LUCKNOW: In a development related to the bulldozer action as a punitive measure taken by the UP government, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court has delivered a split verdict on whether the state can be barred from taking action to demolish the house of an accused for a period of two years from the date of registration of an FIR.
While Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that a 2-year hiatus must be put on the demolition, Justice Siddharth Nandan said such direction could not be given. Considering the dissent, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for decision by a third judge on the issue.
In a ruling passed on July 20, Justice Sreedharan said: “Rushing to demolish the dwelling of a person, accused of an offence, under the garb of the same being violative of municipal laws is impermissible, the same being a retributive exercise of executive discretion and so, no action may be taken to demolish his house for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR.”
Justice Nandan said there was always a presumption that the government would only proceed in accordance with law and that it was open for aggrieved person to approach the HC. “No fixed time period can be put, for as a matter of fact it would result in keeping the operation of an enactment in abeyance, for the said period,” Justice Nandan said.
The third judge will give his opinion on issues like if in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, a direction be issued where the state may be restrained from taking any action under the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, though subject to some exceptions.
Moreover, opinion would be sought on whether before initiating a procedure under municipal laws, can a direction be issued to the authorities to give a ‘notice of intent’, one year prior to the initiation of the said procedure, for the alleged violation of the statutory norm.
In February, the court had called out the UP government for continuing with the punitive demolitions of properties linked to the accused despite the Supreme Court’s directives to refrain from taking such actions.
The HC gave its observation while hearing a plea filed by three members of a family who alleged that a mob targeted their house in collusion with police after one of their relatives was booked under the POCSO Act and UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.