A promise of rehabilitation has run into a problem at the site of the Nasirnagar demolition in Surat, with residents telling the Gujarat High Court on Friday that they had rejected the alternative houses offered to them because the accommodation shown to them was in a dilapidated condition and, in some cases, at locations different from those originally promised.The court, meanwhile, questioned why Deputy Commissioner of Police R Nakum continued to hold his position even as M Nagrajan had been transferred as Surat Municipal Corporation Commissioner, while an inquiry into the demolition was ongoing.Justice Nikhil Kariel of the Gujarat High Court was hearing submissions from the petitioners, who told the court that they had initially agreed to accept houses at Jahangirpura under the PM Awas Yojana after finding them “quite decent”, but that the site was subsequently changed without any intimation and they were instead shown houses at different locations which they alleged were in a dilapidated condition.“Thereafter, without any intimation to us, the site was changed. We were offered the houses in a dilapidated condition in different places,” the petitioners’ counsel submitted, adding that photographs of the houses had been collected and placed on record.Also Read | In a first after a demolition, Gujarat government offers free homes, repairs in SuratThe counsel also raised the issue of the draw for allotment, pointing out that some residents could end up receiving homes of substantially different quality. The court orally said that while the question of whether the accommodation offered was comparable to what residents had lost could be examined at a later stage, “but you are getting some accommodation as of now. That is not denied.”The court orally reiterated that those whose houses had been completely demolished would be entitled to alternate accommodation, while partially demolished structures were to be repaired and restored. “Persons living in fully demolished houses will be entitled to alternate accommodation. And partially demolished, we have put it for them to repair it… so that they can make it usable as it was prior to demolition,” the court said.The Corporation, now represented by advocate Anuj Trivedi, disputed the petitioners’ contention that some of the alternative accommodation was uninhabitable. Trivedi submitted that the contention of the petitioners was “absolutely and vehemently disputed”, adding that the photographs placed on record were not accurate and that an affidavit was being prepared to present the Corporation’s version.Court’s questionsStory continues below this adThe court also examined the continuing inquiry into the demolition and questioned whether it could be perceived as independent when officers connected with the police department continued to occupy positions of authority. When the court specifically questioned Government Pleader G H Virk about Respondent No. 19, DCP R Nakum, who was said to have been at the spot at the time the demolitions were carried out on May 30, Virk informed the court that a “separate inquiry had already been initiated” against Nakum in connection with a separate case of alleged custodial-torture video and that the Division Bench of the High Court had been apprised of the inquiry. A recommendation had also been sent in that matter, he submitted.The court’s concern was not merely whether an inquiry was formally underway, but whether it could be perceived as fair. “The entire exercise by the government, our primary observation was, it has not only to be fair, it has to be seen or perceived to be fair. How will that fairness continue?” the court orally said.The court also questioned the continuation of Nakum as DCP while M Nagrajan had been transferred from his post as SMC Commissioner, in the context of the roles of officials and the ongoing inquiry. The court said the State’s inquiry would have to ultimately fix responsibility if an illegality was established and also ensure that those affected by it were compensated.The court further said it was examining whether the demolition was the result of a deliberate design or officials acting out of “over-enthusiasm”. “We are also looking at your efforts, whether this was a design, which prima facie the petitioners are contending it to be, or whether it was just a case of over-enthusiasm,” the court said.Story continues below this adThe court also orally conveyed “we are not happy” over the absence of Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, who had appeared in the matter earlier, adding that “the learned counsel is the Advocate General of this state… even if he is not appearing for the Corporation, he has to be here in his capacity as the Advocate General for this state.”The matter will be taken up next on September 29.