Surat Municipal Corporation's U-Turn On Rehabilitation Assurance To Demolition Victims Prima Facie Contemptuous: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on Friday (October 23) said that the "change of stand" by Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation and Chairperson of corporation's Standing Committee in not providing alternative accommodation to residents whose homes were demolished despite an earlier assurance was "prima facie" contemptuous. 

Justice Nikhil S Kariel was hearing a petition filed by a group of residents concerning the demolition drive carried out in the area in June.

"Commissioner as well as Chairman of Standing Committee both of whom who have taken a decision not to provide any alternative accommodation to persons whose residences have been demolished, shall remain present before the court on next date to explain as to why this court should not take out proceedings under criminal contempt against officers in question," the court dictated in its order. 

Previously, Surat Municipal Corporation had vehemently disputed the claim of residents affected by the "illegal" demolition of homes in Nasir Nagar area that the alternative accommodation offered to them was in a “dilapidated” condition. Thereafter, in the last hearing the high court had orally asked the Municipal Commissioner to remain present along with the head of the elected wing of the Corporation in order to know that once it was agreed that accommodation would be provided then why the change of stand.

After hearing the matter today wherein the two officers of the Corporation were personally present, the court in its order noted that the Municipal Commissioner and Chairman of the Standing Committee informed that the "change of stand" was because the Corporation is under the belief that they don't have a policy where persons like petitioner can be provided any assistance. 

The court further said, "Such a change of stand is nothing less than interfering but tending to interfere with or obstructing with administration of justice or tending to scandalize or lowering authority of this court, more so since such change of stand had taken place during the course of hearing". 

Thereafter the senior counsel appearing for the Corporation sought for some time to take appropriate instructions. When the court said that the Commissioner and Chairman of the Standing Committee must personally remain present on the next date of hearing, the senior counsel referred to various Supreme Court judgments submitting that their personal presence in court may not be necessary. 

"Having perused the observation of the Supreme Court and having appreciated submissions by learned senior counsel on behalf of Municipal Corporation, to this court it would appear that the decisions of the Supreme Court are with regard to unnecessary orders of the court where officers of the State are called where their presence may not be really necessary since the officers/authority (are) being represented by counsel, the stand of the officers/authority is effectively represented through counsel...

To this court it would appear that the present situation, is an exceptional and extraordinary situation, in as much as, in the first instance the court has noticed that 28 houses have been demolished by the officers of Municipal Corporation without any authority of law or following any procedure whatsoever," the court said. 

The court said that it also appeared that there were allegations made in the petition against the officers "acting on behest of private individuals". 

"This case also possess an exceptional circumstance in as much as the stand taken by officers of the corporation, in the considered opinion of the court, is prima facie nothing less than criminal contempt...in as much as the stand taken by the officers of the corporation in not providing alternative accommodation to the persons whose houses have been illegally demolished more particularly when assurance was given by highest law officer of the State that accommodation would be provided, is nothing less than an act which scandalizes, or tends to scandalize or lowers the authority of this court and also is nothing less than interfering or obstructing with administration of justice," the court said. 

The court in its order said that the presence of the officers was required to explain "this change of stand" particularly when the senior most law officer of the State had made an assurance and whereas the officers who are otherwise also part of the State hierarchy have taken a stand against senior most officer, is a situation which to the court, is
"unfathomable". 

The court also said that the presence of the officers is as a pre-cursor as to why proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act  should not be taken against them and it is for these reasons that the officers have to remain present. 

"While the court appreciates that the officers/corporation itself is being represented by set of lawyers, but it is the opinion of the court that the real reasons behind such change of stand is not coming forth therefore the officers have been directed to remain present.

While observations of the SC are binding on this court, but since court is of the prima facie opinion that the officers have invited by their actions prompted this court to prima facie initiate proceedings under Contempt of Courts act their presence before this court is absolutely necessary," the court said. 

The court further dictated in its order, that this was an "extra ordinary situation where residences of citizens of this country have been demolished by the corporation" and whereas the corporation had assured the court at some point about providing alternative accommodation to such individuals and that the corporation is now trying to "wriggle out of such assurance given to the court".

Hence the persons who have taken such decision have to remain present to explain the stand, it said. 

"In considered opinion of the court counsel will not be able to effectively address the court on such change of stand. Considering the above observation the submissions of senior counsel cannot be countenanced and are rejected," the court said. 

After the order was dictated, the senior counsel for the Corporation submitted that the proceedings for contempt may not be kept immediately as they would be seeking for stay of the order. 

"In view of the observations made, I would be requesting for stay of the order," the counsel said. To this court orally said, "I can keep it on whichever day you want, you can test it" and listed the matter on November 27.