By Arun Pratap Singh
Garhwal Post Bureau
Dehradun, 26 Apr: Acting under mounting public pressure and after a prolonged period of alleged inaction despite repeated complaints, the District Magistrate’s court has finally issued a notice under the Goonda Act to controversial builder Puneet Aggarwal in the ATS Colony on Sahastradhara Road, directing him to file his reply within seven days or face externment proceedings. The move follows sustained protests by residents and has brought into sharp focus serious questions over the functioning of the district administration, police and the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA).
The development comes in the wake of a six-hour dharna staged by ATS Colony residents outside the colony gate, demanding strict action against the accused, Puneet Aggarwal. The protest was triggered by a recent alleged assault on a Defence Research and Development Organisation scientist, but the locals maintain that the incident was only the latest in a long series of alleged acts of intimidation, abuse, violence and encroachment that had gone unchecked. It may also be pointed out here that the locals have not expressed happiness over limited action of merely serving a notice to the controversial building instead of launching a strong action against him.
The action of serving notice under the Goonda Act follows a six-hour dharna staged by ATS Colony residents outside the colony gate, demanding strict action against the accused, Puneet Aggarwal. The protest was triggered by a recent alleged assault on a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist, but the locals assert that the incident was only the latest in a long series of alleged acts of intimidation, abuse, violence and encroachment that had gone unchecked.
According to the district administration, multiple cases have been registered against the accused under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 126(2), 324(4) and 447. Despite this, residents have questioned why no decisive action was taken earlier, allowing the situation to escalate. The eventual invocation of the Goonda Act is being widely seen as a delayed and inadequate response compelled by mounting public and institutional pressure rather than timely enforcement.
District Magistrate Savin Bansal has maintained that the administration is committed to ensuring the safety of women, children and vulnerable sections, and that those taking the law into their own hands will not be spared. However, this assertion stands in contrast to the residents’ experience, who allege that complaints to both the administration and police over several years yielded little more than assurances.
The controversy surrounding the builder is not new. During the Diwali period, he was accused of brandishing a pistol within the colony, leading to suspension of his arms licence. Yet the residents claim that even such a serious incident failed to trigger sustained monitoring or preventive action. They allege that this lack of follow-through emboldened further misconduct.
The situation escalated sharply on 13 April, when construction activity on a disputed plot allegedly led to debris falling into a neighbouring residence belonging to a DRDO scientist. When objections were raised by a caretaker over damage to plants and property, the builder allegedly resorted to verbal abuse and intimidation, including towards elderly family members. When scientist Aniruddh Sharma intervened, he was allegedly assaulted and sustained serious injuries, including a ruptured eardrum. The incident sparked public outrage and it finally triggered a strong protest by the residents.
The residents emphasise that even prior to this incident, the builder had been accused of threatening a DRDO officer and encroaching upon public property. These allegations, they say, had surfaced on widely circulated local social media platforms, accompanied by visual evidence. Despite this, neither the district administration, nor the police, nor the MDDA appeared to have taken serious cognisance at the time. The incident was effectively allowed to fade without action.
It was only when a large number of residents came together to stage a dharna and publicly shared photographs purportedly showing encroachment of a public road through dumping of construction material that the authorities were compelled to respond. This sequence of events has reinforced the perception among locals that enforcement mechanisms remain largely dormant until issues gain wider public visibility.
Residents further state that complaints were escalated beyond local authorities, and they were submitted even on the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) helpline and the Defence Ministry helpline, particularly in view of the involvement of DRDO officials. Many believe that it was only after such escalation, coupled with collective protest, that the district administration initiated some action today under the Goonda Act.
Serious allegations have also been levelled against the MDDA, with residents claiming that complaints of encroachment and unauthorised construction have been repeatedly ignored. They allege that despite clear indications of violations, the regulatory body failed to act, effectively “looking the other way”. The inaction, they argue, allowed the situation to worsen and contributed to a sense of impunity.
The locals further allege that the accused builder has been able to rely on money power, muscle power and contacts within the ruling and bureaucratic circles to evade strict action. While these claims remain unverified, they have gained traction among the local residents who point to the prolonged delay in enforcement despite multiple complaints and FIRs.
Observers note that this is not an isolated case. Instances of builders allegedly encroaching upon government or public land and subsequently securing approvals for construction have been reported across Dehradun. What has raised particular concern in the present case is the apparent inconsistency in enforcement, as the district administration is known to take stringent action in several similar cases, yet complaints in this instance were allegedly ignored for an extended period.
The role of the police has also come under scrutiny, with residents pointing out that despite registration of cases, there was no visible urgency in making arrests or preventing further incidents. According to the locals, the builder in question was not even summoned or issued a warning by the Police despite the cases having been registered against him. A delegation of colony residents had earlier approached senior police officials and were assured of action, but the absence of concrete steps has further eroded public confidence.
With proceedings under the Goonda Act now underway, the case raises broader concerns regarding administrative inertia, regulatory lapses and selective enforcement. For the residents of ATS Colony, the action, though welcome, raises a larger question: why it required public protest, escalation to central authorities and involvement of a national research organisation’s officials for the system to respond to what they describe as a persistent threat to safety, public order and the rule of law.
It may also be pertinent to remind here that the cases that remain pending against the builder include five cases that have been registered involving unauthorised encroachment and other offenses against a widow’s land, stemming from a forged property deed.
The DM has finally set his sights on those who endanger public safety through acts of intimidation; externment proceedings against them are now certain.
