Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Friday expressed surprise at Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) officials claiming they were unaware of Supreme Court’s ‘Bulldozer judgement’, observing that “even a layman has got the knowledge about such decision” while one of the officers citing ignorance is an IAS officer.A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas directed the concerned NMC officers to file separate affidavits before Sept 4 stating clearly whether they stand by their earlier explanation or wish to clarify their position.The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Mahal riots case prime accused Fahim Khan’s 69-year-old mother, Mehrunissa Shamim Khan, and 96-year-old Abdul Hafiz, whose property was partially demolished as his relative was made an accused in the Mahal riots. The issue before the bench included the manner and promptness with which the civic body proceeded with demolition after issuing notices.On July 10, the court had directed NMC to place on record details showing how many times in the previous 10 years it had acted with the same promptness and demolished unauthorised or illegal constructions immediately after expiry of the notice period.The civic body admitted that its official data did not show any instance in the past 10 years where such action had been taken immediately after expiry of the notice period.The judges referred to the court’s experience in several other matters, noting that despite its directions over a decade, NMC had failed to act upon them. They questioned the civic body about its compliance with the top court’s directions in the “Bulldozer judgement” delivered on Nov 13, 2024.The apex court mandated that authorities must give 15 days’ notice before demolishing a structure, irrespective of provisions under any statute that may permit issuance of a shorter notice, including a 24-hour notice.NMC admitted that the SC judgement applied to the present case. However, in an affidavit of April 13, 2025, NMC commissioner, assistant commissioner and competent authority under the Slum Act, 1971, explained that they had acted according to the prevailing statutory provisions and failed to comply with the SC directions because of a lack of knowledge and absence of a circular communicating the ruling.The officers tendered an unconditional apology and assured the court of strict compliance with Supreme Court directions in future.The HC, however, found the explanation difficult to accept. It noted that the SC judgement was delivered on Nov 13, 2024, while the impugned notice was issued on March 31, 2025 — about four months later. “After the bulldozer judgement, there were news items published in every newspaper,” it noted.
