Officials slammed for going soft on encroachers

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar, on taking serious reservation to a notice issued by the Arakkonam Municipality which cited a High Court order for removing an encroachment, said “This seeks to suggest as if the authorities have no statutory powers by only when the court directs an order is issued. The fact is the court had not issued any direction other than for the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.” 

The bench held that “this is not the first time that we are faced with such notices and we have had occasions to comment adversely on notices referring to court orders rather than statutory provisions.  Once the statutory provision has been mentioned in the impugned notice, there was no reason to put a bold heading of the court proceeding as if the authorities cannot act as per the statute, but only if the court order is issued.” 

The matter relates to a private petitioner raising a grievance against another person alleging encroachment. The court had issued directions that the notice issued by the Municipality had not given sufficient time to the private person to respond and thus granted two weeks for the said purpose. But the court had made it clear that thereafter orders had to be passed in accordance with law against the allegation of encroachment. But contrary to this, the Arakkonam Municipality put the onus on the HC for removing the encroachment. 

The bench on quashing the notice held that “The impugned notice seems to have been issued hurriedly when the respondents face contempt proceedings to complete a mere formality to evade the rigours of contempt. We strongly condemn this approach.”

The Madras High Court has initiated suo motu proceedings against the Puducherry government for abolishing the State Information Commission. It has sought both the Puducherry and the Union governments to file affidavits within four weeks, explaining the circumstances under which the order was passed abolishing the State Information Commission.

“The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar, initiated the suo motu proceedings, while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation moved by advocate Nirmalkumar Mohandoss, which sought to quash the order of the Puducherry government and direct it to establish the Puducherry State Information Commission. 

The bench while dismissing the plea said “the petitioner sought to assail the notification dated July 31, 2007 of the Chief Secretariat (Administrative Reforms Wing) after nine years, by which the office of the state information commission, Puducherry, had been abolished. Merely the fact that the petitioner is an advocate, who has now entered the bar, cannot be a ground to challenge this order after so many years. We are thus not inclined to entertain the writ petition at the behest of the petitioner and the same is dismissed.” 

“We would however like to know the circumstances under which the office of the state information commission, Puducherry was abolished in 2007 and thus we take these proceedings suo motu and direct the same be accordingly registered” the bench added.

The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to declare as unconstitutional, the practice of Tamil Nadu Government collecting administrative expenses from the Puducherry government for its staff and other officers working at the Madras High Court in Chennai. R Sreedhar, former Puducherry Government Advocate, had contended that all administrative expenses of a High Court in respect of the entire staff and other officers, irrespective of the fact that some of them are working for/representing the Puducherry government, should be borne by the Tamil Nadu government.