Gujarat HC Finds Police Duty to Stop Illegal Demolition, Not Merely Keep Order

The Gujarat High Court held prima facie that police officials present at a Surat demolition site had a duty to intervene, not merely maintain law and order, when demolition exceeded the stated demarcation purpose.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in an oral order dated 29 June 2026, made prima facie findings against the conduct of police officials who were present at a demolition site in Surat. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, sitting singly, found that the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, was not satisfactory, and held that senior police officers at the site ought to have intervened when demolition was being carried out under the guise of a demarcation exercise. The court also directed the Surat Municipal Corporation to continue providing basic facilities to displaced persons until further orders, and called for affidavits from the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation, and Torrent Power Ltd. by the next date of hearing.

The Dispute Before the Court

The petitioners — Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen and 25 others — filed Special Civil Application No. 8712 of 2026 before the Gujarat High Court. The petition concerns a large-scale demolition of properties in Surat that the petitioners allege was carried out without any authority of law.

The matter had been heard earlier on 25 June 2026, when the court issued oral directions requiring the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, to file an affidavit. On 29 June 2026, that affidavit was tendered by the Government Pleader, Mr. Gurusharan H. Virk, along with copies of communications from the Surat Mahanagar Palika and orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

Senior Advocate Ms. Trusha Patel appeared with Advocates Mr. Nirav Sanghavi and Mr. A.S. Timbalia for the petitioners. The Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi, with Advocates Mr. Anuj Trivedi and Mr. Rituraj Meena, appeared for respondent No. 2, the Surat Municipal Corporation. Advocate Mr. Salil Thakore appeared for respondent No. 15, Torrent Power Ltd.

The Police Presence and the Demarcation Pretext

The Government Pleader explained the police presence at the demolition site by producing three documents: a communication dated 21 May 2026 from the Deputy Engineer, Central Zone, Surat Mahanagar Palika; a communication dated 27 May 2026 from the Police Inspector, Chawkbazar Police Station, to the Police Commissioner, Surat City; and an order dated 27 May 2026 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Surat City, authorising police protection.

The Government Pleader's position was that police officials attended the site upon a specific requisition from the Municipal Corporation and that their role was to ensure no law and order situation arose. He submitted that the police were not required to assess whether the Corporation's action was lawful.

The court did not accept this framing. It noted that the communication of 21 May 2026 had sought police protection only for a demarcation activity. The court found that under the garb of demarcation, the Corporation's officials had demolished the properties of some of the petitioners and others.

The Court's Prima Facie Findings on Police Duty

Justice Kariel made two distinct prima facie findings against the police.

First, on the Commissioner of Police's affidavit: the court held that the Commissioner of Police of a city, upon knowing of a large-scale demolition that was prima facie without any authority of law, was not required to wait for a formal complaint before taking appropriate steps. The affidavit's account — that a complaint received on 10 June 2026 at 17:32 hours was forwarded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Police only on 16 June 2026, and to the DCP, Surat Zone-3, on the same day — did not satisfy the court.

Second, on the conduct of officers at the site: the court held that when police bandobast had been sought for a demarcation activity and demolition was being carried out under that guise, it was the duty of the police officials not to support such an illegal activity. Given the seniority of the officers present, the court found they should have intervened and ensured the illegal activity was not permitted to continue. The court stated that the Government Pleader's submissions on this point could not prima facie be accepted.

The court directed the State to ensure a further affidavit is filed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat, specifically addressing these prima facie observations.

The Corporation's Position and the Inquiry

The Advocate General, appearing for the Surat Municipal Corporation, tendered a note by the Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation. He submitted that the demolition was not carried out by Corporation officials under any authority of the Corporation. He also submitted that an inquiry had been ordered and that an action taken report based on the inquiry committee's findings was likely to be produced during the course of the day.

The Advocate General further submitted that, in compliance with earlier oral directions of the court, the Corporation had activated a nearby community centre as a community shelter for persons displaced by the demolition, and was ensuring hygiene and medical facilities were available to them.

The court directed the Advocate General to ensure that the Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation files an affidavit-in-reply addressing the inquiry report, the action taken on it, and the allegation of collusion between Corporation officers and some of the private respondents.

Torrent Power's Explanation Questioned

Advocate Mr. Salil Thakore, for Torrent Power Ltd. (respondent No. 15), submitted that some officers of Torrent Power had received a phone call about the proposed demolition, reached the site, found demolition already underway and their meters damaged, and had proactively disconnected electricity to prevent harm to life or property.

The court found this explanation prima facie unreasonable, observing that it did not appeal to reason that the machinery of Torrent Power would activate on the basis of a phone call. The court directed Torrent Power to file an affidavit by the returnable date, sworn by the senior-most officer with jurisdiction over Surat City, setting out the procedure normally followed upon receiving intimation of a proposed demolition by a Corporation or local body. Torrent Power was also directed to place on record technical information about the time at which the electricity connection was disconnected, whether to the entire area or to individual residences.

Order

The court issued notice to all respondents returnable on 2 July 2026. Service was waived by the Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 and 17 to 20, by Advocates Anuj Trivedi and Meena for respondent No. 2, and by Advocate Thakore for respondent No. 15. Direct service for respondents No. 3 to 14 and 16 was permitted on the same day.

The court clarified that the Surat Municipal Corporation shall continue ensuring all basic facilities to persons displaced on account of the demolition until further orders.

The petitioners were also granted leave to amend the petition to correct the name of respondent No. 7, with the amendment to be carried out during the course of the day.