Officers in a democratic system cannot act power-charged: Allahabad HC deplores bulldozing action by Amethi District Admin

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that authority and power vested by a democratic system in the hands of the officers and employees of the executive has to be always exercised by them being duty-conscious; rather than such employees/officers being power-charged.

The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Saurabh Srivastava said, "The officers and authorities of the District Administration as also those of Nagar Palika Parishad concerned have been legally vested certain authority and power which are to be exercised, in all circumstances including a situation where they may be provoked, in good faith and with bona fide intentions. Any deviation from good faith in discharge of the duties and powers by such State authorities cannot, in our constitutional setup, be approved of."

The bench made the observation while delivering judgment in a Public Interest Litigation filed by the District Bar Association, Amethi against the excess committed by the District Administration against its members.

The petitioner's counsel had alleged that the District Administration of Amethi had acted in vengeance against the members of the Bar Association in order to "teach them a lesson" as they were protesting and raising their voices for the establishment of a civil court in the district.

The counsel alleged that the District Administration lodged successive First Information Reports (FIRs) against current and former office-bearers of the Association as well as demolished the structures/buildings owned by them in a short span of 2-3 days.

The General Secretary of the District Bar Association, Uma Shankar, though whom this PIL was filed also apprised the court that the local authorities had also demolished the house owned by him using a JCB machine without serving any notice.

He apprised the court that the land upon which his house was built was given to him in an exchange in 2015 under section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZA & LR Act), however, the Sub Divisional Magistrate canceled the exchange without serving any notice and within three days of the said cancellation order, an FIR was also lodged against him under Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

However, the Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-authorities argued that exchange order of land of the General Secretary with Gaon Sabha land was passed without hearing the Nagar Palika Parishad and therefore, the order was cancelled.

He also opposed the allegation that no opportunity had been given to the General Secretary before the razing of the building stating that the structure was illegal construction on public utility land and the Tehsildar of the area had passed an order for eviction before the removal of the building.

The Court noted that before the demolition of General Secretary's house, prima facie he was not put to proper and adequate notice.

"The service of notice in this case, as is available on the case file, also does not appear to be proper and as per law," Court found.

However, while refraining from giving any finding in respect of the judicial orders pertaining to the demolition, the court held that the events and circumstances, if looked at chronologically, would show that neither the allegations against the District were proper, nor the action of the District Administration was proper which also had strong traces of bad and malicious motive and bad faith.

"Lodging of the FIRs, undertaking demolitions and even making the complaint to the Bar Council of U.P. against the President and formal office bearers and members of the petitioner-Bar Association and cancelling the order of exchange of land under section 161 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, in a span of less than a week shows not only undue haste on the part of the District Administration but such actions also demonstrate lack of good faith on the part of the authorities of District Administration," the court noted.

The court said that the minimum which is required of the Administrative officers/employees is that they, in all circumstances, will adhere to law and take action only in accordance with the legal procedure prescribed for the purpose.

Therefore, the court ordered the proceedings initiated against the SDM's order of cancelling the exchange of land in the General Secretary's name to be expedited and conducted appropriately.

Apart from that, court asked the District Magistrate, Amethi, and the members/representatives of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to sit across the table and redress the genuine grievances of the Amethi Bar Association.

Moreover, the court expressed hope the member of the Bar Association would not the unnecessarily harassed.

Case Title: Dist. Bar Association Amethi, Thru. Its General Secretary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others