Punjab and Haryana HC issues notices to senior UT officials

The court had earlier issued notices to Deputy Commissioner Ajit Balaji Joshi, Finance Secretary Sarvjit Singh and Assistant Estate Officer Prince Dhawan in March this year but rather than filing replies in the court till date, the authorities have been continuing with the proceedings and imposing penalties. The court has been informed that continuous violation of the court directions is leading to immense hardships being faced by Chandigarh residents.
Appearing for the petitioners, including Avtar Singh Bhatti, their counsel Karanvir Singh Khehar argued that the Chandigarh administration has even ignored the basic principle of law that the self-drafted rules cannot override the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, enacted by the Parliament. It was submitted that authorities were imposing multiple penalties which are contrary to the parent Act wherein the penalty has clearly been prescribed and the Act has not been amended by the Parliament till date.

The full bench of Justices Surya Kant, Augustine George Masih and R P Nagrath in a case ‘Dheera Singh vs Chandigarh administration’ on November 8, 2012 had made clear, “the delegate in the garb of making rules cannot legislate on the fields covered by the Act.” But, ignoring the judgment, the Chandigarh administration had been making its own rules to impose penalties.

Alleging “high-handedness, brazenness and disobedience of court orders”, the petitioners have submitted that the entire process of issuing penalty notices is being done selectively by ignoring official buildings and offices, and also only selective private citizenry is being harassed. It was added that one such glaring example of violations is the office of SDM South which is running from sports complex in Sector-42.

Also highlighting one such example of principles of natural justice, equity and fair play being tossed to the wind by the authorities with impunity, Khehar submitted that Prince Dhawan, Assistant Estate Officer-and-SDM Central, first issues the notice for building violations, then himself adjudicates the same notice and finally executes it himself. The counsel raised the question whether the same person who has been given three different charges can act impartially.

“In some cases even after imposing penalty under Rule 5 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1952, another penalty is imposed under the Chandigarh Estate Rules of 2007 as amended in 2009 and the entire process is being done arbitrarily and in blatant violations of the judgment of the Hon’ble Court and rule of law,” the petitioners have submitted.