Madhya Pradesh High Court
Savitri Parwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20064
1 WP-27685-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 31st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27685 of 2018
SAVITRI PARWANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Jyoti -Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Amol Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a. Appropriate Writ, Direction or order in the nature of mandamus or other directing the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the Respondent No. 5 for not observing the mandatory provisions of Municipal Corporation Act or other provisions of law and for the damage caused to the Petitioner's property.
b. The Respondents No. 1 to 4 be directed to ensure that the Respondent No. 5 undertakes all the necessary repair work at his own expense and the Petitioner be compensated for the physical and mental agony caused due to the inaction of the Respondents.
c. Costs of this Petition may be awarded.
d. Any other appropriate relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to be awarded to the Petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the grievance as raised by the petitioner, she has been preferring various Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 31-07-2025 17:38:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20064 2 WP-27685-2018 applications before the respondents including respondent No.3 and 4 but no action thereupon has been taken. Prayer has been made for a direction for appropriate steps in the matter to be taken.
3. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has submitted that the petitioner has not averred as to how and what sort of violation and of which specific provision is being done by respondent No.5 in absence of which no action can be taken in the matter. It is further submitted that if a detailed and proper complaint specifying the details of construction and the violation is made by the petitioner, then the same shall certainly be looked into by respondent No.3 and 4.
4. Thus, in the available facts of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner prefers a fresh application before respondents No.3 and 4 specifying the violation of a particular specific provision and the manner in which the same has been done, by preferring a detailed and a proper complaint, detailing the construction made by respondent No.5, then the said complaint shall be adverted to and decided by respondent No.3 and 4 in accordance with law by giving due opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5.
5. With the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits, the petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 31-07-2025 17:38:11