Nasirnagar demolition: Inquiry a farce if senior officers still hold posts, says Gujarat High Court

Justice Nikhil Kariel was hearing petitions filed by 26 Nasirnagar residents, whose houses were demolished on May 30.

Against the backdrop of the state constituting an inquiry committee to examine whether the demolition was carried out in accordance with the Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, fix responsibility, examine the role of the municipal commissioner and police officials present at the site, and also look into the role of private individuals in the drive, the court asked the state to explain why officers under scrutiny should continue to occupy their posts.

People amid the debris of demolished structures at Nasirnagar in Surat, where 106 units were razed on May 30. (Express Photo)

The court noted that junior officers against whom there were allegations of prima facie misconduct had already faced action, and questioned why senior officers, including those in the Corporation and police department, should be treated any differently.

The court said allowing senior officers to remain in their positions while an inquiry examined their conduct could undermine the process, particularly when statements of officers working under their direct supervision may have to be recorded.

Seeking a reply from the state, the court order recorded a prima facie view on Monday saying: “To this Court, it would appear that when the Corporation has taken action against its junior officers against whom there were allegations of prima facie misconduct, then the senior officers, including the senior-most officers of the Corporation, as well as officials of the police department, against whom there are allegations should also not be permitted to continue till the investigation is over….”

Stating that allowing senior officers to “to man the posts would result in the inquiry being nothing but a farce”, the order stated, “While the Court is not suggestive of the fact that prima facie action of suspending the officers may be adhered to, but at the same time, to ensure that justice is seen to be done, it would be imperative that the officers, however senior he or she may be, should not be permitted to continue in the post till the committee inquired into the issue… particularly when statements of persons working as their juniors or under their direct supervision would be required to be taken…”

‘State should bear cost of rehabilitation’

The court particularly expressed its displeasure with the Corporation’s proposal to rehabilitate the displaced families through the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) housing scheme, under which the affected persons would have to make payments applicable to ordinary applicants, of approximately Rs 5.5 lakh. The advocate general had also submitted that NGOs willing to assist the families could make these payments on their behalf.

The court rejected that approach outright. In an order dictated by the court, Justice Kariel said, “…the state could not be appearing to be shirking its responsibility”.

The court said the Corporation could not ask families whose homes had been demolished to pay for their rehabilitation, particularly when the demolition itself appeared “prima facie to have been carried out without the authority of law”.

Orally addressing Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, the court said the rehabilitation cost should be borne by the Corporation and subsequently recovered from the officers responsible. It questioned why the affected families or NGOs should shoulder the financial burden.

The court also made sharp observations during the submissions that if the Corporation’s stand was that the demolition had been properly carried out, “I’ll see to it that the officers go home”. The court orally said that its “view could be challenged before a higher forum”, but it would ensure that the officers did not continue in their posts if the Corporation persisted with the justification.

The court found the Corporation’s post facto attempt to justify the demolition difficult to accept. It pointed to the municipal commissioner’s first affidavit, observing that it “clearly reflected the fact that the demolition was without any authority of law”.
In its oral order, the court noted that the facts recorded so far showed that while the officers had gone to the site only for demarcation…Torrent Power had been informed in advance about the proposed demolition.

The court order said, “…officers sent for demarcation arrived with heavy machinery that could never have been used for the purpose of mere demarcation… Heavy police bandobast, including the presence of the DCP of the Special Operation Group, had also been requested. These clearly reflects that the entire exercise had been well planned and the idea was that under the guise of demarcation, the properties were to be demolished.”

At least 106 units on a private land parcel were demolished on May 30, rendering as many people homeless, on the pretext of SMC officials demarcating a public road in the presence of police officials.

Against this backdrop, the court questioned the Corporation’s decision to put the affected families through the EWS process. The court said that if a demolition is undertaken, the authorities must then follow the due process.

“The due process had been completely flouted,” the court observed and added the responsibility for rehabilitation therefore lay “squarely on the shoulders of the Corporation and, vicariously, on the state authorities”.

The court also questioned why the victims should be treated like fresh EWS applicants when their houses were demolished by authorities.