BHOPAL: The Madhya Pradesh high court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL that sought an order to restrain the administration from bulldozing houses of persons accused of any crime. It doesn’t concern any larger public interest, a division bench of Chief Justice R V Malimath and Justice Purusendra Kaurav observed while dismissing the petition., adding that if at all houses of some persons were demolished, they have a legal right to defend themselves and their properties.
The petitioner, advocate Amitabh Gupta, said that houses of those accused of crime are being bulldozed by the administration and police in several parts of the state. He referred to media reports on bulldozing of houses in Indore, Bhopal, Ujjain, Khargone and some other places in support of his contention.
“Bulldozing the house of an accused without giving him a hearing is illegal,” he argued in his petition, and attached a copy of a newspaper report in which former Supreme Court judge, Justice Deepak Gupta, had criticized the bulldozing of the house of Abdul Rafiq in Ujjain.
PIL solely based on media reports: State govt in HC
Additional advocate general Ashish Anand Barnard, appearing on behalf of the state government, said that only illegally built houses have been bulldozed by the administration and the PIL is based solely on media reports. Besides, none of those affected by the administrative action has filed a petition in court, he argued.
After hearing both sides, the court, in its brief order, said: “On considering the contentions and the pleadings, we are of the considered view that it may not be appropriate to entertain this petition as a public interest litigation.”
“Even if the case of the petitioner is to be accepted that certain houses of certain persons have been demolished, those persons have a legal right to defend themselves and their properties in a manner known to law. We do not see any nexus with the petitioner and the persons whose properties have been demolished. Therefore, it is for those persons to appropriately move court for a necessary order as they deem fit. We do not find any reason to entertain this petition on behalf of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed,” the court said.
