The Nainital district was boiling with vandalism and disturbances after the outraged locals and various other majority community organisations strongly protested against the alleged rape of a 12 year old minor ( girl) by a 73 year old man of a minority community a contractor by profession.
The large number of police have to be called in to control the situation and the chief minister Uttarakhand Pushkar Singh Dhami had convened a high level meeting with the top brass of police and administration of Nainital district holding Webinar meeting with them instructing the Commissioner Nainital Deepak Rawat, IAS and other senior police officers to control the situation immediately ensuring that the culprits involved in vandalism and riots are not spared. The culprit of the minor’s sexual assault was however arrested the same day.
After this obnoxious incident that outraged large number of people in Nainital and other parts of the state leading to skirmishes and vandalism, the district administration issued notice of demolition to the culprit’s family against the illegal encroachment.
The wife of the culprit approached the Uttarakhand high Court against this order of encroachment and subsequent demolition of their resident saying that she is being harnessed because she is the wife of the alleged culprit.
On hearing the petition, the Uttarakhand court Nainital’s two judge bench comprising of Chief Justice G. Narendra and Justice Ravindra Maithani took the Uttarakhand police of Nainital to task scolding them for being inefficient, apathetic and negligent not taking any action against those involved in open vandalism and thrashing etc.
The Uttarakhand H C expressing its total displeasure over the issuance of the demolition notice to the applicant in lieu of the alleged crime committed by her husband categorically said that not only are they cancelling the demolition notice, giving it a stay but are also seeking unconditional written apologies from the administration. The court asked as to how can they violate the Supreme Court directives in this regard to which the Nainital Municipal authorities unambiguously admitted that the Supreme Court directions were not followed while issuing the demolition notice ?
The notice of the Nainital Municipal authorities have clearly said that if within three days the documents of the legal ownership of their house on forest land etc were not shown to the authorities their house will be demolished as it is believed to have been built on the forest land and thus illegally encroached upon.
To this the wife of the alleged culprit Osman who approached the HC with her petition said that the 15 days prior notice weren’t issued to them as is mandatory adding that they are living here for more than twenty years. The wife of the culprit thorough her lawyer pleaded that since she is the wife of Osman she is being victimised and issued the demolition notice.
The two judge bench to this said in their ruling that : We are issuing contempt and considering the matter seriously. You ( municipal council, Nainital) cannot violate the apex court’s orders as SC is clear on the order of demolition said the two judge bench comprising of the CJ G.Narendra and Justice Ravindra Maithani. The HC judges also came down heavily on the police administration venting their anger saying the police was apathetic, weren’t on the scene at the time of vandalism to calm the people’s rousing sentiments as their presence was quintessential at such critical times.
What’s interesting to note in this case is that though criminals have no religion and we strongly condemn the obnoxious act committed against the minor girl, standing solidly and unequivocally with the traumatised family but in Ankita Bhandari case the state administration had not shown any eagerness except sending the local lawmaker to demolish the resort in order to allegedly demolish the evidences inviting hundreds of protests. Till date the family of Ankita Bhandari has not acknowledged due justice and the VIP is still a secret . This apathy raised several questions.
Leave a Reply