Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonila Mimrot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23786
1 WP-33832-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33832 of 2025
SONILA MIMROT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jayesh Gurnani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bhatia - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"7.1. That, this petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent no. 4 to 6
may kindly be declared disqualified from continuing as councillor of IMC for
their remaining term on the ground of committing defection ;
7.2. That, without prejudice to the aforesaid, the respondent no. 1 to 3 may
kindly be directed do decide the pending representation dated 20.05.2024 filed
by the petitioner within 7 days by passing a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with law ;
7.3. That, the cost of instant petition may also be awarded to the petitioner and
any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience may also be granted to the petitioner."
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
is an elected Councillor of Indore Municipal Corporation from Ward No.45.
Respondents No.4 to 6 are also elected Councillors. After winning the
election, they have given up their membership in their party and have joined
a different party. They have hence rendered themselves disqualified from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23786
2 WP-33832-2025
continuing as Councillor of the Corporation. The petitioner has already
preferred an application before the State Government in terms of Section
17(3) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 but no action thereupon has
been taken as yet despite lapse of a period of 15 months hence the petitioner
has been forced to approach this Court.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in
the cases of Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others 2013 (1) SCC
501, Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2022 (5) SCC
179, Ravi S. Naik Vs. Union of India and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641
and other connected petitions, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Others
Vs. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys and Others, 2011 (11) SCC 334,
Keisham Meghachandra Singh Vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly
and Others, 2021 (16) SCC 503 and of this Court at Gwalior Bench in W.P.
No.284/2008(S) (Lalan Thakur Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on
21.08.2008 and at Principal Seat Jabalpur in W.P. No.17520/2022 (Rakesh
Chouksey Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on 09.05.2024 to contend
that a writ petition of quo warranto can also be directly preferred before this
Court for seeking the relief of declaration that vacancy has occurred on
account of disqualification of respondents No.4 to 6.
04. No doubt such a petition can certainly be preferred but it is also
observed that this petition has not been preferred before this Court
straightaway but instead the petitioner first resorted to the provisions of Sub-
Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, 1956 by preferring an application
before the State Government. That application is admittedly pending and has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23786
3 WP-33832-2025
not been withdrawn by the petitioner. For claiming a relief only one remedy
can be resorted to. The remedy of preferring an application has already been
resorted to by the petitioner during pendency of which this writ petition is
not liable to be entertained as it would amount to continuation of parallel
proceedings which would be impermissible.
05. Thus, in the available facts of the case, the competent authority of
respondents No.1 to 3/State is directed to advert to the application dated
20.05.2024 (Annexure P/2) of the petitioner and to decide the same in
accordance with law by affording due opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
06. With the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits,
petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
