Non-compliance of court order: HC orders salary attachment of three top Punjab officers
The officials include principal secretary, department of housing and urban development, Rahul Tewari; chief town planner, department of town and country planning, Prabhjot Singh Dhillon; and principal secretary, department of local government, Tejveer Singh.
'To the utter dismay of this court, despite the construction activity being stayed throughout the city of Kharar, no steps have been taken by the respondents towards compliance of the order passed by the writ court. Faced with this indifferent attitude of the respondents, let salaries of respondent Nos 1 to 3 remain attached till the compliance is made,' the bench of justice Harkesh Manuja ordered while posting a contempt petition hearting for September 23.
Omega Infra Estates Private Limited had moved a petition alleging non-compliance of the court's October 2024 directions. It was during these proceedings that HC had restrained all fresh or new construction in Kharar until a revised master plan is finalised.
The court, while passing this order, had observed that the last master plan for Kharar was published on May 25, 2010, and since then haphazard construction activity at large scale is going on in and around the entire area without taking into consideration the need for providing of basic and necessary amenities to residents.
It had further noted that the process of finalisation of the revised master plan in consonance with the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, has not been undertaken.
The contempt petition was filed in January after the government failed to comply with the undertaking given in October during the proceedings of a petition that demanded amendment in the Master Plan for Kharar, which was last notified in 2010. The plea had argued that the existing Master Plan, no longer reflects the ground realities and is therefore not implementable. It was disposed of as the government submitted that necessary action would be taken in eight weeks. But it was not complied with.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC: Court can't take cognisance of PMLA case without hearing accused
Calcutta HC KOLKATA: A court cannot take cognisance of a case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act without hearing the accused, as required under the BNSS, Calcutta HC on Friday held, quashing proceedings under PMLA against three accused. Tutu Ghosh, Bipin Kumar Kedia, and Anil Kumar Jain were accused of offences under sections 3 and 4 (money laundering), read with section 70 of PMLA (offences by companies and their officials). They approached the HC, contending the PMLA judge took cognisance of the offences in violation of the first proviso to BNSS section 223, as no opportunity of hearing was given to any of them before such cognisance was taken. Senior counsel appearing for the accused argued that BNSS has introduced a provision requiring an opportunity of hearing for the accused prior to the taking of cognisance, and that denial of such an opportunity amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
2006 train blasts: Bombay HC to pronounce verdict on death confirmation pleas today
Over five months after it reserved verdict on death confirmation pleas filed by the state and appeals by the accused against their conviction in the 7/11 train blasts case of 2006, the Bombay High Court will pronounce the judgement Monday. After conducting hearings over six months, special bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam C Chandak on January 31 this year reserved its verdict on pleas filed in the high court. In 2015, the special court convicted the accused who have been in jail for over 18 years. On July 11, 2006, a series of bombs ripped through seven western suburban coaches of a train, killing 189 commuters and injuring 824. After an over eight-year trial, a special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) in October 2015 awarded death penalty to five of the convicts and life terms to seven others. Death row convicts Kamal Ansari from Bihar, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh from Mumbai, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui from Thane, Naveed Hussain Khan from Secunderabad and Asif Khan from Jalgaon in Maharashtra were found guilty of planting the bombs. Those awarded life term were Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Latiur Rehman Shaikh. One of the accused, Wahid Shaikh, was acquitted by the trial court after nine years in jail. The Maharashtra government in 2015 approached the HC with pleas seeking confirmation of death penalty granted to five convicts. On the other hand, the convicts filed appeals challenging the special court order. Ansari, one of the convicts on death row, died due to Covid-19 in Nagpur prison in 2021. As the accused sought speedy disposal of the matter, the HC in July 2023, constituted a special bench led by Justice Kilor, which conducted regular hearings through more than 75 sittings. The lawyers representing the convicts argued that their 'extra-judicial confessional statements' obtained by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) through 'torture' were inadmissible under the law. They also argued that the accused were falsely implicated, innocent and were languishing in jail for 18 years without substantial evidence and their prime years were gone in incarceration. The appellants said that the trial court erred in convicting them and therefore the said order be set aside. The Maharashtra government opposed the appeals by convicts and claimed that the probing agency had provided sufficient evidence to establish it was 'rarest of the rare' case to sentence the accused to death penalty.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
High Court to Haryana: Clarify on cops sentenced to month in jail
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has asked the home secretary of Haryana to clarify if any police authority or state govt can award punishment other than dismissal from service where police officers were awarded a sentence of more than one month by criminal courts. The HC has also directed the state govt to depute a nodal officer, who is conversant with cases relating to the police force, to assist the office of advocate general, Haryana. Justice Jagmohan Bansal passed these orders while hearing a matter in which it was noticed that a former sub-inspector of Haryana Police, who was convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment in a criminal case, was compulsorily retired from service instead of being dismissed from service. During the hearing of the matter, the HC also observed that no nodal officer from the police force was deputed to assist the office of AG, Haryana, which is the root cause of repeated adjournments and delays in the adjudication of cases. Hearing the matter, the court on July 15 directed the home secretary to appear before the court to assist with the matter. In compliance with the order, the state home secretary, Dr Sumita Mishra, appeared via videoconferencing. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas in Dubai | Search Ads Get Info Undo On being confronted with Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'PPR'), as applicable to Haryana, regarding punishment other than dismissal from service to the cops sentenced for more than three years, the home secretary requested more time to respond. On being confronted with the fact that no nodal officer from the police force was deputed to assist the office of AG, Haryana, which is the root cause of repeated adjournments and delays in adjudication, she submitted she would discuss the issue with police authorities. On this, the HC granted time to the home secretary to respond to the queries by Aug 19. "In the meantime, the state of Haryana is directed to consider that a nodal officer, who is well-conversant with cases relating to the police force, is deputed in HC to assist the AG office. "
