The Surat Municipal Corporation on Friday (September 11) 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.

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.

At the outset, the counsel for the Corporation requested for some time and said that the Advocate General is no longer appearing for the Corporation. 

When the Court sought to know the status of accommodation being provided to the petitioners and other persons affected by the demolition, the Corporation's counsel submitted that they had been staying at a shelter since day one.

He submitted that lots were subsequently drawn for allotment of alternative accommodation after the residents were intimated, but they chose not to participate and, consequently, the Corporation proceeded with the draw.

When the Court specifically asked about the residents' contention that the alternative accommodation was “uninhabitable”, the Corporation's counsel said,

“That is absolutely and vehemently disputed. Photographs placed on record are not the correct photographs. We are in the course of preparing our affidavit countering the same and putting the real picture on record.”

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-residents submitted that the Corporation had initially indicated that it would allot alternative accommodation but subsequently changed the proposed location without informing them.

“They (Corporation) had created a show that they wanted to allot something...without intimation site was changed. We were offered houses in dilapidated condition in different places,” the senior counsel submitted.

The counsel also referred to two committees constituted in connection with the matter, including a two-member committee set up by the State Government, and submitted that one of its members was presently heading the Corporation.

The Court questioned how the officer's present position would affect the neutrality of the inquiry. “How does it matter? He is looking into the illegality... how would his independence be taken away?” the Court orally observed.

The senior counsel maintained that the petitioners had, from the beginning, contended that the Corporation had acted in a manner “not befitting” of the civic body.

The Court however observed that the officer's familiarity with the Corporation's functioning could be beneficial to the inquiry.

For context, the Gujarat Government had informed the High Court in August that Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation has been transferred and appointed to a different post. As per reports, the state government earlier this month appointed a new officer as Surat's Municipal Commissioner.

The Government Pleader submitted that the inquiry's original mandate is till September 18. He also submitted that with respect to respondent no. 19, concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, a proceeding was initiated and the matter is pending before the division bench.

The court however orally questioned the fairness of an inquiry where an officer (DCP in this case) continued to hold the post while his subordinates, who may be required to give statements, remained under him.

The Government Pleader however submitted that in relation to another incident concerning the same officer, an inquiry had previously recorded an affirmative finding while the officer continued to hold the post. The finding was placed before the Division Bench, which permitted the State to take action. He submitted that the action taken would be reported to the Division Bench.

He further submitted that steps were being taken in the present matter and requested the Court to grant some time to place the inquiry report on record, pointing out that the original mandate of the inquiry was for 60 days and that it was now nearing completion.

Ultimately, the Court listed the matter on September 29.

Before parting, the Court orally expressed dismay over the non-appearance of the Advocate General, observing that although he may no longer be appearing for the Corporation, he should be present in his capacity as the Advocate General of the State. 

The court further orally said, "Let your officers understand that they are all on the knife's edge here...the entire idea was to see if there is any illegality which has happened, then there is responsibility fixed till the last person and also ensure that person who are victims of the illegality are assuaged. First part is with the State, second is with you. We are also looking at your efforts. Whether it was a design or whether it was just a case of over enthusiasm". 

Case title: ANSARI M. IKBAL ALIHUSEN & ORS. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8712 of 2026