|
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued show-cause notice to one petitioner that why proceedings in criminal contempt be not drawn against him for not disclosing the facts in connection with a matter of slum dwellings.
The Court issued show cause after noting that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact of filing and losing the petitions by the fathers of 19 petitioners at the Supreme Court in respect of the property. This matter is related to slum dwellings in the Yamuna floodplains at Bela Estate near Rajghat. Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday issued a show cause to petitioner Randheer. The Court has directed the petitioner to file a reply on or before the next date fixed. The matter has been listed on November 11, 2022. The petitioner Randheer and 18 others have moved against the Delhi Police Commissioner and other public authorities challenging the proposed demolition drive after August 15, 2022. It was stated in the petition moved through advocate Kamlesh Kumar Mishra that on August 12, 2022, some policemen, along with the SHO of Darya Ganj police station and DCP (Central), had come to Moolchand Basti and had threatened the slum dwellers that immediately after August 15, 2022, there would be a demolition drive in the area and thus, the slum dwellers should themselves evict from their jhuggis prior to August 15. The bench noted the submissions made by Senior Counsel Prabhsahay Kaur for Delhi Development Authority (DDA). It was pointed out that all the petitioners are residing on what are the Yamuna River floodplains and in respect of which various injunctions stands issued by competent authorities and mandate the removal of all encroachments. The bench said that the senior counsel Kaur also place for the perusal of the Court the papers of petitions which were filed before the Supreme Court and which would indicate that the fathers of the 19 petitioners here had instituted litigation in respect of the same property and have lost right up to Supreme Court. Curiously, none of these issues has been disclosed by the petitioners here. "Consequently, let the petitioner show cause why proceedings in criminal contempt are not drawn against them, the Court ordered. The bench also noted that the senior counsel for DDA placed for the perusal the two decisions of the Delhi High Court to contend that identical challenges have been negatived by this Court. On the other hand, Advocate Mishra said that the cases mentioned were of land ownership whereas in the present case we have not claimed land ownership in this case. (ANI)
|
