RAJESH ASNANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that on being sent a proposal by the Commissioner of respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 1 has exercised the powers allegedly conferred under section 299A of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) and has remitted back the matter to the Municipal Corporation with certain directions. It is contended that such an order issued on 29.4.2010 Annexure P-19 is per se illegal as it is based on such circumstances, which were not made out or available on record. It is the contention of the petitioners that because of the prejudice and malafide action of the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation aproposal was made for cancellation of sanction granted to the petitioner to construct a building and without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner such an order has been passed. It is therefore prayed by the petitioners that the order impugned may be quashed and petitioners be permitted to carry out the construction, in accordance to the sanction granted.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners after obtaining the sanction intended to make a construction on the plot purchased by them. The building permission sanction was granted by the Municipal Corporation, respondent no. 4 vide order dated 8.4.2002. The action was initiated against the petitioners by stating that the construction was being made in a illegal colony, therefore the construction be stopped immediately. The petitioners were required to produce the relevant documents. The entire facts were explained and thereafter the building permission was again granted to the petitioners on 30.4.2008 vide Annexure P-9. This was done only after getting the entire enquiry conducted and after obtaining the reports. However all of a sudden another letter was issued to the petitioners on 7.8.2009 directing them to stop the construction of their building. It was said that the construction is being done on an area which is reserved for widening of the road. Since the area was reserved for such purpose, illegal colony was being constructed, the building permission granted to the petitioners was therefore liable to be stayed. Again the facts were brought to the notice of the authorities, but instead of considering those facts as were placed on record of the Corporation, the matter was referred vide memo dated 7.1.2010 to the State Government by the Commissioner of Corporation. Pursuance to this, the matter was taken up in hearing by the State Government Notice was also delivered to the petitioners and a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioners before the respondent no. 1. All relevant documents were also submitted. However nothing was seen and the order impugned was passed.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioners that not only the sanction map, the earlier permission of building granted by the Corporation, but also the photographs and a particular order passed by the Lokayukt was produced before the respondent no. 1. It was also pointed out that the road was being made for BRTS scheme and the road was not going through the land purchased by the petitioners. Infact the construction of the petitioners was away from the road and there were other commercial buildings constructed on the same line. For the purpose of proving such fact the petitioners have annexed the photographs of the shops constructed on the same line of the building, where the building was being constructed by the petitioners. It is thus contended that from these documentary evidence it was made clear that there was no breach of any Municipal laws, rules or bye-laws, while granting sanction to construct building to the petitioners and as such power under section 299A of the Act was not to be invoked. However ignoring this the order impugned was passed, not in accordance with the provisions of section 299A of the Act. Therefore the petitioner was required to approach this Court. With the writ petition several documents have been filed.