ORDER

[Delivered on this 24^th day of April, 2021] Per Justice Anand Pathak, J. Heard on admission.

The present petition is preferred as pro bono publico under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

1. प्रततियतचिककाकतिकार्ता क . 01 लगकायति 07 कको आददेश / तनिदर्देश ददयका जकायदे दक प्रततियकातचिककाकतिकार्ता क. 08 व 09 दकारका गकाम आहुखकानिका कलका, पत्रककार ककॉलकोनिनी मकातिका ममंददर कदे पनीछदे वकारर्ता क्र .

03 कदे सवर्दे क . 406 एवमं 407 पर तसस्थिति उक्त भभूतम पर दकयदे गयदे तबिनिका भवनि तनिमकार्ताण अनिनुजका कदे तनिमकार्ताण कको तितककाल हटकायका जकायदे व जनुमकार्तानिका लगकायका जकायदे ।

2. प्रततियतचिककाकतिकार्ता क . 01 लगकायति 07 कको आददेश / तनिदर्देश ददयका जकायदे दक उक्त तनिमकार्ताण ककायर्ता ममें समंतलप्त व्यतक्तययों एवमं अतधिककाररययों / कमर्ताचिकाररययों कदे तवरूद्ध ककानिभूनिनी ककायर्तावकाहनी कक जकायदे ।

3. अनय नयकायकोतचिति सहकायतिका जको प्रकरण कक पररतसस्थिततिययों कदे अनिनुरूप उतचिति हको वह मकानिनिनीय नयकायकालय दकारका उतचिककाकतिकार्ता कदे तहति ममें जकारनी कक जकायदे तिस्थिका मनुकद्म कका हजकार्ता खचिकार्ता प्रततियकातचिककाकतिकार्तागण सदे ददलकायका जकायदे तिको मकानिनिनीय नयकायकालय कक अतति ककृपका हकोगनी ।

अमंतिररम अनिनुतिकोष प्रततियकातचिककाकतिकार्ता क्र . 06 कको आददेश / तनिदर्देश ददयका जकायदे दक सभूचिनिका पत्र ददनिकामंक 06.03.2020 एनिदेकजर पनी / 4 एवमं सभूचिनिका पत्र ददनिकामंक 28.03.2020 एनिदेकजर पनी / 5 कदे पकालनि ममें प्रततियकातचिककाकतिकार्ता क . 08 व 09 कदे तवरूद्ध निगर पतलकका तनिगम अतधितनियम 1956 कक धिकारका 307 एवमं 308 कदे अमंतिगर्ताति ककायर्तावकाहनी कक जकायदे ।

2. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that respondents No. 8 and 9 have constructed a building contrary to building permission and caused irregularity/illegality. A registered legal notice was sent but of no avail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred several provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity “Act, 1956”), namely 292-C, 292-DA, 292-E, 293 to bring home the fact that building constructed by respondents No.8 and 9 dehors the permission and sanction.

4. Learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that petitioner has alternative remedy under the provisions of Act, 1956 and such disputed facts cannot be adjudicated by way of PIL.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission and considered the arguments advanced by them.

6. This is the case, where petitioner, a practising advocate has filed this petition pointing out certain alleged irregularities/illegalities in the construction made by the respondents No. 8 and 9 over Survey No.406 and 407, Village Ahookhanakala, Patrakar Colony, behind Mata Mandir, Ward No.3, Gwalior and a legal notice was also sent in this regard to the authorities as well as concerned persons.

7. Section 307(5) of Act, 1956 provides for such remedy which petitioner otherwise may invoke for his grievances. Section 307(5) deals as under:-

Section 307:-Power to require, removal or alteration of work not in conformity with byelaws or any scheme or any other requirement.- (1)----------- (2)---------- (3)---------- (4)---------- (5) Nothing in this section shall affect then right of the Corporation or any other person to apply to the District Court for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provision of this Act or the byelaws made thereunder, but if the building is one in respect of which plans have been deposited and the plan s have been passed by the Commissioner, or notice that they have been rejected has not been given within the prescribed period after the deposit thereof, and if the work has been executed in accordance with the plans, the District Court on granting and injunction shall have power to order the Commissioner to pay to the owner of the work such compensation as the District Court thinks just, but before making any such order the District Court cause the Commissioner i