Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sandeep Moudgil, JJ., opined that in most of the photographs attached in the affidavit filed by the State authorities, it was evident that after cutting down of such wild growth of cannabis, a part of it was still lying scattered though major part or it had been transported. However, such transportation was to which place or what had been done to those cut-out cannabis had not been explained. The Court opined that the action undertaken by the authorities so far was totally unsatisfactory. Since, it was the very initial stage of the present proceedings, the Court restrained itself from passing any harsh order to take more stern steps. The Court also noticed that no affidavit was submitted by the States of Punjab and Haryana, only orally submissions were made and opined that such clandestine undertook by both the States was condemnable and not accepted. However, in the interest of justice, the Court granted one more opportunity to the respondents to the needful within one week from 20-05-2024.
On 14-05-2024, the present Court passed an order observing that there was widespread and intermittent growth of wild cannabis plants in and around the surrounding area of Union Territory Chandigarh. The Court observed that a large number of cannabis plants could be seen growing even in the open areas near the Judges residential houses in Sectors 4,7, 10, 11 and 24, Chandigarh including the Secretariat round-about and outskirts of High Court and in Rajendra Park etc. It was a matter of grave concern that narcotic drugs were playing havoc in the life of not only the common man but in particular the young generation as a termite, who was future of this country. Thus, the Court vide order dated 14-05-2024, issued notice to Advocate Generals for the States of Punjab and Haryana and Senior Standing counsel for Union Territory Chandigarh to apprise the Court with regard to the steps being taken by the States/UT Chandigarh in matter of wild growth of Cannabis and file their respective status reports by 20-05-2024.
Therefore, in the present case the Court noted that status report dated 20-05-2024 was filed by Executive Engineer, Horticulture Division 1, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Division 2, Union Territory Chandigarh, wherein certain photographs were attached. On perusal of the affidavit, the Court opined that attempt was made by the officers in ensuring that all possible steps were taken by the Department concerned for cleaning all the wild growth growing in the areas concerned. It was further stated in the status report that regular cleaning if such wild growth was done at regular intervals or as and when required.
The Court opined that it was amazed at such response wherein a casual affidavit was filed and such an issue was needed to be addressed with all seriousness and a special team of staff including the labour must be deployed to ensure that no such wild growth of cannabis plant ever grows again. However, this did not seem to be the intention of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The Court opined that the manner in which this wild growth was dealt with, despite the Court orders was also known to the procedure as enshrined in the Drug Law Enforcement Field Officers’ Handbook issued by Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India which ensured that such plants should be burnt or damaged to make it dead sure that these were not misused for unlawful and illegal activities either by the drug addicts or peddlers.
The Court opined that in most of the photographs it was evident that after cutting down of such wild growth of cannabis, a part of it was still lying scattered at that very spot itself though major part or it had been transported. However, such transportation was to which place or what had been done to those cut-out cannabis had not been explained. The Court opined that the action which was took by the authorities so far was totally unsatisfactory. Since, it was the very initial stage of the present proceedings, the Court restrained itself from passing any harsh order inviting UT Administration to take more stern steps i.e. by uprooting such wild growth from the roots itself and also to place on record the action plan to restrain its growth during the rainy season which would flourish and mushroom such wild growths.
The Court also noticed that no affidavit was submitted by the States of Punjab and Haryana, only orally submissions were made that the meetings of the Chief Secretaries of the respective States had taken place with the Heads of the Department concerned and directions were issued to take necessary action. The Court opined that such clandestine undertook by both the States was condemnable and not accepted.
However, in the interest of justice, the Court granted one more opportunity to the respondents to the needful within one week from 20-05-2024.
The matter would next be listed on 28-05-2024.
[Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 4118, Order dated 20-5-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Ashok Giri, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG Punjab; Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG Haryana; Sourabh Goel, Senior Panel Counsel; Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel with Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate and Parminder S. Kaul, Advocate.
