[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Airplaza Retail Holdings Private ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27187
1 WP-11538-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11538 of 2026
AIRPLAZA RETAIL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mrigendra Singh Baghel - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Suyash
Mohan Guru, Shri Dev Sharma, Shri Aniket Tiwari - Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate and Shri Narunaditya Singh -
Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Sourabh Sunder - Advocate for the respondents/Corporation.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed praying the following reliefs:
"A. That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, quashing the impugned challan bearing Book No.
608, Serial No. 018 dated 27.03.2026 (AnnexureP/5) issued by the
Respondents and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto;
B. That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue
a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 cancelling the
Petitioner's Trade License(Annexure P/6), being arbitrary, illegal, and
in violation of the principles of natural justice;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27187
2 WP-11538-2026
C. That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue
a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the Respondents to restore the Petitioner's Trade
License and permit the Petitioner to continue its business operations at
the subject premises without any interference;
D. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the
Respondents from taking any further coercive action, including
interference with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and lawful
business operations at the subject premises; and
E. That, the trade license of the Petitioner may be renewed which
is expiring today, that is, March 31, 2026.
F, That, any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted."
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Counsel for the respondents has filed reply and petitioner has also filed
rejoinder. The main concern of the petitioner is that though the notice is issued
after joint inspection carried out of the petitioner's premises by the respondents
authority by giving fifteen days' time however, within a period of two days
therefrom, the authorities have again inspected the premises in question and
thereafter proceeded further to seal the premises on the ground that there is no
proper or sufficient action taken by the petitioner.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the present petitioner is
doing business and is having a good reputation in the city. The company is
concerned with regard to loss of business and also loss of reputation. Therefore,
the case of the present petitioner may be considered appropriately by considering
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27187
3 WP-11538-2026
the conduct and highhanded action of the respondents/Corporation in appropriate
manner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/Corporation submits that on joint inspection of the premises of the
petitioner, it is found that there are several deficiencies in Fire Safety system as
well as other aspects like unhygienic condition of washrooms, etc. and
accordingly notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter when the team of the
respondents/Corporation visited again after a day, it is found that there was no
progress or improvement and thereafter considering the recent incident which has
taken place in the city regarding fire incident and difficulty faced by public at
large, such action has been taken in the larger interest of public. However, it is
fairly submitted by counsel for the respondents/Corporation that authorities have
no personal agenda against the present petitioner and action is taken in larger
interest of citizens, and if the petitioner cooperates by responding the notice of the
Corporation by taking corrective measures as required and indicated in the notice
by doing necessary works regarding Fire Safety system and other deficiencies
pointed out by the Corporation, on that condition seal can be reopened. It is
further submitted that competent officer of the petitioner may file an undertaking
to take such corrective measures to cure the deficiencies within a prescribed
period.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
6. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and in the
facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing much on the merits of the
contentions raised by the parties, in the interest of justice, it is directed that seal of
the petitioner's premises shall be opened on filing of an undertaking by the
competent officer of the petitioner, namely, Shri Anand Sharma, Assistant Store
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27187
4 WP-11538-2026
Manager with his necessary identity before this Court and also before the
Corporation by mentioning that they will carry out all the necessary works to cure
the deficiencies as pointed out by the respondents/Corporation in the impugned
notice by taking all corrective measures in satisfactory manner by or before
15.04.2026. Such an affidavit/undertaking shall be filed by Shri Anand Sharma,
Assistant Store Manager along with power of attorney given by the highest
authority of the petitioner/Company by way of resolution or in an appropriate
mode by tomorrow i.e. 08.04.2026. After the entire necessary works are carried
out and deficiencies are cured as indicated by the Corporation, it will be open to
the respondents/Corporation to visit/inspect the premises of the petitioner in the
evening of 15th April, 2026 and if it is found satisfactory, then Corporation shall
do the needful. If the work of the petitioner is not found satisfactory, then it will
be open for the respondents/Corporation to take appropriate action against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition is
disposed of.
C.C. as per rules in course of the day.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
ks
