Pradeep Bhandari And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J

The present petition is filed being aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent No.2 on 5.6.2026 thereby petitioner Nos.1 to 8 namely Pradeep, Samrathmal, Darshan, Rajesh, Rameshchandra, Kirtish Kumar, Kantilal and Gaurav Jain have been directed to remove the construction of shops for the reason 'dangerous condition'.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that before issuing the notice, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. He submits that infact in the first line of the impugned notice though it has been mentioned that earlier an advance notice was issued, however the fact remains that no such notice was ever issued. Learned counsel at the outset submits that petitioners have been allotted the shops in which they are running their business for last more than 30 years. The shops are in proper condition and there is no situation that they are dangerous for public safety. He submits that infact before issuing notice Annx.P/1 for demolition of shops, the procedure is required to be followed in terms of section 221 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 which has not been followed. Learned counsel placed reliance on an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.7.2025 in W.P.No. 28354/2025 (Smt. Sarla Singhania Vs. State of M.P. and others) whereby the Court has directed the respondent-Municipal Officers therein to follow the mandate of section 221 and after satisfying itself about the possibility that the building can be repaired and it is only after satisfying that it is beyond repair, direction for taken-down can be issued. He submits that similar direction may be issued in the present case also.

Per contra, learned counsel for State submits that infact it is for the respondent No.2/Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhabua which has to respond to the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners and State has no role to play.

Considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.

From perusal of documents, it is clear that present petitioners are operating shops under the lease deed issued by the respondent No.2-Municipal Council, Jhabua. In the notice Annx.P/1, a reference has been made to a task force constituted under the directions of SDO(Revenue), Jhabua vide order dated 4.06.2026 however, notice does not reflect that the provision of section 221 of the Municipalities Act have been followed and there is no satisfaction reflected in the impugned notice. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no reason to deviate from the direction issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarla(supra), in which this Court has directed as under :-

"4. The notice (Annexure P/5) does not indicate that whether any application of mind has been applied by the authorities to the aspect that whether the building is beyond repair and taking down of the building/demolition of the building is the only the way out. The other modes under Section 221 of the Act whether have been explored or not, is not indicated by the notice (Annexure P/5) which is on a printed format. Therefore, the impugned order/notice (Annexure P/5) dated 11.07.2025 is set aside.

The Chief Municipal Officer shall be at liberty to take a fresh reasoned decision that whether the building can be repaired, secured or its demolition is the only way out and can direct the petitioner accordingly by exploring all possibilities under Section 221 of the Act.

The benefit of this order shall accrue to the petitioner only if the copy of the order is submitted before the Municipality within a period of three days from the date of receipt of certified of this order."

Maintaining parity, the present petition is also disposed off with a direction that decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Singhania (supra) and the direction given in above quoted paragraph Nos.4 to 6 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present case also.

C.c. as per rules.