HC believes Surat demolition was without any permission
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
The Gujarat High Court on Monday came down heavily on the Surat Police Commissioner over the controversial Nasirnagar demolition, questioning the police's inaction and asking why no suo motu action was initiated despite officers being present during the operation.
Court questions legality
During the hearing, Torrent Power told the court that it had not received any written order to participate in the demolition exercise. Instead, company officials said they were called to the site through a telephonic instruction. By the time Torrent personnel reached Nasirnagar, 10 to 15 houses had already been demolished, and several electricity meters had also been damaged.
The Gujarat High Court came down heavily on the Surat Municipal Corporation, questioning how such a large-scale demolition could take place without intervention from civic authorities.
The bench also questioned the legality of the process, observing that municipal officials appeared to have bypassed mandatory legal procedures, while even the Municipal Commissioner allegedly relied on a telephonic instruction to summon Torrent officials.
The state government further acknowledged that when nearly 150 structures were being demolished, senior officials of the Surat Municipal Corporation, Surat Police and Torrent Power were present at the site but did not intervene.
HC questions 17-day delay in police action
Hearing the matter, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavit filed by the Surat Police Commissioner, observing that the city's top police officer was expected to act proactively instead of waiting for a formal complaint.
The bench questioned why the Commissioner remained inactive for 17 days, pointing out that no action was taken between May 30, when the demolition took place, and June 16.
"Why wait for a complaint?"
The court also questioned the role of police personnel deployed at the site, asking whether they were present under a legal requisition for demarcation or demolition.
The bench observed that if the police were present only for demarcation work, they should have intervened and stopped the demolition instead of remaining passive. It further asked why the Commissioner felt the need to wait for a formal complaint before initiating action.
Court questions legality
During the hearing, Torrent Power told the court that it had not received any written order to participate in the demolition exercise. Instead, company officials said they were called to the site through a telephonic instruction. By the time Torrent personnel reached Nasirnagar, 10 to 15 houses had already been demolished, and several electricity meters had also been damaged.
The Gujarat High Court came down heavily on the Surat Municipal Corporation, questioning how such a large-scale demolition could take place without intervention from civic authorities.
The bench also questioned the legality of the process, observing that municipal officials appeared to have bypassed mandatory legal procedures, while even the Municipal Commissioner allegedly relied on a telephonic instruction to summon Torrent officials.
The state government further acknowledged that when nearly 150 structures were being demolished, senior officials of the Surat Municipal Corporation, Surat Police and Torrent Power were present at the site but did not intervene.
State cites temporary rehabilitation
During the hearing, the Gujarat government informed the court that the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) has operationalised temporary shelter homes in Rander and Katargam for families displaced by the demolition.
According to the state, around 141 affected residents have been temporarily accommodated at the Fulwadi (Harimata) Community Centre in Katargam.
Background
The case relates to the May 30 demolition drive in Surat's Nasirnagar locality, where several structures were razed, leaving numerous families homeless and triggering allegations over the legality of the action. The matter continues to be under the Gujarat High Court's scrutiny.
