Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice P. D. Audikesavalu sternly remarked, “The Court’s orders have to be implemented/complied with in letter and spirit. If the officials are unable to do that, they are unfit to hold the post that too, in a disciplined force, like police force.”
If Police Officials Are Unable To Comply With Court’s Order Then They Are Unfit To Hold Their Post: Madras High Court
23 Feb 2021 10:24 AM
SHARE THIS –
Noting that when the Advocate Commissioner went to inspect the property, dogs were let loose and nobody could enter into the property despite police protection, the Madras High Court on Monday (22ndFebruary) came down heavily on the concerned police officials.
The Bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice P. D. Audikesavalu sternly remarked,
“The Court’s orders have to be implemented/complied with in letter and spirit. If the officials are unable to do that, they are unfit to hold the post that too, in a disciplined force, like police force.”
As per the HC’s order, when an Advocate Commissioner went to inspect the property to note down physical features and to take measurements of the property, some people, who were there objected/resisted/protested against the Advocate Commissioner from entering into the property.
Therefore, she was compelled to approach this Court for police protection and police protection was also ordered.
However, when the Advocate Commissioner went to inspect the property, dogs were let loose and nobody could enter into the property despite police protection. Therefore, the matters came before the Court.
At the outset, the Court remarked,
“This Court is unable to understand as to how the police personnel are unable to give police protection to the Advocate Commissioner to enter upon the property.”
“If the dogs were let loose, they should see to it that the dogs are controlled and action taken against the parties, who let loose the dogs. Instead of doing so, the police is only exhibiting their inability to execute the Court’s order.”
In this backdrop, the Court gave 48 hours to the local police to see to it that a conducive atmosphere is created for the Advocate Commissioner to enter upon the property and to take measurements and to note down physical features of the property as per the orders of the Court.
That apart, the Court also directed the police to identify persons, who are said to be in occupation of the property, their antecedents and who let loose the dogs.
Lastly, the Court also directed the police to ensure that the persons, who are all there in the property, hand over documents to the Advocate Commissioner in proof of their alleged title or alleged occupation.
The entire inspection has been directed to be video-graphed. The matter will now come up for hearing on Thursday (25thFebruary).
The Karnataka High Court has asked the state government to inform whether it will be carrying out a survey of all quarries in the State in a phased manner and whether any action of determination of lease/licenses is taken by the State Government during the year 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said “We, therefore, direct the State Government to file supplementary statement of objections stating whether any direction has been issued to carry out survey of all quarries in the State in a phased manner and whether any action of determination of lease/licenses has been taken by the State Government during the year 2020.”
The directions were given in a petition filed by SAMAJA PARIVARTHANA SAMITHI (R) highlighting the issue of illegal quarrying being undertaken in the state. By order dated December 8, 2020 the court had said “In a large number of cases, public interest litigations are being filed complaining about the instances of illegal quarrying or instances of quarrying being carried out in breach of the terms of the lease/licence. There are also grievances made regarding carrying out unauthorized activity of stone crushing or activity of stone crushing in breach of the licence granted under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011.”
It added “Illegal mining or illegal stone crushing has a direct impact on the environment and ecology. Considering the precautionary principle and the doctrine of public trust, it is the duty of the State Government and the State Pollution Control Board to take immediate action for preventing illegal quarrying or illegal stone crushing.”
The court had then directed the both the State Government and the State Pollution Control Board to set up grievance redressal mechanism, so that citizens can launch complaints by taking recourse to the said mechanism which will ensure that the complaints are immediately attended to and necessary action is initiated against the wrong doers
Accordingly the state and the pollution control board in their affidavits filed on February 3, informed the court that Grievance Redressal Mechanism has been constituted and a ‘Monthly Drive’ is proposed.
The bench though noted that “There are no details given about specific action taken against quarrying lease holders who have committed breaches. There is no statement made stating that a survey of all mines in the State shall be carried out in a phase wise manner with a view to ascertain whether any illegalities have been committed by them.
Following which the court directed the state government to file a supplementary statement of objections stating whether any direction has been issued to carry out a survey of all quarries in the State in a phased manner. The supplementary statement of objections is to be filed within a period of one month from today.