NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a plea alleging contempt of its order on demolition of properties by the authorities in Uttarakhand , Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh . A bench headed by Justice BR Gavai and comprising Justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan said it was not inclined to entertain the plea filed by the petitioner who was not directly or indirectly related to the alleged act.
"We don't want to open a pandora box," said the bench.
The court said it will hear those affected by the demolition of properties.
The petitioner alleged that authorities in Haridwar, Jaipur and Kanpur had demolished properties in contempt of the apex court's order which had said that demolitions would not be carried out without its permission.
The top court had earlier reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions raising the plea that properties, including those belonging to persons accused of crimes, were being demolished in several states.
The apex court had said in its September 17 order, which barred demolitions till October 1 without its permission, that it would continue till it decides the matter.
However, it had clarified that its order would not be applicable to unauthorised structures on public roads, footpaths, railways lines or public places like water bodies etc.
"We don't want to open a pandora box," said the bench.
The court said it will hear those affected by the demolition of properties.
The petitioner alleged that authorities in Haridwar, Jaipur and Kanpur had demolished properties in contempt of the apex court's order which had said that demolitions would not be carried out without its permission.
The top court had earlier reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions raising the plea that properties, including those belonging to persons accused of crimes, were being demolished in several states.
The apex court had said in its September 17 order, which barred demolitions till October 1 without its permission, that it would continue till it decides the matter.
However, it had clarified that its order would not be applicable to unauthorised structures on public roads, footpaths, railways lines or public places like water bodies etc.
You may also like
Holidaymakers warned of new checks when entering major European country within days
'My entitled fiancée demanded £20k engagement ring – so I taught her a lesson'
Brits use soup as sauce as expert shares tips for cooking perfect Bolognese
Kanguva first review: Suriya's action-fantasy called 'finest pieces of art' ahead of offical release
Primark's 'flattering' £36 gym set looks 'just like' £142 Adanola version
