The Supreme Court on Friday posted after one week the hearing on a contempt petition against Uttar Pradesh government for alleged violation of its (top court) November 13, 2024, direction restraining the authorities, across the country, from demolishing residential and commercial structures without a prior notice and opportunity of hearing to their owner/occupier.

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih deferred the hearing on the contempt plea after petitioner Mohammed Ghayoor ’s lawyer sought adjournment as the senior advocate who was to argue the case was not available.

Advertisement

The petitioner Mohammed Ghayoor filed the contempt petition claiming that a part of his property – a factory, situated at Sambhal, was demolished by authorities between January 10-11, 2025 without any prior notice or hearing, despite the top court’s directions.

The apex court bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in a judgment on November 13, 2024, had ordered that “No demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days’ time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later.”

Issuing a number of directions to curb the arbitrary and high-handed action of the authorities being practiced in certain states, the top court had said, “Needless to state that the authorities hereinafter shall strictly comply with the aforesaid directions issued by us.”

Ordering this, the top court had ruled that the practice of bulldozer justice targeting the residential and commercial buildings belonging to a person allegedly in conflict with law unconstitutional, arbitrary, high-handed and violative of the rule of law, abuse of power by the executive – authorities and violative of fundamental right to life and shelter guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.

The contempt plea that was listed for hearing today claimed that the property- a factory – was the sole source of income of the petitioner Mohammed Ghayoor and his family and as such, the action of the authorities has jeopardised their source of livelihood.