Dr. Nirmal Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 11059 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Nirmal Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2025

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

                                                               1                                WP-37024-2025
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                       WP No. 37024 of 2025
                                    (DR. NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )



                           Dated : 12-11-2025
                                 Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari and Shri Teerthesh Bharilya - Advocates

                           for the petitioner.
                                 Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh - Advocate for respondent No.2.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has raised an

objection with respect to maintainability of the writ petition for want of alternative efficacious remedy, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3965 of 2005 dated 30.08.2016 with reference to para 16 wherein the coordinate Bench has entertained the writ petition on the pretext that a resolution has also been put to challenge in the writ petition. It is pointed out that the resolution passed by the respondent No.2 is also put to challenge in the present writ petition by way of amendment. Therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the coordinate

Bench of this Court, this writ petition is maintainable before this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file response to the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property tax upto year 2020 has been deposited by the petitioner. However, thereafter as the excess amount is claimed to be recovered towards the property tax, which is

2 WP-37024-2025 put to challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that imposition of property tax could not exceed 5-10% in terms of Section 127-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961.

Under these circumstances, status quo with respect to recovery of arrears of property tax be maintained till the next date of hearing.

List the case after two weeks for consideration. C.C. as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

sj