Lucknow, Oct 23: The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government on why it has not filed a detailed response till date despite clear directions in a case of issuing notices of demolition in Bahraich district.
A Lucknow bench expressed annoyance as to whether the spirit of the order could not be understood by the state authorities.
The bench was of the view that it had specifically asked Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Singh to obtain complete instructions in the matter regarding category and norms applicable about the road in question but the only objection was being raised about maintainability of the PIL yet again.
The bench, however, asked Singh to file the objection on maintainability of the PIL in the registry of the court, deferring the hearing till November 4.
A bench of justices AR Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a PIL filed by Association for Protection of Civil Rights.
Hearing the PIL on Sunday after constituting a special bench, the court had extended the time enabling the affected dwellers to file their response to notices within 15 days instead of three days as granted by the PWD.
This had thwarted the preparations of the district authorities for removing the alleged illegal constructions made by the dwellers who had been slapped short notice. In course of hearing on Wednesday, the state counsel sought to file objection against maintainability of the PIL.
At this, the bench reacted strongly as to whether the spirit of the previous order passed on Sunday was not understood by the state authorities.
In the previous order, the bench had asked the chief standing counsel to complete his instructions regarding category and norms applicable on the road in question. The bench had stressed that besides maintainability, it would consider all aspects of the matter.
Hearing the PIL on Sunday, the bench had said that the concerned persons may file their response to the notices within 15 days and also directed the state authorities to consider these replies and pass speaking and reasoned order on the reply.
Filing the PIL, it had been argued that the state has issued the demolition notice in illegal manner and its action to initiate demolition drive is in violation of the Supreme Court's recent directives, banning bulldozer action except in certain cases.
On behalf of the state government, the chief standing counsel had raised the objection about maintainability of the PIL and he yet again pointed out this on Wednesday as well.
Ram Gopal Mishra (22) of Rehua Mansoor village died of a gunshot wound he suffered on October 13 during a communal face-off in a village in Bahraich district over music being played during a procession.
Notices were served to 23 establishments, including 20 belonging to Muslims, in the area by the public works department (PWD).
The PWD had carried out inspections in the Maharajganj area last Friday and took measurements of 20-25 houses, including that of Abdul Hamid, one of the accused in Mishra's killing.
The notices were served under the Road Control Act, 1964.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Mumbai, Nov 25: Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut on Monday demanded a re-election in Maharashtra using ballot papers, claiming there were irregularities with the electronic voting machines (EVMs).
Talking to reporters, Raut alleged several complaints about EVMs malfunctioning and questioned the integrity of the recently held elections.
The BJP-led Mahayuti won 230 out of 288 seats in the assembly elections, while the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi managed 46 seats, with Shiv Sena (UBT) winning just 20 out of 95 seats it contested.
"We have received nearly 450 complaints regarding EVMs. Despite raising objections repeatedly, no action has been taken on these issues. How can we say these elections were conducted fairly? Hence, I demand that the results be set aside and elections be held again using ballot papers," Raut said.
Citing some instances, he said a candidate in Nashik reportedly received only four votes despite having 65 votes from his family, while in Dombivli, discrepancies were found in EVM tallies, and election officials refused to acknowledge the objections.
The Sena (UBT) leader also questioned the credibility of the landslide victories of some candidates, saying, "What revolutionary work have they done to receive more than 1.5 lakh votes? Even leaders who recently switched parties have become MLAs. This raises suspicions. For the first time, a senior leader like Sharad Pawar has expressed doubts about EVMs, which cannot be ignored."
Asked about the MVA's poor performance in the elections, Raut rejected the idea of blaming a single individual.
"We fought as a united MVA. Even a leader like Sharad Pawar, who commands immense respect in Maharashtra, faced defeat. This shows that we need to analyse the reasons behind the failure. One of the reasons is EVM irregularities and the misuse of the system, unconstitutional practices, and even judicial decisions left unresolved by Justice Chandrachud," he said.
Raut stressed that though internal differences might have existed within the MVA, the failure was collective.
He also accused the Mahayuti of conducting the elections in an unfair manner.
"I cannot call the elections fair given the numerous reports of discrepancies in EVMs, mismatched numbers, and vote irregularities across the state," Raut said.