Blitz Bureau
NEW DELHI: THE Supreme Court has directed the demotion of a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who forcibly removed slum-dwellers’ huts in Guntur district in violation of the orders of the High Court, reports IANS.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih ordered that the state government demote Deputy Collector T Mohan Rao to the post of tehsildar. It also directed him to deposit a fine of Rs 1 lakh within four weeks.
The apex court order came on a petition filed by Mohan Rao against a High Court order which found him guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to two months’ simple imprisonment. The Bench observed that if he undergoes a sentence of two months, he would be dismissed from his service, thereby depriving his family of livelihood. However, to send a message, it directed the government to demote him by one level in the hierarchy of his service.
Mohan Rao, in his capacity as tehsildar, had disobeyed the directions of the High Court by removing huts, thereby displacing the slum-dwellers. The High Court on December 11, 2013, had directed him not to remove the huts, passing the order on the petitions of four persons who contended that revenue authorities were seeking to evict them from the plots in their occupation without considering their representations.
However, disobeying the orders of the High Court, the tehsildar removed the huts in 2014. Taking serious note of this contempt, the High Court sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two months. It had emphasised that when a constitutional court, or any other court, issues any direction, every authority, however high it may be, must comply. It observed that a disobedience of the court’s order attacks the foundation of rule of law on which democracy is based.
The official had challenged the order in the Supreme Court. Appearing on behalf of Mohan Rao, senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka submitted that the petitioner and his entire family would come on the roads. He further submitted that the petitioner’s two children studying Classes 11 and 12 would not be in a position to continue their education, and their careers would be lost. The court had earlier asked the petitioner if he was willing to suffer demotion in order to avoid going to jail. When he refused to accept demotion, the court vented its ire for expecting to go scot-free despite a contemptuous violation of the High Court’s order.
