Share details of vested interests who want to sabotage company, Punjab government tells Reliance
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, January 5
Punjab government on Tuesday claimed the task of state agencies to further protect the assets of Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited would become easier if the petitioner-company was to share information on alleged “vested interest” involved in sabotaging and damaging its network infrastructure.
The submission came as the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued notice of motion to the State of Punjab.
Taking up the company’s petition for action against efforts by “vested interest and miscreants” to completely sabotage and damage its network infrastructure, Justice Sudhir Mittal also issued notice to the Union of India, the Department of Telecommunication and the State Director-General of police. Justice Mittal fixed the case for February 8 after the counsel for the respondents sought time.
The notice to Punjab and the DGP was accepted by State counsel Diya Sodhi. For remaining respondents, it was accepted by Addititional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain, Saigeeta Srivastava and Gurmeet Kaur Gill.
Responding to the contentions raised in the petition, Punjab Advocate-General Atul Nanda submitted the petitioner-company was itself admitting action for protection of its assets. Accompanied by Additional AG Rameeza Hakeem, Nanda added the State has deployed 1019 patrolling parties in 27 districts and appointed 22 nodal officers to prevent further damage. The State was carrying out the duty enjoined upon it by the Statutes. The impact of the farm laws’ agitation by the farmers on 1300 affected towers had been removed and these were now functioning, Nanda submitted.
Appearing for the petitioner-company, senior counsel Ashok Aggarwal submitted Punjab Prevention of Damage to Public and Private Property Act, 2014, was enacted to prevent damage to public and private property. But preventive mechanism was not provided. As such, damage to petitioner’s properties could not be prevented despite the enactment. “The State needs to evolve a mechanism for fulfilling the purpose behind the Act,” he added.
