Noida chairman moved out after HC rejects state plea
- Gurdaspur terror attack ends, all three terrorists killed
- Former president Abdul Kalam passes away following sudden illness
- Will not strike first, but will give a befitting reply: Rajnath Singh
- LG Najeeb Jung clears Swati Maliwal's appointment as DCW chief
- Gurdaspur attack aftermath: BCCI says no cricket ties with Pakistan as of now
Within hours of the Allahabad High Court upholding its order for removal of Noida Chairman and CEO, the state government removed chairman Rakesh Bahadur on Thursday. He was also removed as Chairman of Greater Noida and the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) and kept waiting for a posting. Sanjeev Saran, who was CEO when the high court issued its initial order in November, was transferred last month.
Earlier in the day, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the review petition filed by the state government against the November 8, 2012, order, in which Noida Chairman, Rakesh Bahadur, and then Chief Executive Officer, Sanjeev Saran, were directed to be immediately removed from their posts.
While Saran had been removed from his post in January, the government had not disturbed Bahadur. Referring to the direction of the court in the November 8 order regarding a preliminary CBI inquiry against the two officials, the court said if the CBI does not file a preliminary inquiry report on or before March 31, the state would be free to post the two officers anywhere in Uttar Pradesh, including the districts of western UP.
Passing the order, a division bench of Justices Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra and P K S Baghel said: "We modify the said order (dated November 8, 2012) to the extent that the CBI shall, as directed, conduct the preliminary inquiry in the matter and report back to the court on or before 31st March, 2013. If the preliminary inquiry report is not submitted by the CBI within the said period, the state shall be free to post those two officers anywhere it likes, including the districts covered under the western UP." The court allowed the modification after it was argued by the advocate general that transfer and posting of officials was a concern of the state. The court said while it did not want to enter into that arena, the fact was that the division bench had not only ordered removal of the officials but also ordered a preliminary inquiry by the CBI.