NEHA LOKRE Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 25/5/2022 (Annexure P/9) passed by respondent No.2, the Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Indore under the provisions of Sec. 307 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1956') read with Rule 7(3)(a) of M.P. Bhoomi Vikas Rules, 2012.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the petitioner is having an alternate and efficacious remedy of challenging the impugned order by preferring an appeal under Sec. 403 of the Act, 1956 before the Commissioner hence this petition is not liable to be entertained. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of this Court in W.P. No.6910/2023 (Sushila Devi Gupta and Others versus State of M.P. and Others) decided on 1/4/2023, W.P. No.10074/2022 (Dilip Vaid and Others versus Indore Municipal Corporation and Another) decided on 9/5/2022, W.A. No.1060/2019 (Prakash Chandra Pandey Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided by order dtd. 13/8/2019 and of the Apex Court in Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2005 (2) SCC 334.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2 as the delegatee of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation hence appeal to the Commissioner would not be maintainable. Under Sec. 307(1) of the Act, 1956, it is the Commissioner who passes the order and if the same has been passed by respondent No.2, it would be deemed to be an order passed by the Commissioner himself hence appeal would not lie to him against an order passed by his delegatee. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court in Roop Chand Vs. State of Punjab and Another, AIR 1963 SC 1503 and of the Bombay High Court in Lalji Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7686.