Punjab & Haryana HC Stays Chandigarh DM's Order To Demolish 'Dhabas' In Front Of High Court Premises

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has kept the Chandigarh administration’s demolition order in abeyance until next hearing, which was planned for today and tomorrow to remove alleged illegal encroachment in front of High Court’s premises.

The bench of Justice G.S Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said, “the demolition order dated 24.07.2023, passed by the District Magistrate, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby a drive is to be carried out to remove the illegal encroachment/'Dhabas' from the Government land in front of the High Court premises on 29.07.2023 and 30.07.2023 at 08:00 A.M. be kept in abeyance, till the next date of hearing.”

While noting that the demolition is planned for July 29 and July 30, the Court said, “The grouse of the applicant-respondent No. 3 ( Punjab & Haryana Bar Association) is that on account of the order dated 27.02.2023, the Administration as such has ordered for demolition to remove the illegal encroachment/'Dhabas' from the Government land in front of the High Court.”

In February 27 order, the Court had directed the administration to reply to PIL seeking removal of alleged illegal encroachment in front of the High Court stating therein, “steps taken for removal of illegal encroachment as has been pointed out by the petitioner.

“We have perused the order dated 27.02.2023. Apparently, the reply has not been filed on behalf of the respondent-Administration and only a short reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1.,” said the Court.

It further said that the February 27 order, “did not have the intent as such, that the vendors which are sitting around the High Court are to be removed, before the factual matrix in benefit before us.”

Keeping in view the tenor of the order, “the Administration apparently seems to be going ahead for compliance of the order without bringing the factual matrix before this Court,” it added. The bench opined that firstly, pleadings should be completed before any such action is taken.

It is not disputed that the premises of the High Court receive a large number of people, both in the form of staff, employees, Advocates, litigants and officials who have to attend the Court proceedings, noted the Court.

Without making any alternative arrangements for the said persons who are coming to this Court and without framing any guidelines, it could not be appropriate at this stage to disrupt the present arrangement, the bench added.

Considering the situation, the bench said, “only after the pleadings are complete, the exercise should be completed.”

The Court directed that, “the Administration is also required to look at what facilities it should provide to the large number of people who are stated to be around 30,000 who visit the premises on a working day and what amenities are to be provided, in case of such footfall.”

While staying the demolition order it said, “let a footfall suggestion come from all the parties as how can the system be streamlined on all fronts including the problem of parking which plagues the area.”

Advocate Prithviraj Yadav had filed the PIL alleging that the area in the High Court premises has been illegally encroached for commercial activities.

He contended that the encroachment may lead to threat to “environment” and “national security” as “more than 100 Steel Iron boxed are lying in open for the purposes of carrying out commercial activities which can be easily used for implanting any explosive device by any anti-national outfit.”

“All the garbage which gets collected everyday is dumped in the nearby forest area. Iron Locks, Knives, Clothes, Belts, Grain Flour, Rice, Oil, Fruits, Books and Stationery are being sold in open even on footpaths,” he submitted.

The plea sought direction to the administration to remove the alleged illegal encroachment. It was alleged that the area is illegally rented out to the vendors.

The matter is now listed for August 29 for further consideration.

Case Title: Prithviraj Yadav v. Punjab & Haryana HC Administration

Appearance: G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate, and Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent No. 3.

Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

Anil Mehta, Senior Standing Counsel, for U.T., Chandigarh with

J.S. Chandail, Additional Standing Counsel, for respondents No. 2, 4 and 6.

P.R. Yadav, Advocate, non-applicant/petitioner in person.

Diya Sodhi, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.

Click Here To Read/Download Order