IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 413 of 2026 BHOPAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS Versus MARLIN BUILDCON PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri H.S. Ruprah - Additoinal Advocate General with Shri S.M. Guru - Dy.

Solicitor General, Shri Hindesh Pal, Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, Shri Deepanshu Rai, Shri Dev Sharma, Shri Akshat Agarwal, Shri Harsh Jain, Shri Shahank Patel - Advocates for the appellants.

Shri Ashish Barnard - Advocate with Shri Pramod Thakre - Advocate for the respondents.

Shri Lalji Kushwaha - Advocate for the respondent No.3 (through V.C.)

WITH WRIT APPEAL No. 414 of 2026 SANSKRITI JAIN AND OTHERS Versus MARLIN BUILDCOM PVT LTD AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri H.S. Ruprah - Additoinal Advocate General with Shri S.M. Guru - Dy.

Solicitor General, Shri Hindesh Pal, Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, Shri Deepanshu Rai, Shri Dev Sharma, Shri Akshat Agarwal, Shri Harsh Jain, Shri Shahank Patel - Advocates for the appellants.

Shri Ashish Barnard - Advocate with Shri Pramod Thakre - Advocate for the respondents.

Shri Lalji Kushwaha - Advocate for the respondent No.3 (through V.C.)

ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice

1. Appellant impugns order dated 27.01.2026, whereby a show cause notice has been issued to the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bhopal as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against her for breach of orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of " Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures (In Ref.) (2025) SCC 1.''

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the entire petition filed by the respondent does not take into account that the appellant has duly followed the procedure as prescribed by the Supreme Court. He further submits that in terms of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the High Court is empowered to initiate proceedings for contempt only of wilful breach of its own orders or orders of a court subordinate to it.

3. Learned senior counsel further submits that there is no allegations in the entire petition that the appellant has committed breach of any order or direction passed by the High Court or any court subordinate to it. Reference is drawn to judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vitusah Oberoi and Ors. vs. Court of Its Own Motion (2017) 2 SCC 314 to contend that the Supreme Court has held that the High Court is empowered to initiate proceedings for contempt of its orders or orders of any Court subordinate to it but is not empowered to initiate proceedings suo moto or otherwise for the contempt of orders of a superior court like the Supreme Court.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that on 05.02.2026 an order has been passed holding the appellant No.3 i.e.

Municipal Commissioner, Bhopal guilty of flouting the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures (In Ref.) (2025) SCC 1.'' , which has been impugned in W.A.

No.414/2026.

5. Reference may be had to the judgment of Supreme Court in Vitusah Oberoi and Ors. (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"9. The provisions of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 also empower the High Court to punish for its own contempt or the contempt of Courts subordinate to it. Section 10 reads:

“10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts.—Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself: Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

10. There is,