&w=3840&q=100)
Samajwadi Party misused power to occupy office space for ₹115: SC
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the political party, that it was not a case of fraudulent allotment but a case of "fraudulent occupation using muscle power and misusing power".
The top court was acting on the party's plea against Nagarpalika Parishad of Pilibhit's eviction order.
Dave argued despite paying rent for the office space, the municipal authorities were adamant to evict his client.
He said a suit seeking injunction on the eviction order had been filed.
"You are a political party. You misused official position and political power to occupy the space. When action comes, you start remembering everything. Have you ever heard of office space in a municipal area for Rs 115 rent. This is a clear case of abuse of power," the bench noted.
When Dave pressed for protection from eviction for six weeks, the bench said, "Right now, you are an unauthorised occupant. These are not fraudulent allotments but fraudulent occupations." Dave claimed the party was being singled out by the authorities.
"It will be better if you file a writ petition before the high court and bring to the court's notice any such fraudulent allotment or occupation. We will be welcoming this step," the bench said.
Refusing to examine the plea, the bench did not express any opinion on the petitioner's suit in the civil court which it said should be decided at the earliest.
The party was challenging the July 2 order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to hear the plea.
On June 16, the top court dismissed a similar plea moved by the party's Pilibhit district president against the high court order restraining him from filing a fresh petition on the issue of eviction order for local party office.
The top court granted liberty to the party to move the high court against the decision of the civic body.
The apex court pointed out a 998-day delay in filing the appeal against the December 1, 2020 order of the high court on the plea of one Anand Singh Yadav who claimed to be the party's district president.
The party had claimed that the civic body ordered it to vacate the premises on November 12, 2020 without offering it the opportunity to be heard.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Standard
29 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC judge highlights need to create awareness on rights of disabled people
Supreme Court judge Justice Manmohan on Saturday highlighted the need to create sensitisation and awareness about the rights of persons with disabilities. Justice Manmohan said the courts have and will deliver verdicts on issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, but the other organs of the State also have to rise to the occasion. He was speaking at a conference held here on 'Judging and lawyering at the margins disability rights and beyond'. The conference was organised by Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation in collaboration with Qable. "The need of the hour is to create sensitisation, to create awareness. And I think the more awareness is there about the Act, about the rights that are available, the more the society will understand, the more the courts will understand and it will ensure more compliance," said Justice Manmohan when asked about the issue concerning implementation of the judgements. He also spoke on the issue regarding continuous monitoring by the court for compliance of its verdicts. "First of all, the court dockets are absolutely full and really to say that court will pick up this issue and give it absolute priority is not feasible because every day the court is grappling with so many issues," he said. Justice Manmohan said keeping in view the constraints, it has to be ensured that other organs of the State also rise to the occasion. The judge said the legislature will have to be aware of the issue and will have to put in place some mechanism whereby the court orders are given effect to. "Everything cannot be done at the pain of contempt. And if we start using the power of contempt repeatedly, it also loses its utility at some point of time," he added. Justice Manmohan said it has to be ensured the executive machinery understands that this is an obligation on them and this is "not some charity being done". "I think the basic problem that is arising is because everyone is believing that this is some sort of a charity which is being done. You think of any concept, whether it's gender justice, whether it is persons with disability, the mindset of the executive as well, to a large extent, the people who have been adjudicating these matters in the past have been that we will deal with it as if one is doing a bit of a charity," he said. Justice Manmohan further said things will change once people will realise it is a rights-based approach and not charity. "But yes, I agree with you. As a short-term measure, the court will have to monitor and will have to ensure that its judgments are implemented," he said. Justice Manmohan also cautioned if people think the court is going to monitor a matter on a daily basis, it may be raising the hopes too high. "We have to be realistic and we have to ensure that all organs of the State work towards it. Today, everything can't be left at the judiciary's doorstep. If you think that only judiciary is going to resolve the problem of this country, you are sadly mistaken," he said. Justice Manmohan said until and unless all organs, including the society, works for it, there will be issue at hand. "Just see, you need empathy in the society which is lacking," the judge said. "So, the real issue is to sensitise the society to ensure all organs of the society work together and one should not expect that it will be solved only by the judiciary," he added. Justice Manmohan said the judiciary may take the lead in the matter, but it will only get implemented at the ground level when everyone works together.
Economic Times
30 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Malegaon blast case: Former BJP MP Pragya Thakur says she was tortured, forced to name PM Modi, UP CM Yogi Adityanath & others
Synopsis Pragya Thakur, acquitted in the Malegaon blast case, alleged torture by the ATS. She said she was forced to implicate Narendra Modi, Yogi Adityanath, and Mohan Bhagwat. She claimed the Congress party orchestrated a conspiracy. The NIA court acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blasts. The court cited a lack of evidence. PTI Pragya Singh Thakur Former BJP MP Pragya Thakur, who was acquitted by NIA court in the Malegaon blast case, claimed that she was tortured and forced by the ATS to name Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwant's names among others in the case. "I have given everything in writing and named all those whom I was forced to name. They kept saying, 'Name these people then we won't beat you.' Their main aim was to torture me," Thakur told reporters on Saturday. "They kept me illegally for 13 days, but the torture happened during the 24 days in their custody," she added. She further alleged that this was a conspiracy by the Congress which has now been exposed, adding that the case is a victory of 'Bhagwa, Sanatana and Rashtra'. "This was a conspiracy by the Congress, and it has now been exposed. There is no need for further proof because truth always prevails, and it has prevailed this time as well. Congress targeted saints, the RSS, and the Army, all of which are fundamental pillars of India, in an attempt to destroy them.' "'Bhagawa, Sanatana aur Rashtra ki vijay hui hai'... I had to face a lot of difficulties, but I will keep doing everything possible for the country in future... The entire case was falsely made by Congress. This case was baseless... Congress always uses respectful words for terrorists. Congress party cannot become a nation-loving party..." Thakur said. On Thursday, the NIA special court acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case. The court said that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused, including Pragya Singh Thakur, Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhankar Dhar Dwivedi (Shankaracharya), and Sameer Kulkarni. Further, the court also ordered Maharashtra government to provide compensation to the victims' families, awarding Rs 2 lakh to the families of the deceased and Rs 50,000 to those injured in the court found no evidence of explosives being stored or assembled at the residence of Prasad Purohit, another accused in the case."No sketch of spot was done by the investigation officer while doing panchnama. No finger print , dump data or anything else was collected for the spot. The samples were contaminated so reports can't be conclusive and relied upon," the court case dates back to September 29, 2008, when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon City's Bhikku Chowk, resulting in the deaths of six people and injuring 95 others.
The Print
42 minutes ago
- The Print
Malegaon blast case: Abhinav Bharat not banned, govt yet to declare it terror outfit, says court
The judge held that the outfit has not been declared a terrorist organisation to date by the Central government, and 'even the Abhinav Bharat Trust or sanstha or sanghatana or foundation is not a banned organisation'. Special Judge A K Lahoti, in the over 1,000-page judgment, noted that the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in its investigation claimed that the accused persons were all members of Abhinav Bharat, which was an organised crime syndicate. Mumbai, Aug 2 (PTI) A special court that acquitted seven persons in the 2008 Malegaon blast case debunked the prosecution's claims that right-wing extremist group Abhinav Bharat had carried out the blast, noting that the government has not banned the organisation as a terror outfit. The court noted that the term Abhinav Bharat was consistently used by the prosecuting agencies, from the stage of remand through the final hearing, as a common reference or in common parlance. 'It is necessary to mention that Abhinav Bharat is not a banned organisation. Till today, it is not a banned organisation under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,' the judgment said. If the Central government is of the opinion that any association is or has become an unlawful association, it may be declared so by way of notification, it added. 'But nothing is brought on record till date to show that Abhinav Bharat Trust or Abhinav Bharat or Abhinav Bharat organisation is banned or declared unlawful by the Central government by way of any notification,' the court observed. It further noted that when the Abhinav Bharat Trust was constituted in 2007, it was registered with the Pune Charity Office, and on perusal, the trust deed did not mention anything wrong or illegal in its objectives. As per the trust deed, the objectives of the Abhinav Bharat Trust were to create patriotism and religious activities. 'The objectives mentioned in it (trust deed) are legal. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the accused, Pragya Singh Thakur, Sameer Kulkarni and Sudhakar Chaturvedi were members of the Abhinav Bharat Trust,' the court said. The prosecution had claimed that Purohit had floated Abhinav Bharat in 2007 with the intention to propagate a separate Hindu Rashtra, with its own constitution, as the members of the outfit were dissatisfied with the Indian Constitution. It also alleged that the accused persons, who were all members of the group, had entered into a criminal conspiracy between January and September 2008 to carry out a blast in Malegaon to strike terror in the minds of people, cause communal rift and to overawe the government. The objective of the accused persons was to turn India into a Hindu Rashtra called 'Aryawrat', the prosecution had claimed. The court, in its judgment, however, noted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the Abhinav Bharat Trust was constituted for Hindu Rashtra and to change the Constitution of India. The prosecution also could not prove that funds amounting to Rs 21 lakh collected by Abhinav Bharat were used by the accused to purchase arms, ammunition and for other activities to carry out terrorist acts or illegal activities. PTI SP ARU This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
