Row over Surat demolition drive: SMC official moves HC against suspension

The controversy over Surat’s Nasir Nagar demolition drive widened on Monday after suspended Executive Engineer (Road Development Department) Sujal Prajapati placed WhatsApp messages that he claimed were sent by the Surat Municipal Commissioner before the Gujarat High Court (HC) to state that he was carrying out instructions from the city’s top civic official as he (Prajapati) challenged the decision to suspend him.

The HC orally directed the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) to place its submissions responding to the officer’s claims, on record in an affidavit.

SMC chief M Nagarajan refused to comment on the matter, stating that it was sub judice.

Prajapati, who has been impleaded in his personal capacity in a Special Civil Application filed by a group of residents of Nasir Nagar challenging the legality of the May 30 demolitions, has moved a separate petition before the Gujarat HC against his suspension.

Prajapati is among the five civic officials who were suspended in the wake of the demolition. On Monday, Senior Counsel I G Joshi, appearing for Prajapati, argued that SMC chief M Nagarajan’s alleged communications “contradict” the stand subsequently taken by the SMC before the High Court that no authority had authorised the demolition.

On May 30, the SMC demolished around 100 shanties in Nasir Nagar that were allegedly encroaching on private land in the Ved Road area, displacing several families. A group of 26 affected residents challenged the action before the HC, in a separate ongoing case, seeking accountability and rehabilitation. During earlier hearings, the Municipal Commissioner filed an affidavit acknowledging that the demolition occurred during what was intended to be a physical demarcation exercise and that there had been no underlying decision authorising demolition, prompting the HC to orally observe, prima facie, that the corporation itself had accepted the action was illegal.

The court has also orally said that displaced residents must be rehabilitated and sought affidavits from both the Municipal Commissioner and the Gujarat government. The Commissioner’s affidavit disclosed that a preliminary internal inquiry resulted in the suspension of five municipal officials, including Prajapati, while a deeper departmental inquiry was initiated. The case over the main demolition is presently pending before the High Court.

Story continues below this ad

Joshi, representing the executive engineer, submitted before Justice Niral Mehta, purported screenshots of WhatsApp messages allegedly forwarded by the Municipal Commissioner to Prajapati with a text asking for the work to be completed “as soon as possible.”

The senior counsel argued that despite these exchanges, the Municipal Commissioner later filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that, upon receiving complaints, he had initiated an inquiry to ascertain who had authorised the demolition and that no authority within the corporation had issued any order for the exercise.

Reading extensively from the Commissioner’s affidavit filed in the main demolition proceedings, the counsel pointed out that it stated an inquiry had revealed there was “no order passed by any authority” directing the demolition and that a six-member internal committee had thereafter been constituted to investigate the conduct of municipal officers.

“The affidavit creates an impression that the Commissioner knew nothing about the demolition. Our case is that the petitioner acted only because the Commissioner forwarded the message to him and told him to complete the work,” Joshi submitted before the court.

Story continues below this ad

Joshi further argued that Prajapati was summoned “late at night” to appear before the corporation’s inquiry committee the following morning, where he specifically informed the committee that he had acted at the instance of his superior officer. He was suspended the very next day.

“If nobody had approached the High Court, the demolition would have taken place, the road widening would have taken place and I (Prajapati) would never have been suspended,” the counsel argued, submitting that the suspension amounted to a “colourable exercise of power adopted only after judicial scrutiny commenced”.

Responding to the submissions, Justice Mehta orally informed the counsel appearing for the SMC that any explanation sought to be offered regarding the WhatsApp messages must be placed on affidavit rather than through oral submissions.

The judge orally observed that the affidavit would have to explain “in unequivocal terms” why the Commissioner had forwarded the message, added his own remarks and what those comments signified. The court also orally said that it was not inclined to consider explanations given in haste and that whatever case the parties wished to make should be supported by affidavits.

(With inputs from Kamal Saiyed in Surat)