SC contempt notice to Maharashtra civic body for demolishing shop without notice
The petitioner said the demolition took place a day after an FIR was filed against him, his wife and his minor son over allegations that they raised anti-India slogans during India-Pakistan cricket match
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a contempt notice to the administrator of a municipal council in Maharashtra on a punitive demolition carried out against the shop and residence of a person belonging to a minority community without serving prior notice, in violation of the pan-India guidelines issued by the top court.
A bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and Augustine George Masih sought response from Santosh Jirage, the chief officer and administrator of Malvan municipal council in Sindhudurg district, on a petition filed by Kitabulla Hamidulla Khan –– a scrap dealer by profession.
The petitioner claimed that the demolition took place a day after a first information report (FIR) was registered against him, his wife and his minor son over allegations that they raised anti-India slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match held on February 23. Khan, in his petition, said the civic authorities demolished his tin shed shop and residence after they termed it an “illegal structure”.
Advocate Fauzia Shakil, appearing for the petitioner, said, “This case pertains to demolition of a house and shop by the local authorities without serving any notice to the petitioner.” The court issued a notice on the petition to examine the allegations.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment issued on November 13, 2024, set down comprehensive guidelines against arbitrary demolitions. The court directed that no property may be demolished without prior written notice, outlining the alleged violations and providing owners with at least 15 days to respond. Notices must also be served by registered post and displayed on the structure in question, detailing the grounds for demolition and offering a fair window to contest.
Highlighting these aspects, the petitioner said, “The present case is an example of egregious contempt and demonstrates how the state machinery is violating the guidelines with impunity.”
