IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWAL I OR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

ON THE 19^th OF JUNE, 2023

WRIT PETITION No. 13015 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

M/S YAANA SMART TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. THROUGH

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MUNTAJIR KHAN S/O SHRI

SAFIQ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, REGISTERED

OFFICE AT REGD. OFFICE 13476, WARD NO 23, BLOCK NO 18,

GANDHI NAGAR KOPPAL KARNATAKA, BRANCH OFFICE

NEAR RADISSON BLUE HOTEL CITY CENTER, GWALIOR

(MADHYA PRADESH).

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

GWALIOR SMART CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MOTI

MAHAL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH).

2.

SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, GWALIOR SMART CITY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, MOTI

MAHAL, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH).

.....RESPONDENTS

This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA

passed the following:

ORDER

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court filing Writ Petition No.8357 of

2022, whereunder the petitioner was relegated, as prayed for, to approach the Madhya

Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran created under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham

Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 Act for resolution of dispute related to unauthorized use

of place for advertisement, for which penalty was imposed on the petitioner as detailed

1 of 2

(ROHIT ARYA)

JUDGE

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)

JUDGE

in the order dated 17.03.2022. The petitioner did not approach Madhya Pradesh

Madhyastham Adhikaran, as such, ignored to comply the order. It appears that another

in-house order has also been passed on 19.04.2022, however, the same is not on

record.

Petitioner before this Court takes exception to the impugned order whereunder

the appellate authority after consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal and upon

careful perusal of the impugned orders therein as well as record found no illegality in

the impugned orders dated 17.03.2022 and 19.04.2022. Therefore, regard being had to

the conduct of the petitioner and the unauthorized activities indulged into by him the

petitioner now is also blacklisted from participating in the subsequent contracts of the

same nature.

Undisputedly, the petitioner has not so far deposited the penalty amount which

runs into Rs.1,63,84,600/-.

In the obtaining facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the

impugned order. Once the petitioner is relegated to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham

Adhikaran, first he is required to seek adjudication of the penalty imposed on him as

until and unless the penalty imposed on him is found to be unwarranted, the

consequent action of not allowing him to participate in subsequent contracts by the

same principal can not be said to be either pregnable in law or polluted with illegality.

Hence, Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

SP

2 of 2

SANJEEV

KUMAR PHANSE

2023.06.21

10:26:24 +05'30'