ALOK KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Pertaining to ensure the personal attendance of the petitioner/applicant Sri Alok Kumar Pandey, in compliance of the order dated 17.6.2014, learned Chief Standing Counsel apprised the Court that police was sent on 28th July, 2014 at the address of Sri Pandey 'A-92 Sector-55, Noida' in order to fetch him and to provide protection while bringing him to the Court, he was not available there. Instead, his brother, Sri Avnish Pandey disclosed that Sri Alok Kumar Pandey has gone to Dhanbad (jharkhand) to meet his father. That apart, it was brought to the notice of the Court that once Sri Pandey was so severely beaten at Haridwar to make him scare, inasmuch as, to the risk of his life, if his attendance is enforced in the Court and at times, the protection of even a single Sub-Inspector may not be sufficient and result-worthy to provide complete protection to Sri Pandey. In this backdrop, we recall our order dated 22.5.2014 and do away with the necessity of personal attendance of the petitioner. Moreso, for the reason that in the public interest litigation petition, it is net always necessary to ensure the personal presence of the petitioner himself come what may.

(2.) As regards the compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.6.2011, we have heard pros and cons and feel that the attempt was made to stuck the Court in the web of so many things like compounding, non-compounding, danger to the nearby buildings and moving on applications one after the other to the concerned authority, and therefore, subsequent orders thereto as well as order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 20th May, 2013, whereby the competent authority was directed to decide the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 within 30 days. We have also perused the order of the appellate authority dated 17th June, 2013, wherein it has been directed that all illegal constructions, which cannot be compounded, must be demolished and it was further enjoined that the construction which are compoundable, may be compounded by the Secretary of the Development Authority.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 has also taken us to the affidavit of one Mr. Anil Kumar Tyagi dated 20th November, 2011, which is none other, but the Executive Engineer of the Development Authority, holding the charge of Secretary, disclosing in the enclosed chart certain percentage of the construction, which requires demolition and rest, which requires compounding.