Agartala: A day after relieving West Tripura District Magistrate Dr Sailesh Kr Yadav from his post for alleged excesses in two marriage ceremonies in the city for violating curfew rules and Covid norms, a division bench of High Court of Tripura comprising Chief Justice A A Kureshi and Justice S G Chattopadhyay yesterday asked the state government to shift him out of Agartala.
While hearing a PIL and Writ petitions filed against Yadav for abusing the marriage parties and pushing out the bridegroom and priest on April 26 last, accusing them of violating curfew in the celebration of wedding and prevented the marriage ceremony, the judges said, “We are of the strong prima facie view that in order to conduct an impartial fact finding inquiry regarding the incident and the role played by the DM; which is imperative; it would be essential that he is shifted out of Agartala”.
The court also observed that any such inquiry would necessarily require the recording of statements of witnesses. It would be difficult for many witnesses to come forward and to give a truthful account of the incident if the district magistrate is retained at Agartala and said, “We would strongly request the Advocate General to take instructions from the Government on this aspect of the matter and revert to the Court on the next date of hearing tomorrow.”
The court has also directed the government to ensure that until next orders, the inquiry instituted against Yadav did not proceed further. Also, the court has directed Yadav to restrain from making any public statement in any form including to the media in relation to the incident and the subsequent inquiry which was pending against him.
They asked for complete footage of the video clips which were circulating in the social media from the petitioners and the state administration along with placing on record the notification, under which the inquiry against the district magistrate has been instituted and whatever proceedings which may have been instituted either before the police or before the government in connection to the said incident.
The court also directed the petitioner to disclose how many guests and serving staff were present in the marriage hall when the incident took place. They shall also disclose the precise time at which DM visited the marriage halls. The advocate general was also asked to provide whether any lady members were arrested or detained at the police station on the night and whether any lady police was there during the raid.
