Panchayat Can Pass Proposal For Construction Of Shopping Complex; PIL Filed To Settle Personal Score: MP HC Imposes Rs 25k Cost On Ex-Sarpanch
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the PIL challenging the construction of a shopping complex at Gram Panchayat Chanwasa.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on an Ex-Sarpanch for filing a Public Interest Litigation against the construction of a shopping complex, after noting that the PIL was filed by the Petitioner only to settle his personal score with the Sarpanch and other office bearers.
The Petition before the High Court was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of a PIL challenging the construction of a shopping complex at Gram Panchayat Chanwasa, Jila Panchayat – Mandsaur.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh explained, “The Panchayat is competent to pass proposal for construction of shopping complex in order to earn the revenue. There is no illegality in demolishing the old structure and constructing a shopping complex. The petitioner has unnecessarily given the negative publicity of this matter against the Panchayat has resulted into delay of sale of the shops.”
Advocate Kirti Saboo represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate Bhuwan Gautam represented the Respondent/ State.
Factual Background
The Petitioner is an Ex-Sarpanch who invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court as a pro bono litigant. According to the petitioner, within the territory of Gram Panchayat – Chandwasa, there was an old Government Girls School building which was constructed during the existence of the Holkar State. The Gram Panchayat illegally passed a resolution for the demolition of the said school and the construction of a new shopping complex on the same land.
It was not only the Petitioner who alleged that the procedure prescribed under Section 65 of the Madhya Pradesh Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 had not been followed but a Journalist too had filed a civil suit seeking an injunction against the demolition of the School which is still pending. However, the Respondents had filed a reply mentioning therein that the school had already been shifted in the year 2006 and thereafter, a decision was taken to dismantle the old building.
Reasoning
Referring to the photographs of the old school building submitted by the Respondents, the Bench noted that there was no option but to demolish the same as the building was of no use. It was further noticed that the new shopping complex had already been constructed. “In our considered opinion, no illegality has been committed by dismantling the old building and constructing the new shopping complex. It appears that the petitioner has filed the present PIL in order to settle his personal score with the Sarpanch and other office bearers”, the Bench said.
The Bench took into consideration the submission of the Respondents that the Petitioner had also given adverse publicity in the local area. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that the petitioner had allegedly instigated the local person to not purchase the shops by way of auction because of which the Panchayat was not getting the better proposal for the sale of the shops on a higher price.
The Court further asserted, “We are of the view that the petitioner misused the process of law by filing the present petition and making false and incorrect allegations against the respondents. He ought to have filed the photographs of old building and new complex along with the writ petitioner.”
Noting that the Petitioner had unnecessarily given negative publicity which resulted in a delay of the sale of the shops, the Bench dismissed the PIL and asked the Petitioner to deposit Rs 25,000 in the account of Gram Panchayat.
Cause Title: Shri Jitendra Singh Mandloi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-IND:825)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Kirti Saboo
Respondent: Government Advocate Bhuwan Gautam, Advocate Prasanna R. Bhatnagar
