PRAYAGRAJ, Feb. 4 -- The Allahabad high court recently raised concern over punitive demolitions of structures continuing to take place in Uttar Pradesh despite the Supreme Court's November 2024 decision in a case related to 'Bulldozer Justice'. A two-judge bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan also asked the state government whether demolishing a structure immediately after the commission of an offence was a colourable exercise of executive discretion. The bench observed that it came across various cases in which the notice for demolition was issued to the occupants immediately after the commission of an offence. Thereafter, the dwelling places were demolished after the ostensible fulfilment of statutory requirements, the bench noted. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Faimuddeen and others, who claimed that their relative Aafan Khan was named in an FIR under various sections of the BNS, the POCSO Act, the IT Act and the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. Senior advocate SFA Naqvi, appearing for the petitioners, argued that properties of the petitioners situated in Hamirpur, including a residential house, a commercial lodge and a saw mill, were marked for destruction by mechanical means by the authorities. Also commercial lodge and saw mill have already been sealed by the respondent authorities, he further argued. Therefore, bearing in mind the "overarching" nature of the case, spanning the right of the state to demolish a structure and the rights of its occupants under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the court in its order dated January 21 framed the following five questions of law for the parties. First, is there non-compliance of the Supreme Court's November 2024 judgement with specific reference to paragraphs 85 and 86 of that judgement? Secondly, does the authority to demolish justify the act of demolishing a structure, or is there a duty on the anvil of the state, not to demolish a dwelling place in the absence of public need/purpose? Thirdly, are steps taken to demolish a structure immediately following the commission of an offence, a colourable exercise of executive discretion? Fourthly, how can the High Court balance the conflicting interests between the statutory authority of the State to demolish a structure and the fundamental right of the average citizen under Articles 21 and 14, to prevent it? And lastly, can "reasonable apprehension" of demolition be a cause of action for a citizen to approach this Court and if 'yes', what is the bare minimum for this Court to hold the existence of such "reasonable apprehension"? The matter will now be heard on February 9....