Back
2026 Supreme(MP) 354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Waqf Karbala Intejamiya Committe Through President Abdul Hamid Niyargar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24236 of 2026
Decided On : 26-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Headnote
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Dr. Amit Bhatia, learned Government Advocate, Ms. Mini Ravindran on behalf of Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding the grant and subsequent withdrawal of permission for a religious fair. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding natural justice, traditional rights, and public interest. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. assessment of administrative decision-making and lack of evidence for prior non-compliance. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. distinction between land title disputes and the validity of administrative permission. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to quash arbitrary revocation. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. procedural directions for future applications and clarification of the limited scope of the ruling. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
This petition is listed at the request of the petitioner by approval of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petitioner is present in the court.
3. The contesting party-respondent No.2/3 is being represented through Ms. Mini Ravindran, who appears on advance notice.
4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.
5. The issue which has been raised by the present petitioner in this petition is that the petitioner holds a traditional religious procession and fair (Mela) at Dhobhi Ghat, Indore (described in para 5.2 of the petition) every year for which permission was being given by the Municipal Corporation, Indore/respondent No.2 from time to time, last year also the permission was given, pursuant to which the procession and mela was held in accordance with the conditions of the permission. For this year also i.e. for the year of 2026, the petitioner filed an application for permission to hold the religious procession along with fair (Mela). The Municipal Corporation after due consideration of the application granted permission vide order dated 25.06.2026 whereby subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.1,36,007/- permission to hold fair (Mela) for a period of three days starting from 26.06.2026 and ending on 28.06.2026 was given. The petitioner has placed the said permission on record as Annexure P/6. The grievance of the petitioner is that after grant of this permission the Mayor-in-Council of the respondent No.3 Municipal Corporation allegedly held its meeting in the night of 25.06.2026 at around 08.15 P.M. and passed a resolution against the said permission. In the said Resolution, it has been mentioned that the petitioner did not comply with the condition as put in place for grant of permission for the last year. Apart from this, it has also been mentioned that the fee which was prescribed for the last year was not deposited by the petitioner, as such for this year, the permission for holding fair (Mela) in this year should not have been granted by the concerned officer of the Municipal Corporation, thus, observing the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation was withdrawn.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Mayor-in-Council has filed this petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Taazia procession and fair (Mela) is a customary tradition which is being followed for time immemorial. He submits that every year the petitioner organizes this fair (Mela) and holds the procession of Taazia without there being any violation of law. Therefor, once permission was granted by the competent officer of the Municipal Corporation, the Mayor-in-Council could not have withdrawn the same without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as it is not only violates the right of the petitioner to follow devotion of their choice which is an integral part of person liberty but also violates the principles of natural justice. He also argues that no outstanding dues of the last year fees are there as the petitioner has deposited the entire amount. Also he submits that no notice of any kind was issued pointing out violation of any condition during the Mela of the last year.It has further be
