Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Sethi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
WRIT PETITION NO.25811/2021
Pramod Sethi s/o Darshanlal Sethi, Aged-63 years, Occ: Business r/o-
01, Gulmohar Colony Palasiya Indore, District-Indore (M.P.)
Applicant.
Versus
1. State of Madhya Pradesh, through Principal Secretary, Department
of Urban Administration and Development, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal
2. Indore Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Office of
Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore, District-Indore (M.P.)
3. Building Officer, Zone Number 11, Indore Municipal Corporation,
Indore Office of Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore, District-Indore
(M.P.)
4. Officer In-charge of Police Station Police Station Tukoganj, Indore
District-Indore (M.P.).
Dated: 24/11/2021:
Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushmitra Bhargava, learned Additional Advocate General for
the respondent-State.
*****
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the notice dated 22/11/2021 (annexure P-1) issued by the Building Officer Zone No.11, Indore whereby the concerned persons of Megapolice Square have been directed to submit necessary documents i.e. public certificate in respect of permission, construction and completion etc. of building within three days.
Petitioner is claiming himself to be the owner of the property Meghapolice Square situated at plot no. 579, MG Road, Indore 12954 sq. ft. by virtue of registered sale deed dated 15/04/2005. According to him, after obtaining necessary permission, construction had been completed in the year 2010 and most of the area has been leased out for various commercial purposes. According to the petitioner, under the influence of certain persons, who lodged the FIR under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice dated 22/11/2021.
- : 2 :-
Although, the petitioner has submitted reply to the said show cause notice, but apprehending any coercive steps to be taken by the respondents if the reply so filed is not found satisfactory, hence, present petition has been filed.
Shri Bhargav, learned Additional Advocate General submits that by the impugned notice petitioner has been called to appear alongwith the necessary documents regarding permission, construction and completion of building within three days, failing which action would be taken against him in accordance with law. He further submits that apprehension of the petitioner is baseless. Instead of rushing to this Court, petitioner ought to have presented all the necessary documents before the competent authority.
It is correct that petitioner has rushed to this Court only on the basis of apprehension. The petitioner has already submitted reply to the impugned notice. Even otherwise, there is no affidavit of the petitioner in support of this petition. Instead, an affidavit of one Akhand Tripathi s/o Pawan Kumar Tripathi has been filed in support of this petition being friend of the petitioner, which is not acceptable.
Petitioner has filed such a bulky petition running into 286 pages in a very hasty and casual manner. Such petition which is not supported by an affidavit of the petitioner or any of his close relative is not liable to be entertained.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE vc VARSH Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, A ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=df59fbf0f5c7485addc8affe3e CHATU df20e67d11d7f91045d81139f6792fbd 4ae91f, pseudonym=F29DF1B77616273C6A0 CF86F33868DF0D9382C30, serialNumber=652FE82BC5CAE8153A 1E34C3B8EFC095F5A0D144B089415F RVEDI 31342D1C8E2D3139, cn=VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.11.25 17:35:17 +05'30'