NAGPUR: The Nagpur municipal commissioner offered Tuesday an unconditional apology to Bombay high court 's Nagpur bench for demolishing the home of riot accused Fahim Khan without adhering to Supreme Court-mandated procedures, reports Vaibhav Ganjapure.
In an affidavit, municipal commissioner Abhijeet Chaudhari acknowledged that civic officials from the town planning and slum departments were unaware of SC's Nov 13, 2024 order that requires procedural safeguards before demolishing properties linked to suspects in communal violence.
The court was hearing petitions from Fahim's mother, 69-year-old Mehrunissa, and 96-year-old Abdul Hafiz, whose relative was also named in the March 17 riots in the city's Mahal area. Fahim's house near Raza Masjid in Sanjay Bagh Colony had been razed by the time the high court took up the matter, while Hafiz's home was partially demolished.
T he HC halted further demolition on March 25, ruling that the actions warranted judicial review. Petitioners argued that the demolitions were arbitrary and violated Supreme Court norms prohibiting punitive action without due process. Municipal commissioner Abhijeet Chaudhari said in court that neither competent authorities nor executive engineers were informed of SC’s ruling in writ petition no. 295/ 2022.
“My inquiry revealed that no circular was issued under the Slum Act, 1971,” he said. Chaudhari said that Nagpur police had requested details of properties owned by riot accused and asked for verification of their building plans. The Mahal zone office inspected the properties and found them lacking sanctioned approvals. Show cause notices were issued under the Slum Act, and demolitions followed within 24 hours, without knowledge of SC’s requirements.
“On March 21, the police commissioner reiterated his request to take action against the properties of rioters in accordance with law if these were illegal,” Chaudhari said. “Accordingly, the assistant commissioner of Mahal zone inspected properties and found that homes of both petitioners were prima facie built without sanctioned plans.” The division bench of judges Nitin Sambre and Vrushali Joshi granted Maharashtra govt a final opportunity to explain within two weeks why it failed to circulate SC’s order to municipal authorities
In an affidavit, municipal commissioner Abhijeet Chaudhari acknowledged that civic officials from the town planning and slum departments were unaware of SC's Nov 13, 2024 order that requires procedural safeguards before demolishing properties linked to suspects in communal violence.
The court was hearing petitions from Fahim's mother, 69-year-old Mehrunissa, and 96-year-old Abdul Hafiz, whose relative was also named in the March 17 riots in the city's Mahal area. Fahim's house near Raza Masjid in Sanjay Bagh Colony had been razed by the time the high court took up the matter, while Hafiz's home was partially demolished.
T he HC halted further demolition on March 25, ruling that the actions warranted judicial review. Petitioners argued that the demolitions were arbitrary and violated Supreme Court norms prohibiting punitive action without due process. Municipal commissioner Abhijeet Chaudhari said in court that neither competent authorities nor executive engineers were informed of SC’s ruling in writ petition no. 295/ 2022.
“My inquiry revealed that no circular was issued under the Slum Act, 1971,” he said. Chaudhari said that Nagpur police had requested details of properties owned by riot accused and asked for verification of their building plans. The Mahal zone office inspected the properties and found them lacking sanctioned approvals. Show cause notices were issued under the Slum Act, and demolitions followed within 24 hours, without knowledge of SC’s requirements.
“On March 21, the police commissioner reiterated his request to take action against the properties of rioters in accordance with law if these were illegal,” Chaudhari said. “Accordingly, the assistant commissioner of Mahal zone inspected properties and found that homes of both petitioners were prima facie built without sanctioned plans.” The division bench of judges Nitin Sambre and Vrushali Joshi granted Maharashtra govt a final opportunity to explain within two weeks why it failed to circulate SC’s order to municipal authorities
You may also like
"Vendetta in legal disguise": Congress' Abhishek Singhvi on ED's chargesheet against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul
Bengaluru techie compares salary vs career vs life in Dubai, USA, and India. His final verdict will surprise you
Kunal Kamra row: HC grants interim protection from arrest to comedian in 'traitor' joke case
Countryfile's Adam Henson in touching gesture to wife as he shares gruelling cancer battle
'Greatest ever' World War II film reduces fans to tears on Disney Plus
