Bahraich Violence | 'No Reason To Say UP Govt Won't Follow SC's Order On Demolitions': Allahabad HC Grants 15 Days To Accused To Respond To PwD Notices

Hearing the matter at 6 pm today, the bench of Justice Attau Rehman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi granted the affected persons 15 days (from today) to respond to the Demolition Notices issued by the UP Government. Earlier, the occupants were asked (in the notices pasted on the houses on 18th October) to respond to the notices within three days.

The Court also noted that the notices issued to occupants did not indicate the number of houses situated on kilometre 38 of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road, that have been duly authorized for construction.

"...what pricks to the conscious of this court is the issuance of notices to submit the reply within a short span of three days. As to what number of houses situated on kilometer-38, of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road have been duly authorized for construction is also not much evident from the notice which may require clarity," the Court observed in its order while granting three days to the Chief Standing Counsel to obtain complete instructions in this regard.

Though the court did not EXPLICITLY stay the demolition in its order, it observed that it has no reason to believe that the UP Government will not follow the Supreme Court's order on demolitions in letter and spirit.

The division bench, however, took strong exception an association's filing of the PIL, saying that such petitions would have far-reaching consequences. For context, the PIL plea sought direction from the UP Government and its Public Works Department from proceeding with the demolition of properties belonging to accused individuals belonging to the Muslim community.

The Court also noted that the victims had not approached the Court against the proposed demolition notices and that, in such a scenario, the petition filed on behalf of an association had little meaning.

In this regard, the Court said that the notices issued against a limited number of persons who are to participate in the proceedings cannot be viewed to be a matter of general public importance, which may be taken cognizance of in a public interest litigation unless the vulnerability of an aggrieved person is such that he is established to be the one who is unable to approach the court for availing the remedy available under law.

When the Counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that the action of the government was in the teeth of the Supreme Court's September 17 interim order that no demolition should take place in the country without its permission except for encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or waterbodies, the Court orally remarked that it had no reasons to believe that the State Government will not follow Supreme Court's order.

“The Apex Court, in so far as, the demolition of construction is concerned, an order has already been passed on September 17, 2024. We have no reason to believe that the UP Govt will not follow the order passed by the Supreme Court,” the Court said.

Clarifying that it would not interfere with the impugned notices, the division bench granted three days' time to the State Counsel to specify the number of maps sanctioned for construction along the road in question.

The Court also said that it expects the persons to whom PwD has issued notices, to participate in the proceedings and file their replies.

At this juncture, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the situation in Bahraich has been quite grim in the last few days. Fearing malicious prosecution, the affected persons/accused had to flee their houses, and now, they were being asked to participate in the proceedings.

Hearing this submission of the counsel, the Court granted the affected persons 15 days to file their replies to the notices issued under the Road Control Act 1964.

"We further provide that in case they file their reply to the notice within a period of 15 days from today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order which shall be communicated to the parties aggrieved," Court's order reads.

Here, it may be noted that the impugned PWD notices state that the constructions are "illegal" since they were built within 60 feet of the central point of the road in rural areas, which is not permissible.

The authorities have maintained that the encroachments were being removed to widen the roads in Mahrajganj.

The notices further state that if the construction had been carried out with permission from the District Magistrate of Bahraich or prior departmental approval, the original copy of such permission must be provided immediately.

Furthermore, the notices ask the occupants to remove the 'illegal' construction within three days, adding that failure to do so will result in the removal of the construction by the authorities with the assistance of the police and administration and the costs incurred for the removal will be recovered through revenue proceedings.

The Bahraich Incident

For the uninitiated, on October 13, the final day of Durga Puja celebrations, a communal violence broke out in the Maharajganj/Mehsi area of District Bahraich after some local members of a particular community objected to the playing of loud music. The altercation further resulted in the death of a 22-year-old man named Ram Gopal Mishra.

Allegedly, Mishra climbed atop the roof of the house of a person of a particular community and removed/tore down a green flag (customarily linked to Islam) and started waving a saffron flag, while the persons part of the procession shouted slogans of "Jai Shri Ram" and "Jai Bajrang Bali".

Shortly after, Mishra was shot by someone, and he passed away. As a result, persons carrying sticks and iron rods protested and torched shops, vehicles and private properties linked to a particular community.

The violence lasted about 2 days, and the internet services were suspended for 4 days.

On the night of October 13, 2024, an FIR under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 103(2) of BNS was registered against 6 known and 4 unknown persons.

Ever since, 11 FIRs have been registered, with about 1000 persons being booked and 87 arrested.