Rani Agarwal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, J

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for following reliefs :-

"(1) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, thereby directing the Respondents, to proceed against the respondent no 5 as per section 60(2) iv OR else section of the The Municipal Corporation Act 1956, in accordance with law, in the larger interest of Justice.

(ii) That this HON"BLE COURT, may kindly to direct the respondents concern, to decide and pass appropriate order on the representation dt 24/3/26 (P-1), within the stipulated period fixed by this court thereby passing appropriate order in the larger interest of justice.

(iii) Any other relief which this HON"BLE COURT may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners along with the cost of case."

2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli, in the meeting dated 30.12.2024 of Mayor-in-Council, has resolved unanimously that Shri Satendra Dhakre, the then Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Singrauli has approved and made payments beyond his jurisdiction provided under the Rule 251 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation (Financial And Account) Rules, 2018 therefore, the entire amount approved and paid under the orders of the then Commissioner be recovered. In furtherance of this unanimous decision, the Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Singrauli has made a representation dated 24.03.2026 to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh; Additional Chief Secretary of Urban Development and Housing Department, the Director/Commissioner, Urban Development and Housing Department and to the Collector, Singrauli but no action has been taken on such representation. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not wish to pursue the other reliefs in the present petition and only request that the representation dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure-P/1) be considered and decided by the concerned authorities.

3 . Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 4 & 7 submit that in earlier rules governing the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, if the Mayor has not approved the proposal of Commissioner, the Commissioner may approve the payments in accordance with the Rule 13 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation (The Conduct Of Business Of The Mayor- In-Council/ President -In-Council And The Powers And Functions Of The Authorities ) Rules 1998.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Considered.

The innocuous prayer of the petitioner relates to consideration of her representation. The validity of the actions of the then Commissioner may be considered in accordance with the law by the appropriate authority. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the concerned respondent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure-P/1) after affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties by a speaking and reasoned order at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The petitioner shall be intimated of the outcome of her representation immediately.

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.