The Gujarat High Court has raised serious questions over the role of the police and municipal authorities in a large-scale demolition drive in Surat, observing that law enforcement officials could not remain passive if a demolition was allegedly carried out without legal authority. While hearing a petition filed by several affected residents, the Court sought detailed explanations from the Police Commissioner, the Surat Municipal Corporation, and Torrent Power regarding their respective roles in the incident.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen and several other residents, challenging the demolition of their properties in Surat. During the hearing, the State placed on record an affidavit from the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, explaining the handling of complaints received after the demolition.
According to the State, a complaint submitted by one of the petitioners was processed through the usual administrative channel before statements of around ten persons, including police personnel, were recorded as part of the inquiry.
Court's Observations
Justice Nikhil S. Kariel expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavit filed by the Police Commissioner.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court observed,
“Prima facie, the affidavit is not satisfactory.”
It further remarked that if the Police Commissioner became aware of a large-scale demolition that appeared to lack legal authority, waiting for a formal complaint was not appropriate and immediate action should have been taken.
The Court also examined documents showing that police protection had originally been sought only for carrying out a land demarcation exercise. However, it noted that demolition activities were allegedly undertaken under the guise of that exercise.
In a significant observation, the bench stated,
“When police bandobast had been sought for a demarcation activity and under the guise of demarcation, if demolition was being carried out, it was the duty of the police officials not to support such an illegal activity.”
The Court added that senior police officers present at the site ought to have intervened instead of allowing the demolition to continue.
Municipal Corporation and Torrent Power's Stand
Appearing for the Surat Municipal Corporation, the Advocate General informed the Court that the demolition had not been carried out under any authorised decision of the Corporation. He submitted that an internal inquiry had already been ordered and that an action taken report would be placed before the Court after the inquiry report was received.
The Corporation also informed the Court that it had arranged temporary accommodation for displaced persons by converting a nearby community centre into a shelter and was providing hygiene and medical facilities.
Torrent Power submitted that its officials disconnected electricity after receiving information about the demolition and noticing damage to electrical infrastructure. The Court, however, observed that this explanation did not appear convincing at first glance and directed the company to file a detailed affidavit explaining its standard operating procedure for such situations.
Decision
The High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the Commissioner of Police, Surat, to file a further affidavit addressing the Court's prima facie observations.
It also directed the Commissioner of the Surat Municipal Corporation to place on record the inquiry report, the action taken on its findings, and a response to allegations of collusion involving municipal officials. Torrent Power was ordered to file a detailed affidavit explaining the timing and procedure followed while disconnecting electricity during the demolition.
Pending further consideration, the Court directed the Surat Municipal Corporation to continue providing basic facilities and shelter to all persons displaced by the demolition until further orders.
Case Details
Case Title: Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 8712 of 2026
Judge: Justice Nikhil S. Kariel
Decision Date: 29 June 2026
