New Delhi, Oct 6 (IANS) The Supreme Court Tuesday summoned the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary to explain why he should not be punished for violating its order to halt constructions at memorial sites of various leaders in Lucknow.
A bench of Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice Aftab Alam issued notice to Chief Secretary Atul Kumar Gupta seeking his personal presence before it on Nov 4 to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be launched against him for violation of the court’s order.

“After giving our anxious considerations, we are of the view that a strong prima facie case is made out against the chief secretary. Issue notice to the chief secretary as to why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated and (he) be not punished for the flagrant violation of the court order,” said the bench.

“The admitted position is that the construction had been going on in full swing at several places and we are of the view that the court should proceed further and go into the heart of the matter,” the bench said.

The bench also reiterated its earlier orders halting construction at various memorial sites.

Various lawsuits pending before the apex court and the Allahabad High Court have challenged building the memorials at a huge cost to the exchequer.

The bench at one point even contemplated ordering closure of all the memorial sites and declare them out of bounds for the public, but refrained, sensing that such an order might be exploited by vested interests by political gains.

Incensed at the repeated violation of its order halting constructions, the bench at one point insinuated dismissal of the Mayawati government, if it continued to violate orders.

The bench said if the Uttar Pradesh government does not desist from repeatedly violating the court’s order, “then the ball will be in the centre’s court”.

“It appears to us that you want to play hide and seek. If you want confrontation, let’s have full confrontation. The way you are behaving is not democratic,” the bench remarked.

Earlier during the argument, the bench noticed that at the first instance, when senior counsel Satish Chandra Mishra had given the undertaking to the court that the state will stop construction work, it had indeed been halted, but later it was resumed at some sites.

The court repeatedly wanted to know who exactly had ordered resumption of the work, wondering if it had been ordered at ‘the highest level’, that is, by Chief Minister Mayawati.

As senior counsel Harish Salve told the court that the chief secretary will have to take responsibility, the court issued contempt notice against the state’s top official.