DB directs respondents to identify person responsible for dis-obedience

By
Daily Excelsior
-

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 12: In an application filed by Vice-Chairperson of Jammu Development Authority seeking extension of time, clarification and modification of the directions regarding deposit of cost, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Hasnain Massodi and Justice Tashi Rabstan today directed the respondents to identify the person responsible for the dis-obedience of the order.
After hearing Advocate SK Shukla for the PIL highlighting alleged conversion of residential area into commercial at Roop Nagar Housing Colony whereas Advocates Adarsh Sharma and Sindu Sharma for the JDA, DB observed, “on March 27, this Court had granted last opportunity to the JDA VC to comply with the order by or before 15th April subject to payment of Rs 25,000 as cost”.
“On 02.09.2014, this Court was informed that order dated 10.11.2009 has not been complied with, resultantly, Vice Chairperson , JDA was directed to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing along with Rs 25,000 imposed in terms of order dated 27.03.2014”, the DB said.
“The petitioners seek review of order dated 02.09.2014 on the ground that in the first place the order has been complied with though this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and consequently on the ground that the officer manning the post of Vice Chairman, JDA on 27.03.2014 has since been transferred and therefore need not to be liable to deposit the cost”, the DB said, adding “all other issues raised in the petition can be dealt with as the matter proceed”.
“In the event it is found that order as a matter of fact is complied with in terms of order dated 27.03.2014 well before the deadline or cut of date fixed there to, petitioner would be free to seek return of the amount, if so deposited. However, in the event, it is found that order dated 27.03.2014 has not been complied with before 15.04.2014, it is the duty of the respondents to identify the officer responsible for disobedience of the Court order so that the such officer is directed to deposit the amount and amount deposited be returned to the petitioner”.

WhatsApp Icon Follow our WhatsApp channel