[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12221
1 WP-13156-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 13156 of 2026
VIJAY SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nischal Raje - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Saxena - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that
in the absence of Gazette Notification/Publication, Respondent no.
6, is not legally authorized to assume and exercise the powers of
the President Municipal Council Banmore, District Morena.
2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that
actions taken by Respondent no. 6 as President Municipal Council
Banmore, District Morena, from her elections as Councillor dated
27.07.2022 upto the final decision of this Writ Petition being non
est.
3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
prevailing facts and circumstances of the case."
The facts giving rise to the present petition, according to the petitioner, are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12221
2 WP-13156-2026
that elections for the Municipal Council, Banmore, District Morena were
conducted in the year 2022. Pursuant thereto, the State Election Commission
issued a Gazette Notification dated 27.07.2022 declaring the names of all elected
Councillors. However, no Gazette Notification has been issued declaring the
election of the President of the said Municipal Council. A conjoint reading of
Sections 19, 20, and 45 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 makes it clear that
publication of the election of the President in the Official Gazette is mandatory. In
the absence of such notification, no person can legally assume or discharge the
functions of the President. Despite this statutory mandate, Respondent No.6 has
unlawfully assumed the office and continues to exercise the powers and functions
of the President without any legal authority, thereby usurping a public office. The
identical issues have been considered by this Court in earlier proceedings. In Writ
Petition No. 10957 of 2024, this Court, by order dated 02.05.2024, issued notice
and granted interim relief restraining the concerned respondent from exercising
financial powers of the office of President. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 9866 of
2026, this Court, by order dated 20.03.2026, taking note of the earlier order,
restrained the usurper from exercising financial powers in the absence of a Gazette
Notification, thereby maintaining parity. An election petition titled Sumer Singh
vs. Renu Garg & Others (MJC No. 91 of 2022) was filed before the Principal
District Judge, Sheopur, which came to be dismissed on 01.02.2024 on the ground
of prematurity while allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed
by the District Collector-cum-Returning Officer. Aggrieved by the said dismissal,
a Civil Revision No. 175 of 2024 was preferred before this Court. This Court, by
order dated 08.10.2025, observed that the respondents had directly or indirectly
admitted that in the absence of a Gazette Notification, no person can function as
President, and accordingly directed the respondent/usurper to cease functioning as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12221
3 WP-13156-2026
President forthwith. Despite the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and the clear
legal position, the respondent authorities have failed to take any action and have
permitted Respondent No. 6 to continue in the said office. This continued inaction
on the part of Respondents No.1 to 5 has resulted in an illegal situation where a
person is exercising statutory powers without lawful authority. Being aggrieved by
such arbitrary and unlawful conduct, the petitioners have approached this Court by
way of filing present writ petition on 09.04.2026.
From the record, it reveals that the cause of action, if any, arose in the year
2022 when the alleged illegality pertaining to the assumption of office by
Respondent No.6 first came into existence. However, the petitioners have chosen
to approach this Court only in April, 2026, after an inordinate and unexplained
lapse of nearly four years.
It is a settled principle of law that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and is not meant to
be exercised in favour of litigants who sleep over their rights. The doctrine of
delay and laches is founded on considerations of equity, justice, and good
conscience, and mandates that a person seeking equitable relief must approach the
Court with reasonable promptitude. In the present case, the petitioners have failed
to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation for such an inordinate delay.
This Court further observes that during the intervening period, the
Respondent No. 6 has been functioning in the capacity of President, and various
administrative and financial decisions would have been undertaken. Entertaining
the present petition at such a belated stage would not only unsettle the settled
position but may also lead to administrative chaos and prejudice the functioning of
the local body. The rights, if any, have thus become stale and cannot be permitted
to be agitated at this distant point of time.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12221
4 WP-13156-2026
Though reliance has been placed by the petitioner on certain interim orders
passed in other proceedings, the same would not come to their aid in overcoming
the fundamental defect of delay and laches in approaching this Court. Each case is
required to be examined on its own facts, and mere existence of similar litigation
does not justify condonation of delay, particularly when the petitioners themselves
remained indolent.
Accordingly, in the absence of any cogent explanation for the inordinate
delay and considering the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
