Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rakhi Diswal vs Ujjain Vikas Praadhikaran Through ... on 7 August, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 WA-1639-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1639 of 2024
SMT. RAKHI DISWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
UJJAIN VIKAS PRAADHIKARAN THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, counsel for the appellants.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the
order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No. 17595/2024.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants had purchase a plot
bearing No. 59 in the Gulmohar Residential Scheme of Ujjain Vikas
Pradhikaran, Ujjain. The said plot was earmarked for journalist quota and
was allotted to one Mr. Umesh Chauhan in the year 2019. Due to some
financial issues, he sold the said plot to the appellants after seeking due
approval from the respondent no.1 and paying transfer fee. The transfer
order was issued after calling the requirement documents. Sale deed was
2 WA-1639-2024
executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellants on 14.07.2021.
However, on 29.05.2024, a show cause notice (Annexure A/2) was issued to
the appellant by respondent No.1 for cancellation of lease deed executed on
14.07.2021. Appellants challenged the show-cause notice by filing the writ
petition.
3. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 12.07.2024
disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order :
''It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 is the competent
authority for exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of M.P
Land Revenue Code. Therefore, considering the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam
Ghouse and Anr. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 and the judgment
of the Division Bench in the case of Sanjay Malveeya and Ors. Vs.
State of M.P and Ors. reported in (2018) 3 MPLJ 675, I am not
inclined to entertain the present petition against the show-cause
notice.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though he has filed reply to the show cause notice but he wants to
file additional detailed and comprehensive reply alongwith the
relevant record.
Considering the aforesaid, the petitioner is granted further seven
days to file detailed and comprehensive reply. The respondent
no.1 is directed to consider the reply of the petitioner and then to
pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed off.''
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lease deed for
the plots has been executed in favour of the appellants, hence the show cause
notice is per se illegal and against the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Vikas
Pradhikarano Ki Sampatiyon Ka Prabandhan Tatha Vyaya Niyam, 2018.
The learned Single Judge ought to have considered this aspect of the matter.
Therefore, appeal needs to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be
set aside.
3 WA-1639-2024
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the impugned
order.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. vs.
Union of India and Another reported in (2020) 12 SCC 808 , has held that by-
passing of statutory remedy, writ petition against show cause notice is not
maintainable. The High Court was absolutely right in dismissing the writ
petition against a mere show cause notice.
7. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal
is limited unless the findings of the learned Single Judge are perverse. The
learned writ court has rightly disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the
appellants to file reply before respondent No.1, who shall consider the same
in accordance with law. The impugned order is just and proper and does not
call for any interference in the writ appeal.
8. Consequently, the writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
No order as to costs
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
