After nearly 150 homes in Surat’s Nasirnagar were reduced to rubble in May, no authority has yet taken responsibility for the demolition — a gap that prompted the Gujarat High Court Thursday to question the state government, the municipal corporation, and even Torrent Power over who ordered the action and why due process was allegedly bypassed.
Residents of Nasirnagar slum in the city’s Ved Darwaja area moved the Gujarat High Court earlier this month, challenging the demolition of several shanties, alleging that bulldozers razed their homes without notice or any demolition order.
The demolition, allegedly carried out under police protection, has since been denied by the Surat Municipal Corporation, even as BJP MLA Vinu Moradiya called the episode “something fishy,” deepening questions over who authorised the operation.
Hearing the petition, Justice Nikhil Kariel in an oral observation questioned the Surat Municipal Corporation and remarked that even the “demolition of a single house” without due process could “not be countenanced”.
The court orally directed the Surat civic body to prepare a “definite rehabilitation plan” for the displaced residents by Monday, pending the decision on the petition. “I will not hear a submission that you do not have accommodation. Rent tents if you have to… The axe has to fall, and it will,” Justice Kariel said orally.
It also asked the government to explain why a deputy commissioner of police rank officer and municipal officials were allegedly present if the demolition was, as authorities claimed, not an official exercise.
‘Why no FIR?’
Through Government Pleader G H Virk, the court asked for a personal affidavit from the Surat police commissioner should be placed before the HC Monday, explaining the police response to the residents’ complaints.
Story continues below this ad
“If the commissioner is informed that 150 houses have been demolished, either he says it was an official demolition by the Corporation, or he explains why no FIR has been registered… The (Commissioner) cannot choose to ignore such allegations.”
The court also said that if the petitioners’ allegation that a deputy commissioner of police was present during the demolition was found to be correct, the officer would have to be personally appear before the court. However, if the demolition had been an officially sanctioned exercise, such an appearance would not be necessary.
The court orally said that Torrent Power should clarify who instructed it to disconnect electricity to the shanties.
“Learned Senior Advocate (for petitioners) shall ensure that a copy of this petition is served upon the learned Advocate normally appearing for the Torrent Power Ltd and whereas on the next date of hearing ie on 29.06.2026 (Torrent Power Ltd.) is expected to appear before this Court through the learned Advocate with appropriate instructions,” the court said in an oral order.
Story continues below this ad
The court orally said Torrent Power’s response could help determine whether the instructions originated from the Corporation or private individuals.
Following due process
The court also orally observed “conflicting positions” taken by the authorities and said they must not merely identify who demolished the houses, but ensure governmental accountability if a large-scale demolition occurred without due process.
During the proceedings Thursday, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements mandating due process before demolitions and repeatedly pressed the authorities to explain who had authorised the exercise, why municipal and police personnel were allegedly present at the site, and why no criminal case had been registered despite complaints made to the police.
The court orally stated that two possibilities emerged from the material placed before it: either the demolition had been carried out by the Surat Municipal Corporation in violation of the mandatory legal process, or municipal officials had acted in their individual capacities while misusing their official positions.
Story continues below this ad
In either eventuality, the court orally said, the Surat civic body could not escape responsibility.
‘Annoyed with the pleadings’
The court in oral observations also criticised the petitioners’ pleadings, describing them as “inadequate” for a matter of such gravity, noting that while numerous officials and private individuals had been added as respondents, the petition lacked specific pleadings attributing responsibility to many of them.
“I am much more annoyed with the pleadings,” the court orally said, stating that allegations made in an affidavit are not a substitute for pleadings in the writ petition.
The court, however, clarified that the deficiencies in the petition would not prevent it from examining the larger constitutional issue.
Story continues below this ad
The matter has been listed for further hearing on June 29.