Allahabad High Court: In a public interest litigation filed by Association for Protection of Civil Rights (‘APCR’), challenging Uttar Pradesh Government’s proposed action to demolish properties of accused persons in Bahraich violence case, in the special Sunday sitting the division bench of Attau Rahman Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ. after noting that earlier the occupants had been given only three days to respond to the notices that were pasted on their houses on 18-10-2024, granted the affected persons 15 days from the date of this order to respond to the Demolition Notices issued by the UP Government.
Background:
On 13-10-2024, the final day of Durga Puja celebrations, communal violence erupted in the Maharajganj/Mehsi area of District Bahraich following objections from local members of a particular community regarding the playing of loud music. The altercation tragically resulted in the death of a 22-year-old man, who allegedly climbed onto the roof of a house belonging to a member of that community, tore down a green flag, and began waving a saffron flag while participants in the procession shouted slogans like “Jai Shri Ram” and “Jai Bajrang Bali.” Shortly after this incident, the man was shot and succumbed to his injuries.
In the aftermath, individuals armed with sticks and iron rods protested violently, setting fire to shops, vehicles, and private properties associated with the community involved. The unrest persisted for approximately two days, leading to the suspension of internet services for four days to prevent the spread of misinformation. On the night of 13-10-2024, an FIR was registered against six known and four unknown individuals under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 103(2) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Court’s Order
The Court noted that insofar as the demolition of constructions is concerned, the Supreme Court in Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corpn., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2593 , while directing that there shall be no demolition anywhere across the country without seeking leave of the Court, clarified that this order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law.
The Court remarked that it had no reason to believe that the above-mentioned order would not be carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh in letter and spirit.
In the present case, the Court noted that some notices have come to be issued to some persons for raising unauthorized constructions, for participation in the proceedings through a reply to be submitted by them within three days.
The Court stated that it was unclear in the pleadings whether the aggrieved persons had filed any reply or approached any forum. It noted that, in any case, notices issued against a limited number of individuals participating in the proceedings could not be regarded as a matter of public importance suitable for consideration in public interest litigation. The Court emphasized that for such matters to be cognizable, the vulnerability of the aggrieved person must be evident, demonstrating that they are unable to approach the court to avail themselves of the remedies available under the law.
Leaving all these aspects of the matter open, what pricked the Court’s conscience was the issuance of notices requiring replies within a short span of three days. The Court found it unclear how many houses located on kilometer 38 of the Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj District Road had been duly authorized for construction, indicating a need for greater clarity in the notice.
Without making any observations on the merits at this stage, the Court granted three days’ time to the Chief Standing Counsel to obtain complete instructions. It instructed that the position regarding the category of the road and the applicable norms should be clarified at the next scheduled hearing.
The Court expressed its expectation that the individuals facing the notices would participate in the proceedings in the meantime. It further provided that if they filed their replies to the notices within 15 days from the date of this order, the competent authority would consider and decide on those replies by issuing a speaking and reasoned order, which would then be communicated to the aggrieved parties.
The matter will next be taken up on 23-10-2024.
[Association For Protection of Civil Rights v. State of U.P, 2024 SCC OnLine All 6190, decided on 20-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Petitioner : Saurabh Shankar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent : Chief Standing Counsel
