Allahabad HC raps registry officials for withholding case file in demolition matter

Lucknow, Nov 4 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday pulled up senior officials of its own registry for failing to produce a crucial case file related to the demolition of an allegedly illegal building in the city's Khurram Nagar area, despite repeated directions from a division bench hearing a pending PIL on the same issue.

A Lucknow bench comprising justices Rajan Roy and Rajeev Bharti issued show-cause notices to three officers - the Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, and Assistant Registrar -” asking why proceedings should not be initiated against them for "not cooperating and facilitating the hearing" and "stalling" the case by withholding the file.

The bench also directed the senior registrar to conduct an inquiry and submit a report by the next hearing on November 10.

"This is an important matter where demolition orders have not been given effect since 2016 and prima facie allegations are of connivance of LDA (Lucknow Development Authority) officials etc. We had fixed this matter as first case of the day looking into the sensitiveness of the matter as would be evident from the previous orders," the bench remarked sharply when it could not proceed for want of the file.

In compliance with an earlier order, LDA vice-chairman Prathmesh Kumar joined the proceedings via video conference, but the hearing was deferred due to the missing file. The bench directed him to appear again on the next date.

The PIL, filed in 2016 by a man named Hemant Kumar Mishra, sought enforcement of an LDA order to demolish the building, allegedly constructed illegally in Khurram Nagar. Despite the demolition order, no action was taken for years.

When the division bench recently revived the matter, it sought repeated explanations from LDA on the delay.

Meanwhile, builder Farooq Siddiqui filed a delayed appeal before the LDA chairman and then moved a writ petition before a single judge, who, after a mention on September 11”, stayed the demolition till disposal of the appeal. This stay effectively nullified the division bench's ongoing proceedings.

When the two-judge bench learnt about the single bench's order, it expressed strong displeasure on September 22 and summoned the case file from the registry, also asking why the matter was listed before a single judge when such cases are usually heard by a division bench.

On Tuesday, the PIL was listed as the first case, but the file was still not produced.

The bench also noted that the case papers had not been sent to the judges' residences for preparation as per standard protocol. The bench's secretary informed that telephonic requests to the concerned registry officers had gone unanswered.

When the court sought to know the whereabouts of the joint registrar, deputy registrar, and assistant registrar, the senior registrar informed that the officials had "not yet reached the high court and were on their way". PTI COR KIS ZMN