The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to certain notices sent by the Uttar Pradesh government to those accused of destroying public properties during the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) agitations in Uttar Pradesh..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant remarked that the notices and the action pursuant to the same were not in consonance with the directions issued by the top court earlier in a 2009 judgment."You have become complainant, you have become adjudicator and then you are attaching property of the accused," the Court said referring to the fact that the decision on the notices were being taken by executive officers and not judicial officers. The Court was hearing a plea by one Parwaiz Arif Titu seeking quashing of notices sent to alleged protesters by the district administration for recovering losses caused to public properties during the anti-CAA agitations. The Uttar Pradesh government through Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad, told the Court that a law was enacted by the State in 2021, the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act, 2021 which saves the earlier notices; but the Court was not impressed. "We will quash these notices then and you are at liberty to take action as per new Act," said Justice Chandrachud."Your earlier 256 recovery orders in a big state like UP is not a big thing. You can withdraw these orders with liberty to initiate new proceedings under the new Act," Justice Kant weighed in.With one stroke of pen you can withdraw all the notices issued before the new Act, he added..The submission that the notices had basis in a Allahabad High Court judgment also did not find favour with the Supreme Court."We will take High Court orders to task if there is a violation of our (Supreme Court) order.....Your High Court orders cannot supplant our directions," Justice Kant said.How are you bypassing the Supreme Court, Justice Chandrachud demanded."Prior to the legislation you have to show how did Additional District Magistrate supervise these notices. You have to show that notices issued before the Act was not in contravention to Supreme Court directions," he said.Prashad assured the Court that "whatever has fallen from Your Lordships will be considered."The Court then adjourned the matter for February 18.