Why Surat Municipal Commissioner still continuing on his post :Gujarat HC

AHMEDABAD :In one of the strongest observations yet in the Nasirnagar demolition case, the Gujarat High Court on Monday came down heavily on the Gujarat government and the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC), questioning why the Municipal Commissioner continues in office despite serious allegations surrounding the demolition of nearly 150 homes. The court warned the state against “throwing dust in the eyes” of the judiciary and indicated that accountability cannot stop at suspending junior officials while senior officers remain untouched.

The case stems from the demolition drive carried out in Surat’s Nasirnagar area, where around 150 families were allegedly rendered homeless without following due legal procedure. A petition filed by 26 residents has named the state government, SMC, the Surat Police Commissioner, SOG DCP Rajdeepsinh Nakum, private builders, police officials, SMC employees and Torrent Power as respondents.

During the hearing on July 20, the High Court repeatedly questioned the role of the SMC Commissioner. The judges observed that the Commissioner had not denied forwarding messages related to the demolition and had acknowledged that the communication originated from his official number.

“If junior employees have been suspended, how can the Municipal Commissioner continue in office?” the court asked, adding that “the state should not try to throw dust in the eyes of the High Court.”

The bench also questioned the credibility of any inquiry conducted while the official facing allegations remains in power.

“How can there be an impartial investigation when the person facing allegations continues to hold office?” the court observed.

The High Court further remarked that it was difficult to believe that a junior employee would independently file an affidavit making allegations against the Municipal Commissioner without basis. It questioned why the state had not initiated a primary inquiry despite what it described as prima facie serious allegations.

The Advocate General argued that the Commissioner had never instructed officials to carry out demolition without issuing notices. However, the court questioned why the civic body appeared to have acted in the interest of private individuals.

The judges noted that evidence placed before the court suggested that part of the disputed land belonged to a private owner. They questioned why demolition followed a request for demarcation and observed that development permissions had earlier been granted before the same land was cleared.

“You did nothing for 30 to 40 years. Suddenly, demolition takes place. It appears the corporation acted in the interest of private individuals,” the bench remarked.

The Advocate General submitted that the road alignment had been planned in 1980 and that a private landowner had surrendered land for road development, seeking only demarcation. The court, however, said it was not convinced by the explanation.

The bench also raised questions over the proposed rehabilitation of displaced families.

“Why should rehabilitation be funded by the state and taxpayers? It should be paid for by those found responsible,” the court observed.