Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tanuj Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 May, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15727
1 WP-11450-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12 th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11450 of 2023
TANUJ GOYAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sonal Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Saxena - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"i) The order dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed.
ii) All steps taken pursuant to order dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) including the FIR registered pursuant to order dated 09.05.2022 may also be quashed.
iii) Any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present matter is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in a batch of petitions, including W.P. No. 29427 of 2022, decided on 20.12.2024, wherein this Court has categorically held that prosecution for offences under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 or under any rule or bye-law framed thereunder can only be instituted by way of a private complaint before the competent Magistrate by the Municipal Council, the Chief Municipal Officer or any other officer duly authorized by the Council. It is further submitted that registration of an FIR at the instance of an authority not Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 5/13/2026 10:32:12 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15727 2 WP-11450-2023 empowered under the statute has been held to be impermissible in law. Therefore, the impugned order as well as the consequential FIR deserve to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court in a batch of petitions, including W.P. No. 29427 of 2022, decided on 20.12.2024 has held as under:-
"18. The first contention which has been raised by the petitioner is that the Additional Collector, who had passed the impugned order 05.01.2023, had no authority under the provisions of Act of 1961 to pass such order, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
19. Initially, the action has been initiated on the basis of report submitted by the SDO (Revenue), dated 14.07.2021 and at that time, Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Colony Development) Rules, 2021 though were not notified but vide its Notification dated 13.01.2022 as per Proviso to Rule 28 which deals with the Repeal Clause, anything done or any action taken under the rules or bye-laws so repealed shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Rules of 2021. Thus, the provisions of Section 2021 are required to be seen.
20. As per Part-3 of the said Rules which provides for provisions related to 'Unauthorised Colonies' contains Rules 22 to 25. As per Rule 22, it is duty of the competent authority, in exercise of the powers conferred to him under Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, to ensure that unauthorized colonies are not developed in the municipal area and if such information of unauthorized development is received then he shall issue a show-cause notice to the developer and landowner by giving a time period of 15 days, showing cause as to why action should not be taken against him under these rules and thereafter, if no satisfactory reply is received within the prescribed time period, the competent authority may issue final notice, giving 15 days' time for removal of development/construction and also send intimation to the concerned Sub-Registrar to stop registration of sale/agreement to sale in the said colony and only in case, the development/construction is not removed in the unauthorised colony within the period specified, the competent authority shall take action for removal of the development/construction and also file complaint against the developer and landowner in the concerned police station for taking necessary penal action under the relevant provisions of the Act.
21. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid provisions that in case even Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 5/13/2026 10:32:12 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15727
3 WP-11450-2023 after giving time to remove the unauthorized construction it is not removed then the competent authority can file a complaint against the developer and landowner in the concerned police station for taking necessary penal action under the relevant provisions of the Act.
22. The 'Competent Authority' for exercising the powers under Rule 22 of the Rules of 2021 has been defined under Section 2(c) of Rules of Part- 1, General, which reads as under:
2(c) "Competent Authority" means in relation to such Municipal area which comes within the limit of any Municipal Corporation, Municipal Commissioner and in relation to such Municipal area which comes within the limit of any Municipal Council or Nagar Parishad, the Collector."
23. The said definition of 'Competent Authority' as provided under Section 2(c) mentions 'the Collector' as an authority so far as Municipal area which comes within the limit of any Municipal Council or Nagar Parishad and as Shivpuri is the municipal council, therefore, the 'Collector' would be the Competent Authority to take any action under the provisions of Rules of 2021.
24. Further, Rule 26, 27 and 28 of the Rules of 2021 which falls in Part-4 and deals with ''Offences and Punishment, interpretation and repeal'' are also profitable to quote which is as under:
26. Offences and Punishment.-
(1) Any person who undertakes the development of a colony without obtaining permission, under the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder, commits the offence of development of Unauthorized Colony.
(2) Any colonizer who transfers any land by sale or otherwise, or undertakes construction work, other than that stipulated in the permission, on the land earmarked for development of internal works under rule 14 and civic infrastructure like roads, open spaces, water supply, electricity, sewerage and entertainment areas, he commits the offence of violation of permission.
(3) The persons who commits offence under sub-rule (1) and (2) shall be liable for punishment under the provisions of section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 or 339-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.
27. Interpretation. If any question arises on interpretation of these rules, the same shall be referred to the State Government. The decision of the State Government shall be final.
28. Repeal. As from the date of commencement of these rules, all rules and bye-laws corresponding to these rules, if in force immediately shall stand repealed:
Provided that anything done or any action taken under the rules and bye-laws so repealed, shall, unless such thing or action is inconsistent with provisions of these rules, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of these rules."
25. As per Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 26, the person who commits offence under Sub-Rule (1) and (2) shall be liable for punishment under the provisions of Section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 or 339-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Thus, so far as issuance of any show-cause notice, calling Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 5/13/2026 10:32:12 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15727 4 WP-11450-2023 for reply and thereafter, passing any order, if the reply is found to be unsatisfactory lay with the Collector. To this extent, the order impugned cannot be said to be bad in law.
26. Now, the entire gamut lay with the provisions of Section 313 of the Act of 1961 read with Section 22 of the Rules of 2021. As per Section 313, the Municipal Council, Chief Municipal Officer or any other Officer authorized by the Council may direct any prosecution under this Act or under any rule or bye-law thereunder with the stipulations as provided in the Proviso. Further, Sub-Section (2) of Section 313 of the Act of 1961 provides that any prosecution under this Act or under any rule or bye-law thereunder may, save as therein otherwise provided, be instituted before any Magistrate, which goes to show that the Municipalities Act does not provide any forum of its own for trial of criminal cases and by virtue of Sub-section (2) thereof, the prosecution has to be before ordinary criminal courts by way of filing a complaint.
27. This proposition has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Municipal Council vs. Radha Bai (supra).
28. If from the dictionary definition of the ''prosecution'' is seen as provided in Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the prosecution means 'the act or process of prosecuting, specifically the institution and continuance of a criminal suit involving the process of pursuing formal charges against an offender to final judgment'.
29. From the aforesaid discussion, it could be said that if any prosecution is to be launched against any person for any offence under the Municipalities Act or under any rule or bye-law thereunder then it has to be by way of filing private complaint before the concerned Magistrate by either Municipal Council, Chief Municipal Officer or any other Officer authorized by the Council.
30. So far as action as proposed under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 for filing a complaint against the developer and landowner in the concerned Magistrate for taking necessary penal action under the relevant provisions of the Act is concerned, firstly, it could be at the stage when even after giving notice to the developer or the colonizer who had developed illegal colony, the development/construction is not removed in the unauthorized colony within the period specified in the show-
cause notice and secondly, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Bharathidasan University & Another vs. All India Council For Technical Education & Others reported in AIR 2001 SC 2861, the said provision is required to be concluded as it patently lack sanctity or the authority which is shown.
31. For reference, relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"The fact that the regulations may have the force of law or when made have to be laid down before the legislature concerned do not confer any more sanctity or immunity as though they are statutory provisions themselves. Consequently, when the power to make regulations are confined to certain limits and made to flow in a well defined canal within stipulated banks, those actually made or shown and found to be not made within its confines but outside them, the courts are bound to ignore them when the question of their enforcement arise and the mere fact that there was no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 5/13/2026 10:32:12 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15727 5 WP-11450-2023 them ultra vires, particularly when the party in sufferance is a respondent to the lis or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack. It would, therefore, be a myth to state that regulations made under Section 23 of the Act have Constitutional and legal status, even unmindful of the fact that anyone or more of them are found to be not consistent with specific provisions of the Act itself. Thus, the regulations in question, which the AICTE could not have made so as to bind universities/UGC within the confines of the powers conferred upon it, cannot be enforced against or bind an University in the matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course and programme in technical education in any university or any of its departments and constituent institutions.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter was dealing with the the stand of the appellant-University that the appellant- University will not fall under the definition of Technical Institution as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and consequently, the regulations made for seeking prior approval of the AICTE even by the Universities to commence a course or programme in technical education or a new department for the purpose, were in excess of the regulation-making powers of the AICTE and consequently, are null and void and cannot be enforced against the appellant-University to the extent it obligates even Universities to seek and secure such prior approval from the AICTE.
33. In light of the aforesaid, this Court finds that though the Additional Collector was competent to issue show-cause notice and thereafter, call for the response and after considering the said response, was of the opinion that the petitioner was involved in unauthorized colonization, he was required to issue a notice of 15 days' time for removal of development/construction and thereafter, to send intimation to the concerned Sub-Registrar to stop registration of sale/agreement to sale in the said colony and he was not authorized to directly ask the Chief Municipal Officer to register a criminal case against the petitioner, which in the case has already been registered. Thus, when the authority at whose directions, F.I.R. was registered was not competent to issue such directions and secondly, registration of F.I.R. itself was not maintainable under the provisions of Act of 1961 and proper recourse would have been for filing of a complaint before the concerned Magistrate, the order impugned herein is found to be per se illegal and perverse. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. In consequence thereof, the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner is also hereby quashed."
Since the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court and the State has also not disputed the applicability of the said judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 09.05.2022 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 5/13/2026 10:32:12 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15727 6 WP-11450-2023 Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The order dated 09.05.2022 is hereby quashed. Consequently, all proceedings arising pursuant thereto, including the FIR registered on the basis of the said order, are also hereby quashed.
It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from proceeding in accordance with law by adopting such procedure as is permissible under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder.
No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 5/13/2026 10:32:12 AM