A contempt of court petition (COCP) 1131 of 2014 was filed before the Punjab and Haryana high court against Ludhiana municipal corporation commissioner for allegedly violating the directions of high court.
A city resident, Rohit Sabharwal, claimed that municipal corporation was bound to pass appropriate orders after considering the reply or objections filed by the petitioners regarding issue of alleged encroachments on the land of Rajpura village that was acquired by the MC in 1977 for extension of Rose Garden.
“Illegal possessions were allegedly made by some people at MC’s acquired land. Showcause notices were also issued to these ille gal occupants by the MC in 1994, after which the action of demolition was initiated. Against which CWP No 15140 of 1999 was preferred by these occupants in the high court,” he claimed.
The hearing of COCP 1131 of 2014 was held in high court on May 6 and the next date of hearing has been fixed for December 16.
While disposing of CWP numbers 15140 of 1999, 16409 of 1999, and 16476 of 2000, the high court in 2011 stated, “Petitioners are given liberty to file objections to the show-cause notices dated 07.10.1999 within three weeks before the competent authority. The competent authority shall pass an appropriate order after considering the reply or objections, if any, filed by the petitioners expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.”
Sabharwal alleged that MC had not taken any action on the directions of high court in this regard.
“Through information under the RTI Act, it stands admitted by the authorities of the municipal corporation that 46 occupants (petitioners) submitted their representations to the MC vide several letters. On the basis of these representations, authorities concer ned of the MC prepared a report against the occupants in which, their occupation was found t o be illegal, and it was decided that these occupations should not be regularised,” Sabharwal alleged.
“To show compliance with the directions passed by the court, this report was further sent to municipal corporation commissioner for passing speaking order on the matter, which his good self was bound to pass expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. I nst e ad of passi ng speaking orders on the report as directed by the court, this matter was deliberately snubbed. This resulted in delay of two) years and five months in showing compliance with the directions of the court,” he alleged.