Chandigarh Administration gets rap for ‘casual’ affidavit on action taken to remove plants of cannabis | Chandigarh News
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has pulled up the Chandigarh Administration for its “casual” affidavit filed on the action taken on the removal of cannabis plants growing in Chandigarh.
The division bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sandeep Moudgil said that the action taken by the authorities so far on behalf of the UT Chandigarh Administration is totally “unsatisfactory”.
The HC on previous hearing while noting about the cannabis plants seen growing in Chandigarh and even in the open areas near the judges residential houses, including the Secretariat roundabout and outskirts of High Court, had issued notice to Advocate Generals for the states of Punjab and Haryana and senior standing counsel for UT, Chandigarh, to apprise the court of the steps being taken by the two states and Chandigarh in the matter of wild growth of cannabis.
The HC is hearing a plea for suspension of sentence in a drugs-related matter under the NDPS Act. During the course of hearing, the court was apprised of the cannabis plants growing in Chandigarh.
During the resumed proceedings, a status report was filed by Pritpal Singh, executive engineer, Horticulture Division no. 1, MC Chandigarh, on perusing which the HC held, “This court can infer an attempt has been made by the said officer ensuring that all possible steps have been taken by the department concerned for cleaning all the wild growth growing in the areas of Sector 4/7/10/11/24 and Rajindra Park, Sector 24 Chandigarh etc. including other areas which vest within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and necessary manpower and other machinery has been deployed to curb the growing of cannabis plant. A further stand has been taken by the Municipal Corporation that regular cleaning of such wild growth is done at regular intervals or as and when required.”
The Bench, however, observed, “This court is amazed at such response wherein a casual affidavit has been filed. Such an issue needs to be addressed with all seriousness and a special team of staff, including the labour, must be deployed to ensure that no such wild growth of cannabis plant ever grows again but it does not seem to be the intention of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh.
“…the manner in which this wild growth has been dealt with, despite orders of this Court is also not known to the procedure as enshrined in the Drug Law Enforcement Field Officers’ Handbook issued by Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India which ensures that such plants should be burnt or damaged to make it dead sure that these are not misused for unlawful and illegal activities either by the drug addicts or peddlers…”, said the Bench.
On perusing the photographs placed on record by the Administration, the Bench said that “it is further evident that after cutting down of such wild growth of cannabis, a part of it is still lying scattered at that very spot itself though major part or it has been transported but to which place or what has been done to those cut-out cannabis has not been explained by the Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh”.
On another affidavit by Navraj Singh, executive engineer, Horticulture Division No.2, Chandigarh, the HC said that “the action taken by the authorities so far on behalf of the UT Chandigarh Administration is totally unsatisfactory though this court, at the very initial stage of the present proceedings, and, thus would refrain itself from passing any harsh order inviting UT Administration to take more stern steps which is by uprooting such wild growth from the roots itself and also to place on record the action plan to restrain its growth during the rainy season which would flourish and mushroom such wild growths.”
On Punjab and Haryana not filing their replies, the HC said that “such clandestine stand taken by both the state counsel for Punjab and Haryana is condemnable and not accepted by this court”. The HC, however, granted one more opportunity to the two state counsel, while adjourning the matter for May 28.
No Byline Policy
Editorial Guidelines
Corrections Policy
Source