Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has ordered criminal contempt of court proceedings against the chief officer of Halol nagarpalika, Hiral Thacker, for demolishing properties despite a restraining order by the high court. Justice Nikhil Kariel also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the chief officer for demolishing the properties of two petitioners. She is required to deposit the amount with the Gujarat High Court Legal Service Authority. The nagarpalika has been ordered to pay Rs 50,000 each to the petitioners.
Besides, the HC has also sought an explanation from an in-charge deputy collector at the special secretary, revenue department (SSRD) on why action for perjury should not be initiated against him.
The case is related to properties in a complex in Halol town, which, according to the Panchmahal district collector, was an encroachment on govt land. So, he passed an order to evacuate the land in accordance with the law. The chief officer issued an eviction and demolition notice, which brought the petitioners before the SSRD and then to the HC.
The HC directed the SSRD to decide on the issue by Oct 30, but the hearing was adjourned beyond this deadline. On the other hand, the chief officer issued a notice to the property owners and demolished the property while the case was still to be heard. This brought the petitioners to the HC again through advocate Dhruv Dave, who complained about the official not heeding the court order.
After hearing the case, Justice Kariel ordered the initiation of criminal contempt of court under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against Thacker because the court “is of prima facie opinion that the chief officer has overreached the process of law”.
The HC also imposed a fine on the chief officer and the municipality for the “high-handed action in demolishing the property when the petitions were pending at large before this court”.
The HC has sought an affidavit from SSRD deputy collector Patel for stating that the HC’s Sep 26 order setting the deadline for hearing was not brought to SSRD’s notice.
However, the petitioners showed the pursis to this effect filed in the SSRD well in time. The deputy collector has been asked to explain why action should not be taken against him for perjury.