States: Maharashtra: People Have Their Say

Public support forces the reinstatement of the Pune civic chief as the Government readies to fight the court order.

Second Coming: Bhatia says his first task will be to carry on with his demolition drive.

The Maharashtra Government received an unwelcome order from the Bombay High Court last week. It not only quashed the Government's transfer of controversial Pune Municipal Commissioner Arun Bhatia to the state Archives Department as director but also directed it to reinstate him in the original post. Worse, when the state moved the Supreme Court, its appeal for a stay on the high court order was outright rejected.

If Bhatia's resuming charge was bad news for the Government, the good news, as the people of Pune saw it, was that their efforts towards this end had succeeded. Two separate public-interest petitions filed by the citizens in the high court had maintained that the Government had unfairly transferred the municipal commissioner because he had trod on the toes of the rich and mighty by ordering the demolition of unauthorised structures belonging to them on Pune's arterial roads. "It is a victory for honesty and it has raised hopes for the public in seeking justice if such incidents are repeated in future," says Sunanda Das of the Pune Citizens' Forum, one of the petitioners.

GROUNDS FOR RECALL

According to the division bench of the Bombay High Court:
ť It is difficult to accept state's claim that there's no nexus between demolitions and transfer.
ť The state's reasoning that Bhatia's presence in Pune hindered inquiry defies logic.
ť It is uncharitable to assume under the circumstances that press reports were not correct.

Giving its judgement on the petitions filed by Das, four others and Pune corporator Nitin Jagtap, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice S. Radhakrishnan said the reasons for the transfer cited in the affidavit of Chief Minister Narayan Rane were not acceptable. Rane had justified Bhatia's transfer by saying some of the structures demolished by him were either protected by court or the Urban Development Department. He had also said the transfer was the result of confidential correspondence between Bhatia and state Chief Secretary P. Subramanium being leaked to the press and that Bhatia's presence in Pune during an inquiry would have an adverse effect on the municipal corporation's functioning.

But the division bench maintained that it was difficult to establish that there was no nexus between the transfer and the demolitions. At the same time, it observed that the Government was free to take action if it could establish that Bhatia had leaked confidential information.

Determined to fight back, the Government is setting up an inquiry and plans to take disciplinary action against Bhatia on charges like indiscipline and breach of confidentiality as well as divulging critical and internal information to the public under the special All India Service Rules.

Reacting to the court's judgement, Subramanium said, "If everybody starts speaking their mind and moves court, the administrative system will collapse and the basic fabric of discipline will be torn." Accusing Bhatia of exceeding his brief, he added, "Such an officer certainly poses a great danger to the administrative machinery".

Even after the high court issued its order, jubilant Puneites waited for Bhatia to resume office before they could celebrate. In the light of the Government's adamant stand before the Supreme Court rejected its appeal, they had even threatened to intensify their campaign and launch a statewide agitation. Over 175 organisations had come under the umbrella of the Pune Kriti Samati in support of Bhatia.

Overwhelmed by the massive public support and the court orders, Bhatia says justice has been done. "After 30 years of service and 24 transfer orders, my hopes have been revived," he adds, determined to continue with his demolition drive in Pune.

In the absence of a clear transfer policy, the issue of shunting out Bhatia has become a highly politicised issue. The case has raised questions about power being exercised arbitrarily by the authorities in the matter of transfers.

Some bureaucrats, however, feel the issue is being "unnecessarily stretched" and has now become a prestige matter for the state Government and the chief secretary. Use of phrases like "administrative reasons", or "prerogative of executives and politicians in power", which provide much scope for injustice, can be easily challenged in the court of law. While the basic issue of checks and balances in routine bureaucratic functioning is undergoing a mass debate, the battle clearly has not ended. It is now the will of the people against the will of vested interests.