HC Stays Recovery Notice over Damage to Property in Kanpur during Anti-CAA Protests, Akhilesh Slams Yogi

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has stayed a notice issued by the Kanpur administration seeking damages from a local resident over the destruction of property during protests against the amended citizenship law.

The stay, ordered last week on a petition by Kanpur's Mohammad Faizan, comes against the backdrop of scores of similar recovery notices sent by district authorities in Uttar Pradesh in recent weeks.

Reacting to it, SP president Akhilesh Yadav mockingly reminded Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath of his remark that the state government will avenge ('badla') the destruction of public property by making those responsible for it pay for the losses.

"What will the Badla Baba do now? Whom will he take revenge against for this ruling?" he wrote in Hindi on Twitter on Monday.

"If you are the head, you should have the knowledge of rules and regulations and the intention and vision to do justice. This is a responsible post and not for speaking the language of revenge (pratishod)," he said.

Justices Pankaj Naqvi and SS Shamshery passed the stay order on Faizan's petition against the recovery notice issued on January 4 by an additional district magistrate (ADM).

The bench said the notice violated the guidelines laid down by the apex court in 2009 when it heard the matter related to Destruction of Public and Private Properties Vs State of AP and others. The judges also said the issue was still pending before the Supreme Court.

The High Court bench has asked the state government to file its reply within a month. The case will now be listed for the week beginning April 20.

The judges observed that the Supreme Court guidelines had said the power to compute damages and investigate liability for destruction of public property will be exercised by a serving or retired high court or district court judge as claims commissioner.

The petitioner's counsel argued that an executive officer like the ADM had no power to issue such a notice in view of the 2009 Supreme Court order.

The judges added that the rules under which the notice was served is also under challenge before the apex court. So the operation of the notice should be put in abeyance till the issue is determined by the apex court, the bench said.