Today, On 23rd October, The Allahabad High Court criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for failing to submit a response in a case concerning a demolition in Bahraich. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s delay in addressing the matter. It directed the state to expedite its reply, emphasizing the need for accountability and timely legal processes.
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court, On Wednesday, criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for not submitting a detailed response, despite clear instructions, in a case regarding demolition notices in Bahraich district. The Lucknow bench expressed frustration over the state’s failure to grasp the intent of the court’s earlier order.
The court specifically directed Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Singh to provide complete details on the category and norms related to the road in question, but instead, the state continued to challenge the maintainability of the PIL.
The bench, however, allowed Singh to submit the objection on the PIL’s maintainability in the court registry, postponing the hearing until November 4.
The order passed by Justices A.R. Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi in response to a PIL filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights. During a special Sunday hearing, the court had granted affected residents 15 days, instead of the three days set by the PWD, to respond to the demolition notices, staying the district authorities’ plans to remove the alleged illegal constructions.
The Allahabad High Court expressed strong displeasure on Wednesday, questioning,
“Whether the state authorities had misunderstood the intent of its previous order, issued on Sunday, regarding demolition notices in Bahraich. “
In that earlier order, the court directed Chief Standing Counsel to provide detailed instructions about the road’s category and applicable norms, emphasizing that it would consider all aspects of the case beyond just the maintainability of the PIL.
On Sunday, the court granted affected residents 15 days to respond to the demolition notices, directing the state to evaluate their replies and issue a “speaking and reasoned order.” The PIL argued that the demolition notices were issued illegally and violated the Supreme Court’s recent directives limiting bulldozer action.
Despite these concerns, the state’s counsel continued to challenge the PIL’s maintainability on Wednesday.
The case is linked to communal tensions in Bahraich, where Ram Gopal Mishra, a resident of Rehua Mansoor village, was fatally shot during a dispute over music played in a procession on October 13.
Following this incident, the PWD served notices to 23 establishments, mostly belonging to Muslims, under the Road Control Act, 1964, after inspecting properties in the Maharajganj area, including the home of Abdul Hamid, an accused in Mishra’s killing.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
