had to order attachment of vehicles of the UT finance secretary and other officials for failing to comply with its orders despite repeated directions.

punjab Updated: Nov 11, 2015 11:10 IST
Nikhil Sharma

The seriousness with which bureaucrats in Chandigarh pay heed to court orders became evident when a local court had to order attachment of vehicles of the UT finance secretary and other officials for failing to comply with its orders despite repeated directions.

The order of attaching the vehicles has been passed for the non-compliance of the order dated February 27 this year to mutate a Sector-9 property in favour of the petitioners — Sanjay Majithia, his brother Ajay Majithia and father Justice GR Majithia (retired).

Following the order, Sanjay Majithia, a senior advocate of the Punjab and Haryana high court, took a Toyota Corolla belonging to UT finance secretary Sarvjit Singh in his possession on Monday.

“We will wait till the evening of November 12, and in case the estate office fails to transfer the property in our name as ordered by the court, we will also take in possession vehicles of the adviser and other officials,” said Sanjay Majithia.

Talking to HT, Justice Majithia, who was also the chairman of the wage board, slammed the UT administration. “Even when the court has repeatedly directed the estate office to mutate the property in the names of my sons, the UT babus want me to follow their conditions. This shows they consider themselves to be above the judiciary,” he said.

Pointing to a letter received from the estate office, dated November 3, where he was asked to pay `1.49 lakh as stamp duty for transferring the ownership, under sections of the Indian Succession Act and Transfer of Property Act, justice Majithia said: “How can these officials impose their conditions, even after the court’s order?”

Accusing the UT officials of being unaware of law, he said, “I have inherited this property and not purchased it from my father, and thus there is no point of charging stamp duty. Even if they want me to pay the stamp duty, why didn’t they make this contention in court.”

Justice Majithia said the officials need to change their style of working and set aside their arrogance to serve people well.

Talking about the property in question, he said: “We are living here for the past 43 years. My father made a clear will on May 28, 1996, following which his properties in Moga, Panchkula, Dehradun and Chandigarh were distributed among his four sons, including me. He willed this house in the name of my two sons and a share of property in my name. The court, supporting the will, had passed the orders in our favour in February.”

The case

Declaring the petitioners legal owners of house number 46 in Sector 9A, senior division civil judge KK Jain directed the Chandigarh administration to transfer the property in their name, in its order dated February 27, 2015.

After the administration failed to implement the order, justice Rajiv Narain Raina of the Punjab and Haryana high court, on October 6, slammed the finance secretary for delaying the simple matter to the point of “contumacious” conduct and asked him to appear in court on November 12. Justice Raina also stated that it seemed the UT administration was at loggerheads with the civil court.

“This is not a good mindset required of those who are paid for public dealing. The situation deserves to be remedied with a firm hand. Citizens should not be pushed to exasperation and left fed up trying desperately to pursue their legitimate rights in the catacombs of the estate office,” read the order.

On October 31, KK Jain attached seven official cars of top UT administration officials, including the adviser, home secretary and finance secretary for non-compliance of the court orders. The court also directed to attach the office furniture and computers of the adviser, finance secretary and estate office.