Back
2008(3) JLJ 171
(FULL BENCH)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., A.M. Sapre and S.K. Seth, JJ.
Dilip Kaushal and another v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.5807 of 2006 (Indore); Decided on 31.7.2008.
Whether the locus standi under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act is restricted to a person affected by the violation complained of or encompasses all persons resident within the area to which the Act applies? [Para 3
Held: In our considered opinion, the view taken by the earlier Division Bench in Radhakishan Sharma [1996 MP ACJ 55], that under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956 besides the Corporation, only such person who may feel directly affected by the building in regard to his individual right to property can only file application before the District Court for injunction for removal or alteration of the building, is naught. [Para 4
The language of sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956 is clear that besides the Corporation ‘any‘ other person can apply to the District Court for injunction for removal or alteration of a building there under. [Para 6
Not only the Corporation but every other person has been given the right to apply to the District Court for injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provision of the Act or the bye-laws made there under. The context and the subject-matter of the statute in which the word ‘any‘ has been used is thus wide enough to include all persons other than the Corporation or every other person other than the Corporation or any other person other than the Corporation.
In the result, we are of the opinion that the locus standi under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956 is not restricted to a person affected by the violatioI1 complained of but encompasses all persons resident within the area of which the Act of 1956 applies. (1987)2 SCC 707 and (1994) 1 SCC 243 followed. 1996 MP ACJ 55 overruled. [Paras 7 & 10
(2) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- S. 307(5) -- Specific Relief Act, 1963--Ss.4 and 41 (j) -- reliefs under Specific Relief Act are granted for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights -- provisions of Specific Relief Act do not apply to right conferred on Corporation or any other person u/s 307(5) of Municipal Corporation Act -- remedy u/s 307(5) is independent of and different from remedies under Specific Relief Act.1996 MP ACJ 55 overruled. [Para 8
(3) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- S. 307(5) -- Civil P.C, 1908 -- S. 91 (1) -- S. 91 (1) of Code is not exhaustive of remedies available to a party even in case of public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect public -- remedy of Corporation or any other person u/s 307(5) of the Act is independent of S.91 (1) of the Code. 1996 MP ACJ 55 overruled. [Para 9
(4) Words and Phrases -- ‘any‘ -- has a diversity of meaning -- may be employed to indicate ‘all‘, ‘every‘, ‘some‘ or ‘one‘ -- meaning depends on context and subject-matter of statute. (1987)2 SCC 707 and (1994)1 SCC 243 followed. [Para 6
¼1½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 307¼5½ && ^fdlh vU; O;fDr* && fuxe ds vfrfjDr lHkh O;fDr vFkok fuxe ds vfrfjDr izR;sd O;fDr vFkok fuxe ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ Hkh O;fDr lfEefyr gSA D;k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 307 dh mi/kkjk ¼5½ ds v/khu lqus tkus dk vf/kdkj] ftl vfrØe.k dh f‘kdk;r dh xbZ gS mlls izHkkfor O;fDr rd lhfer gS vFkok mlesa ftl {ks= dks vf/kfu;e ykxw gksrk gS mlds Hkhrj fuokl djus okys leLr O;fDr lfEefyr gSa\ ¿ iSjk 3 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa] iwoZrj [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk jk/kkfd‘ku ‘kekZ ¿ 1996 ,e ih , lh ts 55 À] esa viuk;k x;k ;g n`f"Vdks.k ‘kwU; gS fd lu~ 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 307 dh mi/kkjk ¼5½ ds v/khu dsoy ogh O;fDr Hkou gVk, tkus ;k ifjofrZr fd, tkus ds fy, O;kns‘k gsrq ftyk U;k;ky; ds le{k vkosnu Qkby dj ldrk gS tks laifÙk ds vius O;fDrxr vf/kdkj ds laca/k esa Hkou ls izR;{kr% izHkkfor gksA ¿ iSjk 4 lu~ 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 307 dh mi/kkjk ¼5½ dh Hkk"kk Li"V gS fd fuxe ds vfrfjDr] vU; ^fdlh* Hkh O;fDr }kjk Hkou gVk, tkus ;k ifjofrZr fd, tkus ds fy, O;kns‘k gsrq ftyk U;k;ky; dks rn/khu vkosnu fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 6 dsoy fuxe gh ugha] vfirq vU; izR;sd O;fDr dks Hkou gVk, tkus ;k ifjofrZr fd, tkus ds fy, O;kns‘k gsrq ftyk U;k;ky; dks bl vk/kkj ij vkosnu djus dk vf/kdkj fn;k x;k gS fd mlls vf/kfu;e vFkok rn/khu cukbZ xbZ mifof/k;ksa ds fdlh mica/k dk mYya?ku gksrk gSA vr% ftl dkuwu esa ‘‘kCn ^fdlh* iz;qDr fd;k x;k gS mldk lanHkZ vkSj mldh fo"k;&oLrq brus foLr`r gSa fd mlesa fuxe ds vfrfjDr lHkh O;fDr vFkok fuxe ds vfrfjDr izR;sd vU; O;fDr vFkok fuxe ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ Hkh O;fDr lfEefyr gSA ifj.kker%] gekjh jk; gS fd lu~ 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 307 dh mi/kkjk ¼5½ ds v/khu lqus tkus dk vf/kdkj] ftl vfrØe.k dh f‘kdk;r dh xbZ gS mlls izHkkfor O;fDr rd lhfer ugha gS] vfirq ftl {ks= esa lu~ 1956 dk vf/kfu;e ykxw gksrk gS mlds Hkhrj fuokl djus okys leLr O;fDr mlesa lfEefyr gSaA ¼1987½2 ,l lh lh 707 rFkk ¼1994½1 ,l lh lh 243 vuqlfjrA 1996 ,e ih , lh ts 55 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 7 ,oa 10 ¼2½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 307¼5½ && fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 4 rFkk 41¼´½ && fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vuqrks"k O;fDrxr flfoy vf/kdkj izofrZr djkus ds iz;kstukFkZ iznku fd, tkrs gSa && fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ds mica/k uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 307¼5½ ds v/khu fuxe ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks iznÙk vf/kdkj dks ykxw ugha gksrs && /kkjk 307¼5½ ds v/khu mipkj fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mipkjksa ls Lora= vkSj fHkUu gSA 1996 ,e ih , lh ts 55 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼3½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 307¼5½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 91¼1½ && lafgrk dh /kkj 91¼1½] yksd U;wlsUl vFkok yksxksa dks izHkkfor djus okys ;k ftlls muds izHkkfor gksus dh laHkkouk gks ,sls lnks‘k dk;Z ds ekeys esa Hkh] i{kdkj dks miyC/k mipkjksa ds laca/k esa laiw.kZ ugha gS && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 307¼5½ ds v/khu fuxe ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks miyC/k mipkj lafgrk dh /kkjk 91¼1½ ls Lora= gSA 1996 ,e ih , lh ts 55 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 9 ¼4½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ^fdlh* && fofo/k vFkZ gSa && ^lHkh*] ^izR;sd*] ^dqN* vFkok ^,d* bafxr djus ds fy, iz;qDr fd;k tk ldrk gS && vFkZ lanHkZ vkSj dkuwu dh fo"k;&oLrq ij fuHkZj gksrk gSA ¼1987½2 ,l lh lh 707 rFkk ¼1994½1 ,l lh lh 243 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 6
Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. This is a reference made to this Full Bench by order dated 21.8.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP 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 Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the layout 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 Shanna v. Pravin Kumar and two others [1996 MPACJ 55], on a reference made by learned Single Judge of this Court, a Division Bench has held that under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956, the expression 'any other person' who has been conferred with the right to apply to the District Court for injunction for removal or alteration of any building will mean such person who might feel directly affected by the building in regard to his individual right to property and, therefore, the two petitioners in Writ Petition No.5807 of 2006 may not have an alternative statutory remedy under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956.
3. The Division Bench hearing WP No.5807 of 2006, however found that in the earlier case of Radhakishan Shanna (supra), the Division Bench had taken the aid of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to construe sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956 and had held that the expression 'any other person' in sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956, who has been conferred with the right to apply to the District Court for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building, would mean only such person who might feel directly affected by the building in regard to his individual right to property. The Division Bench hearing WP No.5807 of 2006 was, however, of the opinion that sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956 did not suffer from any ambiguity either in language or in meaning and provides for remedy to 'any other person' in addition to the Corporation to apply to the District Court for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building and the decision of the Division Bench in Radhakishan Sharma (supra), requires reconsideration and accordingly has referred the following question of law for our opinion:
"Whether the locus standi under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act is restricted to a person affected by the violation complained of or encompasses all persons resident within the area to which the Act applies?"
4. We have heard Mr. Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Kutumble, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Mr. Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the Indore Municipal Corporation and Mr. A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.4 and in our considered opinion, the view taken by the earlier Division Bench in Radhakishan Shanna (supra), that under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956 besides the Corporation, only such person who may feel directly affected by the building in regard to his individual right to property can only file application before the District Court for injunction for removal or alteration of the building, is naught for the reasons which will now follow.
5. Sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956, which we are called upon to interpr
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
