MINAL BUILDERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO BEGIN WITH "The core of existing principle is, I sugest, that all persons and authorities within the State, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the Courts. I doubt if anyone would suggest that this statement even if accurate as one of general principle, could be applied without exception or qualification. There are, for instance, some proceedings in which justice can only be done if they are not in public. But it seems to me that any derogation calls for close consideration and clear justification. And I think that this formulation, of course owning much to Diccy, expresses truth propounded by John Locke in 1690 that wherever law ends, tyranny begins', and also that famously stated by Thomas Paine in 1776, 'that in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other." (The Rt. Hon. Lord. Bigham of Cornhill KG, House of Lords : The Rule of Law :The Sixth Sir David Williams Lecture, Cambridge 16 November 2006).

(2.) THE-Epilogue as a Prelude is because, the action of State Government, Keeper of the law is being called in question in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, complaining the high-handedness by the functionaries of the State Govt. which are on a drive to demolish the portion of Minal Mall on allegation that the same is an unauthorized construction. It is this action of respondent which the petitioner is aggrieved of.

(3.) IT is contended that to the utter surprise and in derogation of decree dated 2.3.2007 the petitioner is again subjected to eviction proceedings under Section 248 of Code of 1959 and though the petitioner participated in the proceedings on 15.3.2011, no order was passed. IT is urged that without there being any order of demolition the petitioner's Minal Mall has been subjected to demolition. IT is alleged that the action taken against the petitioner is without affording any opportunity of hearing. And even the Shop Keepers who are in occupation of respective shops are not heard. IT is contended that the action of respondents is insignia of blatant highhandedness, outraging the rule of law. Petitioner accordingly seeks the relief that, the respondents be directed not to demolish the building/shopping complex of the petitioner under the name of M/s Minal Builders Pvt. Ltd. and not to make any interference in any way in the running of the shops which are situated in the shopping complex as well as call centre situated in two floor building and other business activities in the shopping mall.