NEW DELHI: In an unusual development in the Supreme Court on Wednesday during hearing of a case relating to encroachments in Himachal Pradesh, the state’s counsel invited the court’s ire when he pointed out that a PIL on a similar issue filed by wife of one of the judges on the bench is pending in the high court.

During the hearing on a suo motu criminal contempt case relating to an official being shot dead while leading the drive against encroachments in Kasauli , state’s counsel Abhinav Mukerji handed over papers to a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, Abdul S Nazeer and Deepak Gupta informing that a writ petition filed by Punam Gupta, wife of Justice Gupta, on encroachments in forest land was pending in the Himachal Pradesh HC.

The PIL, pending in HP HC since 2002, related to encroachments on forest land and unauthorised constructions on which the HC has passed interim orders staying the state’s decision to regularise encroachments in forest land. On seeing the papers, Justice Gupta said, “This PIL is different (from the case being heard by the bench) as it dealt with encroachments on forest land.”

Mukerji said Justices Lokur and Gupta had on May 9 passed an order clarifying that it will deal with all kinds of encroachments in HP. The relevant portion of the SC order had asked for the state government’s response on “specific steps that are being taken by the state so that there is no unauthorisesd construction in other parts of the state and how the problem is proposed to be tackled”.

Amicus curiae P S Patwaia as well as advocate general Ashok Sharma had informed the bench on May 9 that the HC is seized of the matter relating to unauthorised constructions in different parts of the state.

In response, the bench said: “There is no stay of the proceedings and the HC may continue with the proceedings regardless of the pendency of the proceedings in SC.” But pointing out about pendency of Punam Gupta’s petition in the HC enraged the bench.

Justice Lokur asked why the state government was raising this issue and whether it had nothing better to do? Justice Lokur said it was shocking that the state government had to take this stand before the court when it would do well to concentrate on governance.

