UP chief secy apologises to apex court

NEW DELHI: Ahead of initiation of contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court for violating its order and going ahead with chief minister Mayawati���s pet project, UP chief secretary Atul Kumar Gupta has tendered an unqualified apology to the apex court.

���I humbly and most respectfully submit that I have the highest regard for the orders passed by this honourable court . I had acted in compliance of the orders passed by this honourable court. However, I hereby tender my sincere and unqualified apology for any kind of disobedience or deviation, aberration of misconstruction , if any, which might have happened in implementing the orders passed by this honourable court. Any such disobedience of deviation, if any, was inadvertent and I hereby undertake that I shall do everything in due compliance of the orders of this honourable court as may be directed by this honourable court,��� said Mr Gupta in his affidavit.

Mr Gupta in his affidavit said, ���I am duty bound to comply with the orders of this honourable court and had never intended to disobey or to disrespect the orders of this honourable court to do anything which may amount to contempt of the orders of this honourable court.���

A two-judge bench comprising Justice B N Agrawal (now retired) and Justice Aftab Alam had on October 6 served the UP chief secretary with a contempt notice for violating its order and going ahead with the construction at the memorial sites.

This despite state government���s counsel Satish Chandra Mishra, an aid of the chief minister Mayawati, giving an undertaking on September 8 to the bench to stop all work.

The bench had warned the state government and directed the chief secretary to appear before it on October 4.
However, last week, state government���s counsel Mukul Rohatgi mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishan which was hearing disputes between Ambanis over supply of gas from the Krishna-Godavari basin.

The chief secretary reiterated the state government���s earlier stance that the constructions alleged to have been carried out was on those structures which were not the subject matter of writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court.