Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinay Sonkar vs Shri Shivam Verma Commissioner Indore ... on 21 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23106
1 CONC-4575-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 4575 of 2025
VINAY SONKAR
Versus
SHRI SHIVAM VERMA COMMISSIONER INDORE MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
Appearance:
Shri Shivansh Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
1. This contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner alleging
non-compliance of the order dated 1/10/2024 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.20466/2024.
2 . At the first blush the original petition as well as the present
contempt petition appears to to be filed for an innocuous prayer of
consideration of the application of the petitioner with respect to his own
property which he alleges that is in a dilapidated condition, but on close
scrutiny it becomes clear that present is a case of abuse of process of law.
3. The background of the case is very relevant for the purpose of the
present case. On careful perusal of Annexure P/2 enclosed with the contempt
petition there appears two case numbers, one is Miscellaneous Petition
No.3320/2019 and other is Regular Civil Suit No.45-A/2015. On perusal of
record of M.P. 3320/2019 it came to the fore that initially a Civil Suit ie.,
Civil Cuit No.45-A/2015 was filed by Anjuman Islahul Muslemin through its
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23106
2 CONC-4575-2025
Intizamia Committee against Sunderlal (dead) through LR's Nandkishore
alleging that Sunderlal / Nandkishore is the tenant of the plaintiff. It was
stated in the civil suit that property in question ie., House No.2/6, Murai
Mohalla, Indore is the property of the ownership of Wakf and the relief of
recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of Nandkishore was sought. The
suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 4/4/2016
thereby directing for payment of arrears of rent and for handing over vacant
possession of the suit property with mesne profit at the rate of Rs.440/- per
month.
4 . The Anjuman Islahul Muslemin filed execution proceedings
pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and decree in which an application was
filed by Nandkishore which was registered as Civil MJC No.86/2018
pending before 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Indore. Nandkishore who is father of
the present petitioner filed M.P. No.3320/2019 for stay on the execution
proceedings. In the cause title he mentioned Sunderlal S/o. Ramavtar
deceased through legal heir Nandkishore. In the said MCC order dated
23/8/2024 was passed thereby staying the execution proceedings till the
disposal of MJC No.86/2018 subject to deposit of entire amount of arrears of
rent. After this Nandkishore Sonkar filed W.P.No.20466/2024 through power
of attorney holder Vinay Sonkar who is his son in which in para 5.2 it was
stated that house / building situated at 2/6, Murai Mohalla, Indore is the
property of ownership of Nandkishore Sonkar without disclosing about the
aforesaid judgement and decree in the entire petition. The petitioner by
posing himself as the owner of the property presented a case before the writ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23106
3 CONC-4575-2025
Court that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition and a show
cause notice was issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation for demolition
of dilapidated part of the building and it was submitted that representation
has been submitted for demolishing the building for which he is ready to
bear the cost but no initiative is being taken to demolish the same.
5 . This Court looking to the innocuous prayer disposed off the said
writ petition vide order dated 29/7/2024 with a direction to the respondent
No.2 therein to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with
law. The plaintiff in the aforesaid mentioned civil suit then filed an
intervention application ie., I.A.No.9615/2024 pointing out the existence of
judgement and decree in its favour. The Court accordingly modified the
order passed on 29/7/2024 thereby directing before taking steps for
demolition of the building opportunity of hearing be also granted to the
intervenor. Now the petitioner in the present petition has come with a case
that the direction was to the Commissioner and the representation has been
decided by the building officer thus its a case of contempt in as much as
Commissioner was enjoined to decide their representation and not the
building officer. The order dated 24/10/2024 (Annexure P/2) is an order
deciding representation of the petitioner. In the order it has clearly been
mentioned that the building is not in a dilapidated condition or dangerous.
Thus the Municipal Corporation is not taking any steps for its demolition.
This order was passed on the basis of structural report submitted by both the
parties.
6. The conduct of the petitioner is not justified as he has not come with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23106
4 CONC-4575-2025
clean hand before the Court. Neither in the original writ petition nor in the
present contempt petition. Existence of judgement and decree in favour of
3rd party has been disclosed. The Court while directing for decision of the
representation has observed that the respondent No.2 is to decide the
representation only for the reason that in the prayer the petitioner mentioned
respondents No.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 being the Commissioner direction
was given but the Court has not decided jurisdiction with respect to issue in
hand ie., which is the competent authority for deciding the representation. In
such circumstances, this Court does not feel that the building officer by
deciding the representation of the petitioner has committed any contempt of
the lawful authority of this Court. Its a clear case of civil dispute between
two private parties and it is for them to get it adjudicated by instituting
appropriate proceedings before the competent Court. Once the judgement
and decree was passed in favour of the third person in all fairness the
petitioner should have disclosed the same in his original writ petition and
even in the present contempt petition because in the said judgement and
decree the ownership of the very house which petitioner claims of his
ownership was held to be the of Wakf Committee.
7 . In this view of the matter, the present contempt petition is hereby
dismissed. However, the petitioner may redress his grievance by instituting
appropriate proceedings against (Annexure P/2), if permissible under the law.
This Court refrain from imposing cost on the petitioner for concealment of
material facts. However, it should always be taken care of by the respondents
in future that all the relevant and material facts are disclosed while
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23106
5 CONC-4575-2025
presenting the case before the Court.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
SS/-
