ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order Annexure P/1 dated 24.07.2013 and order dated 03.08.2013, Annexure P/3.

(2.) This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier he filed WP No. 1174/2013 before this Court. In the said case he called in question the order dated 15.02.2013 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate (respondent No.2 therein). This Court decided the said matter on 21st February, 2013 and opined that the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) has no authority and competence to exercise the power under section 187(A) of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Accordingly, the impugned order therein was set aside and liberty was reserved to the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, by the impugned orders Annexure P/1 and P/3 the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 24,96,420/- as fine by taking assistance of the resolution of the President-inCouncil No. 440 dated 03.05.2013. By Annexure P/3 dated 03.08.2013 reliance is placed on the resolution of President-inCouncil No. 1087 dated 27.05.2013 and same amount, as aforesaid, is imposed as fine against the petitioner.

(3.) Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying on section 187(A) of the Act, submits that the orders Annexure P/1 and P/3 are not passed in consonance with the statutory requirement of the said provision. He submits that these orders are passed by incompetent authority and therefore, needs interference by this Court. To elaborate, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court on Annexure P/2 dated 03.05.2013 which shows that the matter was placed before President-in-Council by resolution No. 440. President-in-Council directed to place this matter before Municipal Council. In turn, communication dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P/4) is passed (resolution No. 1087) by Municipal Council on 27.05.2013. This resolution states that SDM, Dabra in his letter No.1073 dated 28.02.2013 directed the Municipality to take action as per section 187 of the Municipalities Act, 1961 and therefore, the President and CMO are being authorised to take action in accordance with law. By reading Annexure P/5 dated 28.02.2013 written by SDM, it is contended that the said authority directed the Municipality to act in a particular manner and inform about the outcome of the action taken.