Govt gets a week to file affidavits on sacking of Noida chairman, CEO
- Farmer’s suicide: Family lashes out at AAP, raises doubt on suicide note
- Human resource India's biggest strength: PM Modi
- Sena-BJP sweep Aurangabad civic polls, AIMIM ahead of Cong, NCP
- Call records may nail red sandalwood killings; NHRC seeks records of personnel involved
- Amit Shah rips Rahul Gandhi for 'post-leave' noises
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday gave the state government time till December 20 to file affidavits with regard to compliance of its November 8 order by which it had asked for the removal of Noida Chairman Rakesh Bahadur and Chief Executive Officer Sanjeev Saran.
The court exempted chief secretary and other senior officials from personal appearance before a single judge bench in the matter. On December 7, the bench, while hearing a contempt petition, had directed the state government to comply with the November 8 order and file an affidavit by December 14. In case of non-compliance, the chief secretary and other senior officials were to be present before the court.
The state government and the chief secretary, along with two other senior officials, had filed separate special appeals challenging the order passed by the single judge bench. Both the appeals were taken up together for hearing before a division bench of Justices Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra and Sunita Agarwal. Disposing of the appeals, the court said: "We...(direct) the contemnors (state government and other officials) to file an affidavit before the learned single judge on or before December 20, 2012, indicating as to whether they have complied with the (November 8) order of the division bench or not. If the said order has not been complied with, the contemnors shall also file affidavit indicating the reasons..."
The court further said: "After such affidavits are filed, the learned single judge may proceed with the contempt application depending on the nature of the affidavits filed. Personal appearance of the contemnors on December 14, 2012, is dispensed with." The court did not go into the merits of the case, saying it may affect the proceedings .