|
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, turned down the plea
to stay the demolitions of illegal structures in Ulhasnagar,
questioning the petitioners' delay in filing the appeal.
After being questioned several times by the SC Bench,
the advocates for the residents decided to withdraw
all the cases against the Bombay High Court.
A Bench headed by the Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal, including
Justice C K Thakker and Justice P K Balasubramanyan,
dismissed, as withdrawn, all the petitions that challenged
the Bombay High Court's interim order to demolish close
to 855 unlawful constructions in the township. These
structures are supposed to be in breach of The Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act and Development Control
Regulations (1991). The Bombay HC had issued the interim
order in April 2005, in response to a PIL filed by Hari
Tanwani and Nanomal Samtani. On December 7, 2005, the
Bombay HC had directed the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
(UMC) to proceed with the flattening of unauthorized
structures as per its earlier orders. It also directed
the UMC to submit the report by January 10, 2006. The
matter is scheduled for hearing before the High Court
on January 11. The SC has stated that the petitioners
were free to approach the Bombay High Court for suitable
relief.
The area has witnessed protests and unrest for the past
week, ever since the structures began to be pulled down.
The demolitions are likely to render at least one lakh
people homeless, who have been residing in the areas
for more than past twenty years. The petitioners have
also brought to the notice of the Courts that the people
were uninformed of the proceedings before the Bombay
High Court issued the interim order. Some residents,
distressed by the High Court judgements of April 27,
November 23 and December 7, had approached the Court
seeking stay of the verdict on humanitarian grounds.
Meanwhile, the SC Bench was unmoved by the entreaty
and said, "Why you (petitioners) did not approach
the High Court. It (news about the demolition) was appearing
in the newspapers". The Court said that it was
not viable for it to follow on the appeal of every individual.
The Bench also clarified that those who move Court would
have to elucidate the category under which their construction
stands illegal. It also added that petitioners were
required to mention whether the construction also falls
under the category of encroachment or construction on
public land.
|
