Introduction:

The Gujarat High Court, while hearing a petition concerning the demolition of houses in the Nasir Nagar area of Surat, on September 11, 2026, questioned the manner in which the inquiry into the alleged illegal demolition was being conducted and sought clarity on the alternative accommodation provided to the affected residents.

Justice Nikhil S. Kariel was hearing Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Special Civil Application No. 8712 of 2026, filed by residents affected by the demolition drive undertaken in Nasir Nagar in June. The proceedings have brought into focus two interconnected issues: whether the demolition was carried out illegally and, if so, how responsibility is to be fixed, and whether the civic authorities have taken adequate steps to address the immediate hardship faced by the persons whose homes were demolished.

The dispute before the High Court is not confined merely to the legality of the demolition exercise. The Court’s observations indicate that it is also examining the subsequent treatment of the affected residents, including the nature and condition of alternative accommodation, the fairness and independence of the inquiry constituted into the incident, and whether the authorities are genuinely taking steps to identify those responsible if any illegality is ultimately established.

At the hearing, the Surat Municipal Corporation disputed the allegations made by the residents regarding the condition of the alternative accommodation. The Corporation maintained that the affected persons had been provided shelter from the very beginning and that a process had subsequently been undertaken for allotment of alternative accommodation.

The proceedings also raised questions concerning the composition and functioning of the inquiry committees. A two-member committee had been constituted by the State Government in connection with the matter, and one of its members was subsequently holding a position within the Corporation. The petitioners questioned whether such a circumstance could affect the neutrality of the inquiry. The Court, however, indicated that familiarity with the functioning of the Corporation could, in some circumstances, assist rather than prejudice the inquiry.

The High Court also expressed concern over the position of a Deputy Commissioner of Police who continued to hold office while the inquiry was underway. The Court questioned whether an inquiry could be regarded as completely fair if subordinate officers, whose statements might be required, continued to function under the concerned officer.

The hearing therefore reflected the Court’s attempt to balance institutional accountability with the need for a fair and effective inquiry. While the Corporation strongly disputed the allegations regarding accommodation, the Court made it clear that the ultimate object of the proceedings was to determine whether any illegality had occurred, identify responsibility if necessary, and ensure that persons who had suffered as a consequence were adequately addressed.

The matter was ultimately adjourned to September 29, by which time the State is expected to place the inquiry report or the relevant developments before the Court.

Arguments of the Parties:

The Surat Municipal Corporation, through its counsel, sought time at the outset of the hearing and informed the Court that the Advocate General was no longer appearing for the Corporation. The Court subsequently expressed its dismay over the Advocate General’s absence, observing that although he might have ceased to appear on behalf of the Corporation, he was still the Advocate General of the State and therefore ought to be present in that capacity.

When the Court sought information regarding the accommodation being provided to the residents affected by the demolition, the Corporation adopted a firm position that the residents had not been left without shelter. Its counsel submitted that they had been staying in a shelter facility from the very first day following the demolition.

According to the Corporation, the authorities thereafter initiated a process for allotting alternative accommodation. The affected residents were informed about the process, and lots were subsequently drawn to determine the allotment. However, the Corporation claimed that the residents chose not to participate in the draw. In those circumstances, the Corporation proceeded with the allotment process.

A significant controversy arose over the condition of the accommodation. The petitioners had alleged that the houses offered to them were in a dilapidated and uninhabitable condition. The Court specifically sought the Corporation’s response to this allegation.

The Corporation’s counsel categorically rejected the claim. He submitted that the photographs relied upon by the residents did not present the correct picture of the accommodation and that the Corporation was preparing a detailed affidavit to place what it described as the “real picture” before the Court. The counsel emphatically stated that the allegation regarding the accommodation being uninhabitable was “absolutely and vehemently disputed.”

The petitioners, however, maintained that the Corporation’s version did not accurately reflect what had transpired. Senior counsel representing the residents submitted that the Corporation had initially indicated that alternative accommodation would be provided at a particular location but subsequently changed the proposed location without properly informing the affected persons.

According to the petitioners, the process adopted by the Corporation gave an appearance that accommodation was being offered, while the actual implementation was substantially different. Senior counsel argued that the residents were offered houses in different locations and that the condition of those houses was such that they could not reasonably be treated as suitable alternative accommodation.

The petitioners also questioned the manner in which the inquiry into the demolition was being conducted. Reliance was placed upon the fact that two committees had been constituted in connection with the matter, including a two-member committee established by the State Government.

The petitioners pointed out that one of the persons associated with the committee was presently heading the Corporation. They questioned whether an officer who had become part of the Corporation’s administrative structure could independently inquire into allegations concerning the functioning of that very institution.

The Court examined this objection and questioned the petitioners as to how the officer’s present position necessarily affected the independence of the inquiry. The Court observed orally that the officer was looking into the alleged illegality and questioned how his familiarity with the Corporation would, by itself, compromise his independence.

The petitioners nevertheless maintained their broader grievance that the Corporation’s conduct had, from the very beginning, been “not befitting” of a civic body. Their submission was essentially that the issue could not be reduced to a dispute over the condition of a few houses, because the demolition itself and the subsequent treatment of the residents had to be examined as part of the larger question of administrative accountability.

The Court, however, appeared to take a somewhat different view of the officer’s familiarity with the Corporation. Rather than automatically treating it as a ground for disqualification, the Court indicated that knowledge of the Corporation’s functioning could potentially assist the inquiry in understanding what had happened and in tracing responsibility.

The State Government, represented by the Government Pleader, also placed before the Court the status of the inquiry. The Government Pleader submitted that the original mandate of the inquiry was valid until September 18 and that the inquiry was nearing completion.

He further informed the Court about developments concerning respondent no. 19, the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police. According to the State, proceedings had already been initiated in relation to the officer, and that matter was pending consideration before a Division Bench.

The Government Pleader also referred to another incident involving the same officer. He submitted that in that earlier matter, an inquiry had recorded an affirmative finding even though the officer had continued to hold his post. The finding had subsequently been placed before the Division Bench, which had permitted the State to take appropriate action. The State assured the Court that the action taken pursuant to that process would be reported to the Division Bench.

With regard to the present proceedings, the Government Pleader maintained that necessary steps were being taken and requested the Court to grant some time for the inquiry report to be placed on record. He emphasized that the inquiry had originally been given a period of 60 days and was now approaching completion.

The State’s position, therefore, was that the inquiry mechanism should be allowed to complete its work before the Court reached any conclusion regarding responsibility or the adequacy of the administrative response.

Court’s Judgment:

The Gujarat High Court did not pronounce a final determination on the legality of the demolition at this stage. Instead, the Court’s observations during the hearing demonstrated that it intends to closely scrutinize both the inquiry process and the measures taken by the authorities for the benefit of the affected residents.

One of the immediate issues considered by Justice Nikhil S. Kariel was the question of alternative accommodation. The residents had placed photographs and alleged that the houses offered to them were in a dilapidated and uninhabitable condition. The Corporation strongly disputed the authenticity or adequacy of those photographs and stated that it would file an affidavit placing the actual condition of the accommodation before the Court.

The Court therefore did not accept either version as conclusively established at this stage. The Corporation was effectively given an opportunity to place its factual response on record, while the petitioners’ allegations remained subject to judicial scrutiny.

The Court’s approach reflects an important principle in public law proceedings: where allegations concerning State or municipal action depend substantially upon disputed facts, the Court must have an adequate factual record before determining whether the administrative action was lawful or arbitrary. In the present case, the condition of the alternative accommodation is directly relevant to assessing whether the authorities have genuinely attempted to mitigate the hardship caused to the affected residents.

The Court also examined the process by which the alternative accommodation had allegedly been allotted. The Corporation claimed that residents had been informed and thereafter failed to participate in the draw of lots. The petitioners, on the other hand, alleged that the proposed location had itself been changed without adequate intimation.

This factual disagreement remains unresolved. The Court’s decision to seek further material suggests that it intends to determine whether the Corporation’s process was transparent and whether the residents were given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the allotment.

The inquiry into the alleged illegal demolition formed another important aspect of the hearing. The petitioners questioned the neutrality of the inquiry because one of the persons involved in the committee had subsequently become associated with the Corporation’s administration.

The Court did not accept the proposition that such association automatically destroyed the independence of the inquiry. Its oral observation that familiarity with the Corporation’s functioning could be beneficial indicates that institutional knowledge, by itself, cannot be treated as proof of bias.

At the same time, the Court’s questions show that independence and fairness remain central considerations. The Court was not prepared simply to accept the existence of an inquiry as sufficient. It also examined who was conducting it, what authority the officers concerned continued to exercise, and whether persons who might be required to give evidence remained administratively subordinate to an officer whose own conduct was under scrutiny.

This concern became particularly evident in relation to the Deputy Commissioner of Police referred to as respondent no. 19. The Court questioned the fairness of an inquiry where the concerned officer continued to hold the post while subordinate personnel, who might be called upon to give statements, remained under his command.

The Court’s concern is rooted in a fundamental principle of fair administrative inquiry: an investigation into alleged official misconduct must not only be substantively fair but must also inspire confidence that witnesses and subordinate officials can speak freely without fear of administrative consequences.

The State attempted to address this concern by pointing to an earlier matter involving the same officer. The Government Pleader submitted that an earlier inquiry had reached an affirmative finding even though the officer continued to remain in office, and that the finding had been placed before the Division Bench, which had permitted the State to take action.

The State therefore sought to demonstrate that continuation in office did not necessarily prevent an inquiry from reaching an independent finding. It also assured the Court that the action taken in the earlier matter would be brought to the notice of the Division Bench.

The High Court, however, appeared interested in the broader question of institutional accountability. The Court’s observations suggested that merely conducting an inquiry would not be enough if the process failed to identify responsibility or if persons affected by the alleged illegality were left without meaningful redress.

This was particularly evident in the Court’s concluding oral observations. The Court expressed concern that officials should understand that they were “on the knife’s edge” and emphasized that the proceedings were intended to determine whether any illegality had occurred and, if so, to fix responsibility “till the last person.”

The observation is significant because it indicates that the Court is not merely examining the conduct of the senior officers who may have authorized or supervised the demolition. If an illegality is established, the Court’s concern is whether responsibility can be traced through the administrative chain to all those whose actions or omissions contributed to it.

At the same time, the Court recognized that accountability has another dimension. It emphasized that persons who were victims of any illegality must also be “assuaged.” In other words, the proceedings are not intended merely to punish or identify erring officials; they must also address the consequences suffered by the affected residents.

The Court divided this responsibility, in its oral observations, between the State and the Corporation. The State was expected to address the question of fixing responsibility for any illegality, while the Corporation was expected to demonstrate what efforts had been made for the residents who had suffered.

The Court also raised an important factual question regarding the motive or circumstances behind the demolition. Its final observation referred to the need to determine whether what happened was “a design” or merely “a case of over enthusiasm.” This indicates that the Court may ultimately have to examine whether the demolition was the product of a deliberate administrative decision or whether officials exceeded their authority in an overzealous implementation of municipal action.

The distinction could have significant consequences. A deliberate and unlawful exercise of power would raise questions of institutional responsibility, whereas an unauthorized act arising from excessive zeal would require examination of the individual decisions and the administrative controls that permitted them.

The Court also took note of developments concerning the Surat Municipal Commissioner. The State Government had earlier informed the High Court that the Commissioner had been transferred and appointed to another post, and reports indicated that a new officer had subsequently been appointed as Surat’s Municipal Commissioner. These administrative changes form part of the broader context in which the Court is examining accountability for the demolition and the functioning of the municipal administration.

Importantly, the Court did not issue a final ruling declaring the demolition illegal at this stage. Nor did it finally determine that the accommodation provided to the residents was uninhabitable. Instead, the Court allowed the parties and the State inquiry to place the relevant material on record.

The Government Pleader was granted time to place the inquiry report before the Court, with the original 60-day mandate nearing completion. The matter was thereafter listed for September 29.

The proceedings thus remain significant because the High Court has kept both sides of the dispute under scrutiny. The Corporation will have to substantiate its assertion that adequate shelter and alternative accommodation were provided, while the State will have to place the inquiry findings before the Court. The petitioners, meanwhile, continue to press their allegations concerning the legality of the demolition and the treatment of the displaced residents.

At its core, the hearing reflects the constitutional requirement that public authorities must exercise statutory powers fairly, transparently and within the limits of law. Municipal bodies possess significant powers to regulate urban spaces and enforce municipal requirements, but the exercise of those powers cannot be divorced from procedural fairness and the rights of persons affected by official action.

The High Court’s observations also underscore that accountability does not end with identifying whether an administrative decision was technically lawful. Where an official action results in the displacement of residents, the State may also be required to demonstrate that affected persons have been treated fairly and that appropriate remedial measures have been taken.

The next hearing on September 29 is therefore likely to be important. The inquiry report, the Corporation’s affidavit concerning the condition of the alternative accommodation, and the developments concerning the concerned police officer may provide the factual foundation upon which the Court can determine the next course of action.

For now, the High Court has made one point particularly clear: if an illegality is ultimately found, responsibility cannot be allowed to disappear within the layers of administration, and the persons who suffered because of such illegality cannot be treated as an afterthought.