HC terms Chandigarh admn, MC responses ‘casual’; asks for detailed plan

The high court bench of justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and justice Sandeep Moudgil was hearing a suo motu petition in which the bench, last week, had sought details of measures taken by the administrations of Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula.

Dissatisfied with the responses of UT administration and municipal corporation (MC) about the eradication of wild growth of cannabis in the city, the Punjab and Haryana high court has termed their responses as “grossly inadequate” and “casual”, and sought for a detailed action plan.

After perusing the affidavit filed by MC, the bench observed, “This court is amazed at such a response, wherein a casual affidavit has been filed. Such an issue needs to be addressed with all seriousness, and a special team of staff, including labour, must be deployed to ensure that no such wild growth of cannabis plants ever grows again. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The high court bench of justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and justice Sandeep Moudgil was hearing a suo motu petition in which the bench, last week, had sought details of measures taken by the administrations of Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula.

After perusing the affidavit filed by MC, the bench observed, “This court is amazed at such a response, wherein a casual affidavit has been filed. Such an issue needs to be addressed with all seriousness, and a special team of staff, including labour, must be deployed to ensure that no such wild growth of cannabis plants ever grows again. But it does not seem to be the intention of municipal corporation, Chandigarh,” the bench recorded, adding that the photographs attached shows that remnants of the cannabis plants are lying, scattered and untreated, despite removal efforts. It asserted that a special team was required to be deployed to ensure complete eradication.

While taking up UT’s affidavit, the bench recorded the action taken so far was totally “unsatisfactory” but refrained from passing a “harsh order” and added that “more stern steps i.e. by uprooting such wild growth from the roots itself” were required and sought an action plan to restrain its growth during the rainy season.

The administrations of Panchkula and Mohali had not filed their affidavits and their counsels had submitted that meetings of the chief secretaries have taken place with the concerned heads of the department and directions have been issued to take necessary action. The court, however, called the stand taken by them as “clandestine” and condemnable and asserted that it was not acceptable to the court. Now, advocates general of both the states have been asked to assist the court on May 28, when it is taken up again.