ORDER :

1. Petitioner, an Advocate by profession, claiming to be a public activist, vide this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, styled as Public Interest Litigation, questions the constitutional and legal validity of Rule 15A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Registration of Coloniser, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 (for brevity “1998 Rules”).

2. That 1998 Rules are framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 292-A, 292-B, 292-C and 292-E read with Section 433 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short “1956 Act”) and Sections 339-A, 339-B, 339-C and 339-E of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act 1961 (for short “1961 Act”).

3. The issue, as apparent from the pleadings, relates to regularization of illegal colonies.

4. The power to frame Rule regarding management of the land of illegal colonization is drawn from Section 292-E of 1956 Act and Section 339-E of 1961 Act.

5. Precise contention of the petitioner is that though Section 292-E of 1956 Act and 339-E of 1961 Act empower the Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporation and Competent Authority in case of Municipality to take over the management of land of illegal colonization and take steps accordingly as provided therein. But it does not empower the State Government, a delegatee of the State legislature to frame Rule, such as Rule 15A, which aims at curing the illegality in the hands of those who committed the illegality. With that, it is urged, the mischief mongers not only escape the penal clause under Section 292-C of 1956 Act and Section 339-C of 1961 Act, but the same is de hors the object with which Chapter XXIII in 1956 Act and Chapter XII in 1961 Act have been introduced to curb illegal colonization. It is urged that, incorporation of provision like Rule 15A is a colourable exercise of powers and is de hors the statutory provisions.

6. Before we dwell upon the issue raised in the Writ Petition, certain preliminary objections raised by the State and its functionaries are taken up for consideration. The foremost objection is that the challenge is highly belated. It is urged that Rule 15A was first brought in vogue vide Notification 13/18-3/2000, dated 3.7.2000, published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra (Asadharan), dated 3.7.2000, wherein, vide Notification No. 61-F-1-30-2011-XVIII-3, dated 03.09.2013, published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra (Asadharan), dated 3.9.2013, Page 800, vide Notification No. 31-F-1-30-2011-XVIII-3 dated 26.11.2016 published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra (Asadharan), dated 26.11.2016 Page 944 and vide Notification No. 68-F-1-30-2011-XVIII- 3 dated 19.05.2017 published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra (Asadharan), dated 19.05.2017, amendments are incorporated. It is urged that it is only when fifth amendment in the year 2017 is effected, the petitioner has awaken and for personal publicity has filed this petition; which, it is urged, deserves to be thrown out on laches and delay. It is also urged that the petition is also liable to be dismissed as the same has been filed without proper research and only on the basis of the newspaper reports. Decisions in Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, (1992) 4 SCC 305 and M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and Others, AIR 2008 SC 913, are relied upon to bring home the submissions. The dismissal of the petition is also sought on the ground that the affected persons are not made parties. It is further contended that in furtherance to powers conferred under Rule 15A public notice was issued inviting objections. Since the petitioner did not raise any objection, he has now no locus-standi to question the validity. Respondent-Municipal Corporation joins the State in these preliminary objections.

7. The petitioner refutes the contentions raised by the State and supported by Municipal Corporation, Gwalior as preliminary objections.

8. As regard to the contention regarding delay and laches, trite it is that no definite time limit ca