IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 197 of 2026 SHRI PARMANAND SISODIYA Versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M P NAGAR VIKAS EVAM AWAS VIBHAG URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Swarn Shekhar Sinha and Shri Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla The present petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation seeking following reliefs :-

"(i) to allow the Writ Petition.

(ii) Removal of illegal construction as mentioned in the petition.

(iii) To direct the respondent number No. 1 to instruct respondent No. 5 to carry out detailed investigation about the illegal construction committed by respondent No. 6, 7 and 8 in the above said subject.

(iv) To direct the respondent No. 1 to instruct the respondent No. 5 to blacklist the respondent builders 6 ,7 and 8 and to prevent them from further construction till the past illegal construction issues are not resolved (v) Any other direction or order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be passed in favour of petitioner.

(vi) Take strong legal action against Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 as per due process of law because of promoting &

giving shelter to the illegal construction.

(vii) It is requested to the Hon'ble Court to restrain the respondent from selling the project till the disposal of petition."

Counsel for the State pointed out the para 2(c) and para 5 and submits that though the petitioner has mentioned himself to be a social worker. However, the pleadings in para No. 2(c) clearly demonstrate that the present petition is filed to safeguard interest of family members, daughter-in-law and nephews who are affect by respondents' action by building project No. 1 as mentioned in the petition.

Thus, the petition does not seem to be spousing public cause, rather cause of his family members. Apart from that, the petitioner has claimed to be a social worker but no material has been filed in this regard. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2019(1) MPLJ 75 after referring the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Balco Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and others, (2002) 2 SCC 333, Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010)3 SCC 402 and also taking into consideration the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sudha Gupta and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, 1999(2) MPLJ (F.B.) 259 held that mere self-serving statement that the petitioner is social worker, is not sufficient to invoke the public interest writ jurisdiction of this court unless the petitioners produce the record to the satisfaction of the Court for such social work in last couple of years in the area in respect of which the public interest writ petition is filed.

Upon perusal of the writ petition, we do not find any material in this regard.

In view of the aforesaid, the Public Interest Litigation at the instant of the present petition is not entertained and dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)

JUDGE JUDGE Vindesh