Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roopchand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 June, 2022
Author: Amar Nath (Kesharwani)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
MP No. 2375 of 2022
(ROOPCHAND AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 02-06-2022
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Hear on IA No.4107/2022, application for urgent hearing during summer
vacation.
After due consideration, the same is allowed.
Also heard on IA No.4106/2022, application for exemption from filling
certified copy,typed copy/legible copies.
After due consideration, it is directed to the petitioner that on the next
date of hearing, certified and legible copy must be filed before the Registry of
this Court and in case of non-compliance of the said direction, the present
petition would be dismissed.
Accordingly, IA No.4106/2022 stands disposed off.
Heard on IA No.4105/2022, application for ad-interim stay and thereby
prays to maintain status quo till the final decision of the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/municipal
corporation, Ujjain and by their sub-ordinate officers is going to demolish the
petitioner's property and if the order of status quo is not passed then the
purpose of filling the present petition would become infructuous and they will
suffer irreparable loss, which will not be fulfilled in terms of money.
I have perused the record which has been filed with the petition.
The record shows that the Municipal Corporation has issued notice to
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.06.03
show case on 26.05.2022 to the petitioner under section 307 of the MP
16:14:33 IST
Municipalities Act, 1956 as to why their illegal construction be not demolished.
The reply of that notice was filed by the petitioner before the concerned
authority on 27.05.2022 and which is still pending for consideration before the
respondents and no further orders has been passed by the respondents to
demolish the petitioner's property.
Besides, that no other document has been filed before this Court which
show that the respondent has forced to demolish the suit property, therefore,
without hearing the respondents, I have no reason to pass any order against the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Anor Vs. Praveen Kumar
Singh reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312, in which it is held that "passing of
direction by Appellate Authority to maintain status quo in respect of suit
property "without indicating what status quo was," was not proper and held
that the said order should not have been passed in such a manner at the initial
stage of litigation particularly where the appellate authority was dealing with only
limited question of grant of ad-interim injunction and the main application for
injunction pending suit, was still pending before the trial Court."
After due consideration, it is not proper to pass any ad-interim relief in
favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, IA No.4105/2022 is dismissed.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within seven working
days; returnable within three weeks.
List the matter in the week commencing 27.06.2022.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.06.03
16:14:33 IST
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
V. JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.06.03
16:14:33 IST
