Gujarat High Court asks why no inquiry against Surat municipal chief over demolition

Stating the fundamental principles of natural justice, the court orally said, “Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. If you are allowing this person (Municipal Commissioner) to continue at the helm… where will it be seen to be done?”

Court’s pointed questions

The Court orally clarified that it was not, at this stage, attributing culpability to the State, but warned that the government’s response was “making the court think otherwise”.

The court orally said, “Why would the State not ensure that he does not continue at the helm of affairs while an inquiry concerning these allegations is underway?”

The observations came while examining an affidavit filed by a suspended municipal officer, Sujal Prajapati, who has claimed that the demolition had been carried out on the instructions of the Municipal Commissioner. Referring to WhatsApp messages placed on record, the Court orally noted that the Commissioner’s affidavit did not specifically deny that the messages had originated from his mobile number.

Quoting from the Commissioner’s affidavit, the court noted that the State had merely characterised the communications as “routine administrative WhatsApp forwards” and denied that they amounted to demolition orders.

The court, however, found the response inadequate. “The Municipal Commissioner is not denying that this was a forward from me. He is not denying that this is my mobile number… He just says that this was a routine forward. Otherwise, what will be the purpose of the inquiry?” the court orally asked. “According to the material before the Court, he sends a WhatsApp message directing that the demolition be completed ‘ASAP’. Thereafter, the State says it is still trying to ascertain what happened… In your first affidavit you have stated that this is private land. If that is so, why was the Municipal Commissioner taking an interest in the matter?”

The Court orally said that whether the allegations are proven or not, they are sufficiently serious to warrant institutional safeguards and questioned the absence of any disciplinary process against the Municipal Commissioner.

The court distinguished the committee constituted by the State from a disciplinary inquiry, observing that the exercise undertaken by the government was merely a “fact-finding exercise”. The court orally said, “This is not a preliminary inquiry. This is just a fact-finding exercise… Nothing meaningful will happen unless the terms of reference clearly specify what exactly the committee is required to inquire into.”

The court noted that the committee’s resolution contained “no mechanism for fixing responsibility”, adding that the exercise appeared to be “nothing more than an eyewash”.

The court also orally questioned why rehabilitation of those affected by the demolitions should ultimately be funded by the public exchequer. “Why should rehabilitation be at the State’s expense? Why should it be at the taxpayers’ expense? It should be at the expense of those persons who have done that,” the court orally said.

The court also examined the Corporation’s stand that the demolished structures stood on land which had vested in the civic body after being surrendered for Floor Space Index (FSI) benefits. Questioning the legal implications of that argument, the court orally observed that the Corporation appeared to be suggesting that “once private land was surrendered for FSI benefits, it could proceed to demolish structures standing on it.”

“How does the law contemplate such a course of action?” it asked. The court questioned why the Municipal Commissioner was personally involved in a matter which the Corporation’s own affidavit described as relating to private land.

Responding to the court’s concerns, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi submitted that several high-level meetings had been held and assured the Bench that the State would revise the committee’s mandate.

Prajapati is one of the five civic officials suspended after the demolition, who has moved a separate petition challenging his suspension.

‘Illegal’ demolition

On May 30, the Surat Municipal Corporation demolished around 100 shanties, built in Nasir Nagar allegedly encroaching on private land in the Ved Road area, displacing as many families.

Twenty-six affected residents have challenged the action before the High Court, seeking accountability and rehabilitation.

During earlier hearings, the Municipal Commissioner filed an affidavit acknowledging that the demolition occurred during what was intended to be a physical demarcation exercise and that there had been no underlying decision authorising demolition, prompting the High Court to orally observe, prima facie, that the corporation itself had accepted the action was illegal.

The Commissioner’s affidavit disclosed that a preliminary internal inquiry resulted in the suspension of five municipal officials, including Prajapati, while a deeper departmental inquiry was initiated.