Fresh Pics of Residents living in trouble after 27 days of demolition in Nasir Nagar.
Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court on Friday came down heavily on Surat municipal commissioner and the civic body’s standing committee chairman for backtracking on their assurance to provide free houses to 28 families who lost their homes in the illegal demolition at Nasir Nagar, Surat, in May. “The matter is listed on Nov 27.
The municipal commissioner and chairman of the standing committee both of who have taken decision as regards not providing any alternative accommodation to the persons whose residences have been demolished shall remain present before this court on the said date and explain why this court should not take out proceedings for criminal contempt against the officers in question,” the court order stated. As a constitutional court, we will not countenance this and we hope the state would also not countenance it,” the court said. When the judge questioned the change in stand, the officials submitted that SMC had no scheme under which the families could be given free houses. The civic body also argued that the affected families had been living illegally on land earmarked for a public road and might not be eligible for free housing. HC also questioned state govt on whether it was considering action against SMC. “If you are permitting corporation A to demolish without permission, it will be the corporation B, then municipality C and then gram panchayat D.
The court summoned the two officials again to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for reversing their earlier stand.
The judge said, “Till the hearing is complete, the commissioner and the standing committee chairman will have to be here. The HC, however said, “the present situation is exceptional and extraordinary situation”, as the homes of 28 citizens had been demolished “without following any procedure and without any authority of law”. The court further observed that the officials’ U-turn on providing free houses, after the state’s highest law officer had assured the court during the hearing, was “nothing less than the act which scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers the authority of this court or nothing less than interfering or obstructing with the administration of justice”. Finding that Beniwal and Patel had failed to explain the reversal despite the advocate general’s assurance, the HC said, “Since this court is of the prima facie opinion that these officers by their actions have prompted this court to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, their presence is absolutely necessary.”
When the HC pressed the matter, SMC’s counsel sought time to respond. The court also questioned Beniwal, asking why the civic body had changed its stand when providing alternative accommodation was an attempt “to undo the wrong committed by your officer, then, why this change in your stand? When the HC directed Beniwal and Patel to remain present during the hearings, SMC’s counsel cited Supreme Court orders cautioning courts against unnecessarily summoning govt officers.