ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Panchnama dated 23.8.2022, whereby the respondents have put a lock and seal in the shop constructed by the petitioner by virtue of a rent agreement.

2. Facts of the case in short are as under :--

2.1. The petitioner is a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. M/s Speed Automobiles Limited sold the land bearing Survey No.81/3/2 admeasuring 0.147 hectare situated at Bicholi Mardana, District – Indore to Laxminarayan Dubey and Smt. Sushila Dubey vide registered sale deed dated 7.9.2000. The said land had already been diverted vide order dated 11.3.1996 by the Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner has taken the aforesaid land on rent @ Rs.50,000/- per month from Smt. Sushila Dubey with a condition that he would be free to sublet the land after raising construction on its land.

2.2. The petitioner, constructed a tin shed structure in the month of December 2020. The petitioner has taken an electricity connection from Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Vitran Company Limited and regularly paying the rent to the owner as well as property tax to the respondents / Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, to the petitioner, it is a P.K.K. i.e. tin shed on the ground floor which comes under the category of temporary construction for which no prior permission is required from Indore Municipal Corporation.

2.3. The petitioner has also given some portion of land i.e. 1400 sq. ft. vide rent agreement dated 25.4.2022 to D-Vogue Fashion Store, which has obtained a trade license from the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner as well as above named tenant both are using premises commercially. According to the petitioner, on 23.8.2022 respondent No.2, without issuing any show-cause notice suddenly came to the business premises running in the temporary tin shed and put a lock and seal on the property which resulted in closing down the entire business activities. Since the action of respondent No.2 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction, and in the apprehension of demolition of the tin structure, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

3. Shri Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have opened the lock and seal of the area which is in possession of D-Vogue Fashion Store and did not remove the lock of the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner has filed an affidavit to show that the lock of the D-Vogue Fashion Store has been removed on 11.9.2022, therefore, there is discrimination against the petitioner.

4. Shri Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for erecting a tin shed structure on the open land, no permission is required under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act as well as M.P. Bhumi Sudhar Adhiniyam. There is no provision for putting a lock / seal in a shop in which the business is running under the trade license. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner who is actually in possession and running its business, therefore, the impugned action is illegal and the respondents be directed to unlock the premises.

5. The respondents have filed a reply raising a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondents have submitted that the construction raised on the land in question by the petitioner is illegal and without permission. The landlord was served a show-cause notice on 1.11.2021; thereafter, the final order was passed on 15.1.2022, which has not been challenged till date. The respondents have also alleged that the petitioner and landlord are hands-in-glove and this petition is filed at the behest of the owner of the land. Shri Airen, learned counsel submits the subject construction is not a valid construction and the same is liable to be removed otherwise the Corporation shall be free to remove the construction at the cost o