The Supreme Court observed that since the petitioners argued that the High Court order was being misinterpreted, the appropriate forum to address any such issue was the High Court itself. (Files/Express Photo)The Supreme Court Monday declined to intervene in the ongoing anti-encroachment drive in Gurgaon, observing that since the Punjab and Haryana High Court was overseeing the matter to prevent unauthorised construction, the apex court should not “cause hindrance” in its work.While hearing petitions alleging that demolitions were carried out after a misinterpretation of an interim order of the High Court, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the High Court itself should be approached.Also Read | ‘No proper notice period’: Golf Course Road residents in Gurgaon decry anti-encroachment drive carried out over weekend“On oral mentioning, the matter is taken on board. The Special Leave Petition, being against an interim order, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make an urgent mentioning before the High Court during the course of the day. We request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to entertain the oral mentioning either at 1 o’clock or immediately after lunch,” the bench ordered.Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Sanakaranarayanan said the municipal authorities had misconstrued a high court order without giving notice to the residents. “Demolitions are taking place of our compound walls, trees are going,” the counsel said.The CJI, however, asked why the apex court should intervene if the HC is performing its constitutional duty to remove encroachments.“Suppose these are all unauthorised constructions… In Gurugram, we have a fair idea. If the High Court is doing a constitutional duty, taking a drive to prevent or dismantle unauthorised construction, then as the apex body, why should we cause hindrance in the High Court’s work?” CJI Kant asked.Also Read | Meet the officer behind a five-day drive in Gurgaon to raze 7,500 illegal structuresSankaranayanan said, “The high court did not say anything on demolition. The problem is misconstruing that (order), without any notice to any individual.”Story continues below this adHe added that the “demolitions are happening right outside their compound walls and on their compound walls, without notice”. The counsel asserted that “these are completely legal constructions”.With the Supreme Court not inclined to stay the drive, Sankaranarayanan urged the bench to maintain the status quo for at least a couple of days to allow them time to move the high court.However, the Supreme Court declined the request, saying that passing such an order could lead to complications. The apex court observed that, since the petitioners argued that the High Court order was being misinterpreted, the appropriate forum to address any such issue was the High Court itself.