The Supreme Court recently pulled up two senior IAS officers from Uttar Pradesh for failing to follow courts orders and halting the demolition of unauthorised commercial structures due to "public hue and cry.".A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan ordered the immediate sealing of 44 unauthorised properties, including schools and hospitals, observing that the State authorities had created a "complete deadlock" and exposed the public to "imminent danger." "This stance or rather the action on the part of the Former Commissioner is nothing but absolute defiance of the Order passed by this court. Rule of Law has been given a go by. What we have been given to understand is that all these plots were originally allotted for residential purpose. No plans for the additional constructions were sanctioned. No permission was obtained and at the same time, nobody paid heed to all these unauthorised constructions" the Court noted. It took strong exception to an October 2025 directive passed by Rishikesh Bhaskar Yashod, the then Commissioner of Meerut Division, who ordered a halt on demolitions.The Bench noted that Yashod's October 27 directive even went as far as directing that the area be accorded "market street" status through a Master Plan amendment, subject to the payment of land use conversion charges."This is something highly deplorable and we do not approve of the same. This stance or rather the action on the part of the Former Commissioner is nothing but absolute defiance of the order passed by this court," the bench noted..The Court was hearing a contempt of court petition regarding the failure of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad to demolish hundreds of unauthorised commercial structures operating in residential zones in the central market area of Meerut. The proceedings arose after the Court noted that its December 2024 pan-India directives against unauthorised constructions were not being implemented in letter and spirit.On April 1, it asked the Chairperson of the Parishad to remain personally present in Court and file a detailed status report stating what action had been taken in the area. .When the hearing resumed on April 2, the Court examined the status report filed by the Chairperson of the Parishad, IAS officer P Guruprasad. It then asked him to explain why only one out of 860 identified unauthorised properties had been demolished. "We want him to take action to remove the unauthorised construction. Why is he shy to do that? What has the chairperson done so far? Let him give us a fair idea. Why has he not demolished? What is coming in his way? He’s a learned man, educated man," the Court said.Guruprasad attempted to respond but could not provide a clear answer.The Court noted his hesitation and warned that strict action would be taken to ensure compliance."You have no answer Mr. Guruprasad, you are fumbling. There is something troubling you. You want our help, we can help you. If you can’t do it, we will ask some other authority to see that it is done. But our directions have to be complied with in letter and spirit. We will give you time till 6th of April. You file whatever reply you want to file," the Court said.The Court then demanded a concrete action plan and precise figures regarding the illegal structures."We want you to put forward a concrete action plan by which you will give effect to the directions of this Court. You will now give us the figures. Before he reaches office he must instruct his officers, we must have a clear picture, out of 860 how many are absolutely… shops below, house above. He’s an IAS officer," the Court said.Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher, appearing for the chairperson, requested more time to compile the data.The Court refused to grant extension and issued a stern warning to the officer."He will have to do it. He will remember us for the rest of his career. This should not happen again," the Court said.In its order, the Court termed the Parishad’s status report an "absolute eyewash" and noted that an October 2025 directive passed by Rishikesh Bhaskar Yashod had ordered a halt on demolitions. The Bench then ordered Yashod to be personally present at the next hearing..When the hearing resumed on April 6, both IAS officers were present.The Court began by probing the reasoning behind the October 2025 directive passed by Yashod to stop the demolitions.Yashod explained that his decision followed widespread public backlash over a previous demolition."I convened a meeting after the demolition of a building 661/6. After that there was a lot of public hue and cry," Yashod told the Court. The Court criticised the officer for yielding to public pressure rather than enforcing the law."So will you succumb to hue and cry by the encroachers or go by the rule of law?" the Court asked.Yashod admitted to holding discussions with local leaders regarding the issue.The Court pointed out that his order actively prevented the Parishad chairman from carrying out his duties."What was the effect of your order? Because Mr. Guruprasad says he could not proceed because of this order by the commissioner," the Court said."He is wrong," Yashod replied."But that’s his stance," the Court said.The Court then reprimanded Yashod for overstepping his authority and halting the enforcement of Supreme Court orders."You were to abide by the directions of this court. Where is the question of getting into meetings with these people and conversion fees etc. who told you to do all this? If there was any confusion you could have come before this court and sought clarification. Instead you defied our orders!" the Court said. .It then reviewed a list of 44 properties that had been converted from residential to commercial use without authorization. Shakdher pointed out that the list included nationalised banks and hospitals."The structure is unauthorised. If there is a fire or something what will happen? Customers will come, employees are there," the Court said.Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the State, added that these were "legacy issues" and asked the Court to allow the State to take corrective measures.The Court expressed shock that such institutions were operating without fire safety compliance or proper electricity authorisations."How is this school getting electricity connection? Who will take the responsibility? You will take? There are children inside! What’s going on," the Court said..The Bench then ordered the immediate sealing of the 44 properties and directed the State to take responsibility for relocating the affected students and patients. The Court made it clear that authorities would be held personally liable for any untoward incidents at these sites until the sealing is complete..[Read Orders].April 1 OrderApril 2 OrderApril 6 Order
