Contempt in framing of water policy: DB seeks policy in four weeks

STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: The Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Tashi Rabstan on Thursday directed the State to frame and produce the water policy in four weeks failing which Secretary PHE shall remain present before this court on 18th April 2017.
The significant direction came in a contempt petition seeking non-implementation of Gair Mumkin Khad judgment and non framing of water policy.
Advocate Aseem Sawhney appeared for the contempt petition while Deputy AG Ranjeet Singh for the State.
In the contempt petition it has been submitted that the court had directed the respondents to frame a policy/scheme for such wetlands, khads, etc within two months from 12th February 2016 and till then the Status Quo was directed to me maintained thereby meaning that the petitioner and other people like the petitioner who have lands recorded as “Gair Mumkin Khad” were deprived of either selling these properties, constructing anything or even mortgaging these properties. Two months lapsed in April 2016 but the respondents did not framed a policy or scheme, therefore compelled under these circumstances several aggrieved persons/ land owners (including petitioner) moved a representation to the Minister with copies to most of the respondents apprising them of the situation and sought compliance of the Judgment.
It was further submitted in the petition that respondents have neither bothered to implement the Judgment of the High Court nor passed any directives or orders which would permit issuance of Fards to permit the petitioner or people aggrieved who are hundreds in number, to either sell, buy, transfer or construct over such lands; since there is a status quo passed by this Court and the act of the respondents in not framing a policy within the time frame as provided by the Court is contumacious and therefore the respondents have dared to challenge the majesty of the Court by disobeying and not obeying the direction of this Court, despite reminders in writing and personal visits of the people and other aggrieved land owners to the chambers of these respondents and even the Ministers.

Comments (0)
Add Comment