The Supreme Courtroom on Tuesday (April 7) directed the fast sealing of 44 properties in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, after discovering that residential plots had been illegally transformed into business institutions, faculties, and hospitals, many working with out sanctioned plans or fundamental fireplace security measures.
Whereas listening to a contempt petition in a matter regarding the unauthorized conversion of residential premises into business institutions with out authorized layouts, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Okay.V. Viswanathan took critical exception to the conduct of the previous Meerut Divisional Commissioner, Rishikesh Bhaskar Yashod, who was personally current in Courtroom.
The bench questioned below what authority he selected to ignore earlier judicial instructions towards unauthorised building by issuing an order stating that sure business institutions in Meerut’s Central Market space wouldn’t be demolished “at current.”
On October 27, 2025, the Meerut Commissioner had handed an order that no additional demolition of retailers must be carried out within the Central Market space as the outlets can be granted “market avenue” standing by way of a proposed modification to the Grasp Plan.
The Chairperson of Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Mr P. Guruprasad, instructed the Courtroom that demolitions couldn’t be carried out in view of the order handed by the Meerut Commissioner on October 27.
On April 2, the Courtroom had expressed that it was “very a lot disturbed by what the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut did by passing the order dated 27.10.2025.”. Due to this fact, the then Commissioner was directed to seem earlier than the Courtroom on April 6.
You’ll succumb to public strain? SC asks the officer
On April 6, the bench led by Justice Pardiwala pulled up Yashod, who was the then Commissioner, for passing such an order, and permitting unlawful conversions.
Yashod defined that he handed the order halting demolitions as there was “public hue and cry.” Justice Pardiwala then requested him, “So will you succumb to hue and cry by enroachers or will you go by the rule of regulation. You’re a public servant, you might be anticipated to take care of the rule of regulation. All the democracy stands on rule of regulation. Why did you succumb to the strain?”.
Justice Pardiwala additional requested the officer at whose occasion the order was handed. The officer replied that he had held consultations with the general public representatives.
Justice Pardiwala identified that the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad has taken the stance that it couldn’t proceed with the demolition drive because of the order handed by the Meerut Commissioner.
“Why did you need to say that they won’t be demolished at current? There was an order handed by this Courtroom, you had been responsibility certain to abide by the order. Why did you go this order that Central Market is not going to be demolished? Who authorised you to go such an order? You defied our orders ” Justice Pardiwala requested.
Absolute defiance of orders of the Courtroom
Within the order, the Courtroom recorded its excessive unhappiness with the conduct of the Meerut Commissioner, and termed it “absolute defiance of the orders handed by this Courtroom.”
“That is one thing extremely deplorable and we don’t approve of the identical. This stance or slightly the motion on the a part of the Former Commissioner is nothing however absolute defiance of the Order handed by this court docket.”, the court docket remarked.
“Rule of Legislation has been given a go by. What we’ve been given to know is that every one these plots had been initially allotted for residential function. On among the plots, residential homes had been constructed and over a time frame, extra building was put up in every of those properties for the aim of using it for business function. It’s not in dispute that no plans for the extra constructions had been sanctioned, no permission was obtained and on the identical time, no one paid heed to all these unauthorized constructions.”, the bench added.
Colleges & Hospitals functioning out of unlawful buildings : Courtroom expresses alarm
The Courtroom was notably alarmed by the presence of Colleges and Hospitals working out of those 44 unlawful buildings. It questioned how these entities obtained electrical energy connections and enterprise permissions with out authorized constructing standing.
The Courtroom famous that the majority faculties are for nursery youngsters.
“What’s extra stunning and startling is that on this specific space, there are 5 to six Colleges and Hospitals. These Colleges and Hospitals are being run in buildings/constructions that are completely unlawful and unauthorized. We surprise how they had been capable of procure electrical energy connection for a similar. We’re going to inquire in the midst of additional listening to, who’s answerable for offering electrical energy to those buildings, that are completely unauthorized. We might additionally prefer to know the idea for offering such electrical energy connections. We wonder if these faculties run in unlawful buildings, have any fireplace preventing home equipment, whether or not the hospitals have any fireplace preventing amenities and are fireplace security compliant. Sadly, all these faculties are for tiny tots, might be young children getting in nursery and many others. The sufferers are additionally uncovered to excessive vulnerability. At the moment we’re far more involved in defending the lives of the harmless youngsters going to colleges and the sufferers who’re taking medical therapy within the hospitals.”, the court docket noticed.
Additionally, the court docket questioned how banks had entered into lease agreements to function on these unlawful properties.
“We surprise how banks entered into lease agreements with the lessors. We wonder if the banks inquired whether or not the buildings are authorized and whether or not any completion certificates and many others. has been issued by the authorities.,” the order acknowledged.
State officers to be personally answerable for any untoward incident
The Courtroom faulted the State authorities for permitting the operation of college, hospitals, banks, and different business institution, and stated if any untoward incident occurs in close to future, the “State authorities can be held personally accountable for a similar and they are going to be accountable for such untoward incidents.”
“…the State authorities shall listen instantly to the susceptible pockets of this space like Colleges and Hospitals that are being run in buildings that are completely unlawful and unauthorized. Over a time frame, the State might be stated to have taken an enormous threat in exposing this part of the society to some very critical casualties or imminent hazard.”, the court docket stated.
Additionally, the Courtroom directed the state authorities that it will be there accountability to shift the affected person to completely different hospitals or the scholars to completely different faculty.
“Whether or not the sufferers are to be relocated at every other hospital, it is going to be the accountability of the State. In the identical method, if the scholars are to be readmitted in every other faculty, that shall be the accountability of the State.”, the court docket directed.
The matter is subsequent listed on 9-4-2026 on the high of the board.
The Courtroom directed Yashod to file an acceptable affidavit explaining what transpired on twenty seventh October 2025 and his particular stance within the matter.
Trigger Title: LOKESH KUMAR KHURANA VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 877/2025 in C.A. No. 14604/2024, BIMALENDU PRADHAN v. STATE OF ODISHA and linked circumstances.
