On May 30, the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) carried out a demolition drive in the Ved Road area of Nasir Nagar, citing encroachment on private land. Roughly a hundred makeshift homes were razed, leaving several families homeless and sparking immediate public outcry.

Legal Challenges Emerge

In a separate civil application, 26 affected residents approached the Gujarat High Court seeking accountability, rehabilitation, and a clarification of the legal basis for the demolition. Simultaneously, the suspended Executive Engineer of the Road Development Department, Sujal Prajapati, lodged a petition contesting his suspension, alleging that he acted on direct instructions from the Surat Municipal Commissioner.

Commissioner’s WhatsApp Messages and Court’s Response

Prajapati submitted screenshots of WhatsApp messages purportedly forwarded by the Municipal Commissioner, urging him to complete the demolition “as soon as possible.” Senior Counsel I.G. Joshi, representing Prajapati, argued that these messages contradicted the Commissioner’s later affidavit, which claimed that no authority had authorised the demolition.

SMC’s Stance and High Court Directions

SMC chief M. Nagarajan declined to comment, invoking the sub‑judice rule. The High Court orally directed the corporation to place all submissions, including the officer’s claims, on record in a sworn affidavit. It also emphasized that displaced residents must be rehabilitated and ordered both the Municipal Commissioner and the Gujarat government to file additional affidavits.

Internal Inquiry and Suspension Rationale

The Commissioner’s affidavit revealed that an initial internal inquiry led to the suspension of five municipal officials, including Prajapati, while a deeper departmental probe was launched. The court noted that the corporation’s own admission suggested the demolition was “prima facie illegal.”

Counsel’s Argument on Power Abuse

Joshi contended that Prajapati was summoned late at night to appear before an inquiry committee, where he explicitly stated he acted on his superior’s orders. The counsel argued that the suspension amounted to a “colourable exercise of power” triggered only after judicial scrutiny began.

Judicial Emphasis on Written Evidence

Justice Niral Mehta instructed both parties that any explanation regarding the WhatsApp messages must be presented in a formal affidavit, not through oral submissions. The judge warned that hurried oral explanations would not be entertained, underscoring the court’s insistence on documented evidence.

The case remains pending, with the High Court expected to rule on both the legality of the demolition and the propriety of the officials’ suspensions. The outcome will likely shape future municipal demolition protocols and set precedents for accountability in urban governance.