ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Ms. Trusha Patel with learned Advocate Mr. Nirav Sanghavi and learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Timbalia for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader Mr. Gurusharan H. Virk for the respondents No. 1 and 17 to 20, learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi with learned Advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi and learned Advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the respondent No.2 and learned Advocate Mr. Salil Thakore for the respondent No.15.

2. Learned Senior Advocate Ms. Patel tenders a draft amendment, more particularly to amend the name of respondent No.7. The same is taken on record. The draft amendment is granted. Appropriate amendment to be carried out during course of the day.

2.1 Learned Senior Advocate Ms. Patel also tenders an additional affidavit. The same is taken on record.

3. Learned Government Pleader Mr. Virk in compliance of oral directions of this Court dated 25.06.2026, has tendered an affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Surat City.

3.1 Learned Government Pleader would submit that the affidavit of the Commissioner of Police inter alia states as regards the complaint, which had been submitted by the one of the petitioners to the Corporation, having been received by the Inward Department of the Commissionerate on 10.06.2026 at 17 : 32 Hours and in normal course, the same had been forwarded to the appropriate jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Police 16.06.2026 and whereas thereafter, the DCP, Surat Zone – 3 on 16.06.2026, i.e. on the same day. Learned Government Pleader would submit that based upon the complaint, the police machinery has activated itself and statements of around 10 persons, including of police officers, have been recorded.

4. Prima facie, to this Court, the affidavit is not satisfactory. Prima facie it would appear to this Court that the Commissioner of Police, of a City, upon knowing of such an activity i.e. a large scale demolition, which prima facie was without any authority of law, was not required to wait till a formal complaint is filed and ought to have taken appropriate steps immediately. Learned Government Pleader seeks some time to respond to the said observations of this Court also.

5. Explaining the presence of the Police Officials at the site, learned Government Pleader Mr. Virk would tender copy of communication dated 21.05.2026 by the Deputy Engineer, Central Zone, Surat Mahanagar Palika as well as copy of communication dated 27.05.2026 by the Police Inspector, Chawkbazar Police Station, Surat City to the Police Commissioner, Surat City as well as copy of order dated 27.05.2026 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Surat City, inter alia stating as regards providing police protection.

6. While learned Government Pleader would submit that the police officials, who were present at the site of the demolition, had gone there upon a specific requisition received from the Municipal Corporation and whereas the presence of the police officials in a larger number to ensure that there was no law and order situation, more particularly since certain apprehension had been raised Police Inspector, which had found favour with the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

7. As against the same, this Court notices that vide communication dated 21.05.2026, police protection was required only for demarcation purpose and for nothing else. It clearly appears that under the garb of demarcation, the Corporation’s officials had demolished the properties of some of the petitioners