Dismiss, imprison officials ignoring court orders: HC
CHENNAI: Officials who are least bothered about the orders of the court must be stripped off their posts and shown the doors, said the Madras High Court, noting that in case of non-compliance of court orders, it has been made clear time and again that imprisonment would be primary and fine would be secondary.
A division bench comprising Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice R Vijaya Kumar made this scathing observation while dismissing two writ petitions moved by S Abubakker and Mohammed Ali, both residents of Tiruvottiyur, who sought a direction to the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) not to demolish a shed that they had raised for running a wooden scrap business in Thangal.
The petitioners stated that they had purchased the land in 1970 and made a representation to the GCC under Section 80 (A) (3) of the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act, 1971, seeking it to not demolish the shed. But Corporation counsel Raja Srinivas said that the petitioners constructed the shed on a government poramboke land, and added that it was only the land in the enjoyment of the petitioners. Hearing the submissions, the judges wondered why the civic body officials failed to act quickly on the petitioners’ representations as directed by the court earlier. “If the officials fail to decide the issue within the stipulated time as per Section 80 (A) TCP Act, the violators would approach the court to stall the proceedings of the authority,” the bench noted.
The judges added that it has been reported that several IAS officers who deal with applications filed under Section 80-A of the Act, 1971, were not complying with the orders of the court. “Such officers, who are least bothered about the orders of this court and are not doing their duty, must be shown the doors and their IAS posts must be stripped off, as ignoring the orders of this court would definitely amount to dishonest in their duty, besides disobedience,” the bench said.
It also dismissed the pleas and even imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioners for asking the court to reopen the petitions despite the matters being listed for pronouncing orders.