Dehradun: An unusual case has come up before the Human Rights Commission, where a shop owner has accused the system of leaving him unemployed for five years and six months. He has demanded compensation of Rs 30 lakh, alleging prolonged administrative neglect after his shop was demolished.
Commission member Girdhar Singh Dharmashaktu has taken note of the matter and forwarded the case to the Chief Secretary, recommending a detailed inquiry into the allegations raised by the complainant.
According to the commission’s order, Rajneesh Mittal used to run a photocopy shop near Tehsil Chowk. His shop was demolished on January 31, 2011, during a road widening drive, along with 19 other shops that were built on government land.
After the demolition, 14 shopkeepers were rehabilitated by adjusting space along the boundary wall of the old tehsil building. However, Mittal was left out despite being a registered vendor with the municipal corporation, which became the root of the dispute.
Aggrieved by this, Mittal approached the Uttarakhand High Court and also submitted representations to the Governor and the Chief Secretary. Following multiple rounds of inquiries, authorities attempted to allot him a divided portion of a shop, which he did not accept.
Later, in 2016, he was allotted a shop at the Rajiv Gandhi Multipurpose Complex. Despite this, Mittal alleged that the delay and lack of timely action resulted in over five years of unemployment, for which he is now seeking compensation.
After repeated correspondence with authorities at different levels, Mittal approached the Human Rights Commission and filed a formal complaint highlighting the alleged negligence.
During the hearing, the commission sought a report from the district administration. However, despite repeated directions, the administration failed to submit a proper response and instead repeated the points already mentioned in the complaint.
Also Read This – Fake caste certificate used for govt job, teacher booked in Dehradun
Taking serious note of this, the commission observed that its directions were being ignored and that there was reluctance in addressing the compensation claim. It has now recommended that the Chief Secretary conduct a proper inquiry and take a decision regarding relief for the complainant.
