New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a petition seeking contempt proceedings against officials of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in connection with demolition of a Gurudwara.
A bench of justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan also directed to maintain the status quo in the matter till the next date of hearing and issued notice to concerned respondents in the matter.
The petitioner Pravin Jivan
The petitioner Pravin Jivan Walodra was represented by Advocate Soumya Priyadarshinee. The petitioner has sought to initiate contempt proceedings against officials of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (a statutory body under BMC) over the demolition of a Gurudwara, accusing them of violating the top court decision staying demolitions of properties.
Also Read |
Farmers protest: SC asks Punjab to tackle health situation of farmers' leader Dallewal
The petitioner said that the alleged Contemnors have violated the right to shelter the petitioners which is guaranteed to them as per the Constitution of India.
The petitioner said that the demolition by the alleged Contemnors had happened on October 15 2024, in complete contravention of the interim orders dated September 17 2024 and October 1 2024 wherein the top Court had explicitly ordered that there would be no demolition anywhere across the country without seeking permission.
"The alleged contemnors have without leave of this Court demolished the said structure, and have given the reason of the said structure being on a public road, a fact which has not been recorded in any of the internal correspondence which was provided to the Petitioner nor in the records available with the Petitioner," the petition said.
Also Read |
Thrissur Pooram: SC asks organisers to comply 2012 Kerala Captive Elephants Rules
The petitioner said that they had been managing the Gurudwara and residing in the room in the said structure peacefully with his family for years together, with his predecessors in title having done so since around 1955, as is evident from the documents.
The Petitioners and his predecessors had been paying property tax in respect of the said plot of land and structure, the petitioner said. (With Agency Inputs)
