Back
A.K.PATNAIK, A.M.SAPRE, S.K.SETH
Dilip Kaushal – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Case Details: Full Bench decision by A.K. Patnaik, C.J., A.M. Sapre and S.K. Seth, JJ., in Writ Petition No. 5807 of 2006, decided on 31-7-2008. (!) (!)
Parties Involved: Petitioners (Dilip Kaushal and Anr.) challenged layout sanctioned by Indore Municipal Corporation for respondent No. 4's building via Public Interest Litigation under Article 226. [27000067750001]
Preliminary Objection: Respondent No. 4 objected that petitioners had alternative remedy under sub-section (5) of Section 307 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, to apply to District Court for injunction for removal or alteration of building. [27000067750001]
Referred Question: Whether locus standi under sub-section (5) of Section 307 is restricted to a person affected by the violation or encompasses all persons resident within the area to which the Act applies. [27000067750010][27000067750002]
Court's Interpretation of Sub-section (5): Clear language allows not only the Corporation but "any other person" to apply to District Court for injunction for removal or alteration of building contravening Act or bye-laws. (!) (!) [27000067750004][27000067750005]
Meaning of "Any": Word "any" is broad, indicating "all" or "every" depending on context; here, extends to all persons in context of building control under Chapter XXIV. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Purpose of Provision: Remedy provided for violations of Act or bye-laws relating to buildings within Municipal Corporation area; right conferred on Corporation and any other person to enforce compliance. [27000067750006] (!)
Distinction from Specific Relief Act: Sub-section (5) independent of Specific Relief Act remedies, which require personal interest; here, right arises from public duty to comply with building regulations. [27000067750007] (!) (!)
Independence from CPC Section 91: Remedy under sub-section (5) separate from public nuisance suits under CPC; not limited thereby, available to any person for building violations. [27000067750008]
Final Holding: Locus standi under sub-section (5) encompasses all persons resident within the area to which the Act applies, not just those directly affected. [27000067750009]
Outcome: Reference answered; matter remitted to Division Bench. (!) [27000067750003][27000067750009]
A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. :- This is a reference made to this Full Bench by order dated 21-8-2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 5807 of 2006.
2. The two petitioners, a Corporator of the Indore Municipal Corporation and a Mechanical Engineer, have filed this Public Interest Litigation under Art. 226 of the Constitution questioning the lay out sanctioned by the Indore Municipal Corporation for construction of a building of the respondent No. 4. On 21-3-2006, the Division Bench issued notices in the writ petition and directed that the interim prayer shall be considered after service of notices on the respondents. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 appeared and raised a preliminary objection that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under sub-section (5) of Section 307 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') to apply to the District Court for an injunction for removal or alteration of the building. The counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, brought to the notice of the Division Bench that in Radhakishan Sharma v. Pravin Kumar and two others, 1996 MPACJ 55. on a reference made by learned single Judge o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
