SC initiates contempt
proceedings against Collector and others
Rainbow restaurant at
Aluva, built in violation of the environment laws, will be demolished
immediately.
The Ernakulam District
Collector has asked the Public Works Department to pull down the structure
immediately even as the Supreme Court has initiated Contempt of Court
proceedings against the Collector and others in the case.
On Monday, the apex court
ordered that the Principal Secretary (Tourism), the Ernakulam District
Collector, the chairman of the Tourism Development Corporation, the secretary
of the Ernakulam District Tourism Promotion Council and the secretary of Aluva
Municipality to be present before it on April 28 for facing contempt of court
proceedings.
Responding to the
developments, District Collector M.G. Rajamanickam said the demolition would
begin on Tuesday.
Earlier, the district
administration had issued orders to the Public Works Department to raze the
structure after the apex court rejected its request for more time for
implementing the order. The PWD, on its part, had decided to go in for floating
tenders for executing the work, Mr. Rajamanickam said.
With the Supreme Court
issuing notices for contempt of court to the officials, the State government
directed the district administration on Monday to raze the structure without
waiting for the PWD to complete the tender process.
The building would be
pulled down immediately and the matter would be reported to the Supreme Court,
said Mr. Rajamanickam.
Last month, the court had
directed the authorities, who sought additional time for implementing the
demolition order, to ensure that the structure was demolished immediately. It
had also indicated that the help of any Central force could be sought for
handling any law and order situation that may arise while razing the building.
Moving the contempt of
court petition, S. Sitaraman, the secretary of the Association for Environment
Protection, said the respondents had “flagrantly violated and never complied
with the judgment” passed by the court.
“The petitioner contended
the respondents raised false and baseless arguments with the intent to defeat
the order passed by the court,” said Sivan Madathil who represented the
petitioner.
The petitioner also
submitted before the court that the demolition of the building constructed by
the respondents would not adversely impact the environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment