Rajesh Ajmera vs Urban Administration And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4374 MP

1        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
                    BENCH AT INDORE
                      WA No.1321/2019
     Rajesh Ajmera Vs. Urban Environmental Deptt. & Ors.

Indore: Dated:- 16/08/2021:-
      Shri Aniket Naik with Shri Pradyumn Kibe, learned
counsel for the appellant.
      This writ appeal was heard on admission on 12/08/2021
and was reserved for orders.
2)    Shri Aniket Naik assisted by Shri Pradyumn Kibe, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the Writ Court has
dismissed the petition filed by a sitting councilor of the municipal
council by holding that the petition at the instance of petitioners
is not maintainable. In order to show that petition was
maintainable, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner placed
reliance on following judgments:-
      "Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji
      Bashir Ahmed & Ors. - (1976) 1 SCC 671, Gadde
      Venkateswara Rao vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh &
      Ors. - AIR 1966 SC 828, Calcutta Gas Company
      Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. - AIR 1962 SC
      1044, Ashirbad Behera vs. State of Orissa & Ors. -
      AIR 1980 Orissa 79, R. Varadarajan vs. Salem
      Municipal Council - AIR 1973 Madras 55,
      Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union vs. Union of
      India (1981) 1 SCC 568, Devendra Kumar Paliwal
      vs. State of M.P. & Ors. - 2008(2) MPLJ 463 and
      Chairman Cum Managing Director Coal India Ltd.
      vs. Ananta Saha & Ors."

3)    In addition, Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel drew the
attention of this Court on a notice dated 16/09/2019 issued by
Urban Development and Residence Department, Mantralay,
Bhopal     whereby     various      persons    including    present
appellant/petitioner was put to notice to participate in a
proceeding of review filed by respondent- municipality. It is

2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :

BENCH AT INDORE WA No.1321/2019 Rajesh Ajmera Vs. Urban Environmental Deptt. & Ors.

argued that before the Writ Court, the impugned order was order dated 04/10/2018. Against that order, the Municipality filed a review petition before the aforesaid Department. In the aforesaid review petition, notices were issued to necessary parties including the present appellant/petitioner. Thus, this notice also shows that appellant is a necessary party.

3) We have considered the aforesaid arguments carefully.

4) Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within seven days.

5) Notices be made returnable.

6) Question of maintainability/entertainability of writ petition will remain open.

     (SUJOY PAUL)                                 (ANIL VERMA)
       JUDGE                                           JUDGE

soumya


  Digitally signed by
  SOUMYA RANJAN
  DALAI
  Date: 2021.08.16
  16:22:02 +05'30'