Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Sheela vs State Of M.P. on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19036
1 WP-6243-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 25 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6243 of 2010
SMT.SHEELA
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.
ORDER
The instant writ petition was filed in the year 2010, claiming the following
reliefs :-
"(i) A direction be given to the respondents to execute the
order (Annexure-P/1) and accept the amount of Rs.10,000/-
which was submitted by the petitioner and they shall be
permitted to installed the Gumati.
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to
the petitioner."
2. It is the case of the petitioners that a resolution dated 08.10.2004 was
passed by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, whereby it was resolved to allot
Gumtis to the persons named therein on payment of a refundable premium of
Rs.10,000/-, along with a monthly license fee of Rs.150/-, which was subject to
enhancement from time to time. The petitioners contend that in spite of there being
a resolution by the competent authority, the same was never acted upon by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19036
2 WP-6243-2010
authorities concerned, and therefore, the occasion to file this petition occurred.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the resolution
dated 08.10.2004 (Annexure-P/1) has not been set aside by any superior authority,
and therefore, the same deserves to be enforced. As per the pleadings in the
petition, the petitioners were ready and willing to deposit the premium amount as
mentioned in the said resolution.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3,
by referring to their return filed on 17.06.2013, contends that the resolution passed
in the year 2004 was never implemented. The instant writ petition was filed in the
year 2010, suffers from delay and laches. Additionally, it is stated that in view of
the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madan
Mohan Kaushik Vs. State of M.P., (2007) 4 MPLJ 298 (DB), in a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL), permission to carry on business on roads, footpaths and open
places which are left for moving of persons/ citizens of city of Gwalior cannot be
granted. It is further submitted that subsequent to the passing of the said
resolution, footpaths have already been constructed on the lands which were the
subject matter of resolution dated 08.10.2004. Hence, at this stage, the said
resolution cannot be enforced, and no Gumtis can be allotted on lands earmarked
for the purposes of footpath, etc. Counsel also submits that no legal right accrued
in favour of the petitioners by the resolution dated 08.10.2004, as the same was
never implemented, nor was any premium amount accepted from the petitioners.
Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The submissions made in the return filed by the respondents No.2 & 3,
from paragraphs 1 to 5, read as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19036
3 WP-6243-2010
" (i) That, the petitioner by way of this petition got
executed the resolutions as passed in respect of each
petitioner in respect of allotments of suitable place for their
business at different-different places in city Gwalior, which
has been passed by the answering respondent more than 8
years before. It is submitted that the said resolutions as
passed by answering respondent could not be implemented in
present situation of city Gwalior, keeping in view of traffic
problems. All places which is mentioned in the said
resolutions at present became either part of way, foot-path or
open places for moving the citizens from one place to another
with the public road/streets on foot, hence the petitioner is
not entitled to get any relief as prayed in this petition,
therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed at this
stage due to change of circumstances.
(ii) That, the instant petition for implementation of said
resolutions as passed by the answering respondent is highly
belated and time-barred, because the alleged resolutions have
been passed in the year 2004 and the instant petition has been
filed in the year 2010 near about after 6 years without giving
any explanation as required in para 4 of the petition. The
petitioners in para 4 have given wrong declaration that there
is no delay in filing the instant petition, therefore, the instant
petition deserves to be dismissed on delayed ground and on
furnishing wrong information/declaration, hence the instant
petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
(iii) That, in the case of Madan Mohan Kushik reported
in 2007 (4) MPLJ 298 (DB) the Divisional Bench of this
Hon'ble Court observed in respect of grant of permission to
do business on road, foot-path or open places, which are left
for moving persons/citizens of city, Gwalior parallel to the
road. Before allotting such lands, places in the shape of
Gumti, thela, takht or any other movable or immovable
shape, the Commissioner has to ensure that there will no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19036
4 WP-6243-2010
inconvenience be caused to the general public by traffic on
road, the places which were resolved to allot at that time to
the petitioners are mostly the part of public way or street, at
present said allotment is causing great inconvenience to the
public or traffic, in such circumstances such places could not
be allotted to the petitioners in pursuance to the said
resolutions passed 6 years earlier. Hence, the instant petition
is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed at this stage.
(iv) That, places on which petitioners are claiming for
allotment of Gumti as resolved by the answering respondent
in shape of Gumti on Phoolbagh Chourah, Padav Chourah,
Shastri Chourah, on outer wall of the Dr.Bhagwatshay
College and in front on the Moti Tabela are mostly busy and
crowd effected places and on all above place there is very
heavy traffic from each point of traffic through out the day
and since last 8 to 10 years, the traffic of city, Gwalior
increases so much, therefore, the answering respondent has
to widened the main roads/streets and chouraha of the whole
city and also the answering respondents has also replaced
several Pakka and Kachha constructions which came on the
way of widening of said roads and Chouraha, in such
circumstances and also fro ensuring the smooth functioning
or free flow of traffic in future. It is not possible to the
answering respondent to accommodate the petitioners on
places of their choice or the places in question, hence, in
view of the above, the instant petition is not maintainable in
the eye of law and deserves to be dismissed.
(v) That, the petitioners have filed this petition jointly for
allotment of Gumti on the lands in question in pursuance of
the resolutions as passed by the answering respondent while
the place of each petitioner is different and resolution is also
different and for each petitioner cause of action is also not
same, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable and
deserves to be dismissed."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19036
5 WP-6243-2010
8. No rebuttal has been filed by the petitioners to the aforesaid contentions.
Even otherwise, at this juncture, once there is a definite stand taken by the
Municipal Corporation that a footpath has already been constructed on the land
forming subject matter of the resolution dated 08.10.2004, this Court does not
deem it appropriate to cause any further indulgence in the matter.
9. No right whatsoever accrued in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the
resolution dated 08.10.2004, as the same was never given effect to.
10. In view of the above, no further indulgence in the petition is warranted,
and the same is dismissed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
