Order Relying On Omitted Statute Shows “Utter Ignorance”: Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On Municipal Officer

The Court noted that the Indore Municipal Corporation had relied on Sections 143, 146 and 153 of the Municipal Corporation Act, which were omitted in 2020. It recorded the Corporation’s statement that the order dated September 30, 2026 and the ledger report dated October 7, 2026 would be treated as non-est and withdrawn. It directed ₹75,000 to be deposited with the M.P. Legal Services Authority, Indore, and ₹25,000 to be paid to the petitioner, and ordered that the sum be recovered from the officer.

A Bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt observed, “It is painful to note that the respondent authority, who is the statutory authority under the Municipal Corporation Act is required to discharge duty to adjudicate the proceedings which are coming before the authority, in accordance with law within the four corners of law and on the basis of existing provisions of law. In the present case, Section 143,146 and 153 of the Municipal Corporation Act which stood omitted in the year 2020 are relied upon and thereafter, the order was passed. This shows utter ignorance of the responsible officer who is duty bound to adjudicate the grievance of the concerned person strictly in accordance with law. This situation is clearly disappointing and painful which is not required to be repeated in future”.

Advocate Vibhor Khandelwal appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Manoj Munshi appeared for the respondent.

The petitioner, a private hospital company, challenged the order and the ledger report before the High Court. The order does not set out the underlying dispute.

By an earlier order dated October 26, 2026, the Court had required Manohar Vishwakarma, ARO (Law), Indore Municipal Corporation, to be present. On October 28, after the matter was heard “to some extent”, the Corporation’s senior counsel, on instructions from the officer present, said the authority was withdrawing the order as it was “apparently bad in law”.

The Court said it was reluctant to take a lenient view by permitting withdrawal, but the petitioner’s grievance would be redressed if the order was withdrawn. It called the situation “disappointing and painful”, noting that an officer duty-bound to decide strictly in accordance with law had relied on provisions that did not exist.

“…this Court cannot ignore the fact that due to such erroneous order which is passed in mechanical manner, without applying mind in proper manner can certainly be considered as exercising jurisdiction by misusing the power vested with the concerned officer which has led the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court by filing the present petition. Due to non-application of mind, apparent grave error was committed by the concerned authority while passing the impugned order, the precious judicial time of this Court is wasted as proceedings are required to be conducted”, the Bench said.

The Corporation was directed to pay the costs within seven days. The Court directed that the highest officer of the Corporation ensure the amount is recovered from the erring officer, so that the burden is not borne by the Corporation, within 15 days of payment. The authority may consider the proceedings afresh in accordance with law, and the petitioner is free to raise all available contentions. The petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: M/s Bafgna Hospital and Orthopedics Research Centre Pvt Ltd v. Indore Municipal Corporation and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:30316)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Vibhor Khandelwal, Advocate, Jayesh Gurnani, Advocate.

Respondent: Manoj Munshi, Senior Advocate, Shashank Shrivastava and Vikram Malviya, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Order