Compliance with principles of natural justice and Section 310 requirement for reasoned orders in dilapidated building evictions.

The petitioner, a tenant operating "M/s Paras Cloth Centre" on the ground floor of a building in Indore, challenged a show-cause notice dated 17.02.2026 issued under Section 309 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.

The notice, issued collectively to the owner and occupant, alleged the building was in a dilapidated state.

The petitioner submitted a representation/objection on 19.02.2026 and subsequent writ petition seeking to quash the notice and ensure a hearing in accordance with natural justice.

Whether the respondents are required to follow the specific procedure under Section 310 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and provide an opportunity of hearing before taking coercive action against a dilapidated building.

The Court primarily applied Section 310 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which governs the removal of buildings in a dangerous state.

This provision empowers the Commissioner to require the owner or occupier to demolish, remove, or repair a structure for public safety, and allows for forcible removal only if danger is imminent.

The Court further relied on the principles of natural justice and established Division Bench precedents of the High Court regarding the mandatory application of Section 310 in such disputes.

The Court observed that while the notice was issued under Section 309, the appropriate governing provision for dealing with dangerous structures is Section 310 of the Act.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s objections must be formally considered to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

It directed that the petitioner must be afforded a fair opportunity to substantiate his case through a detailed reply and supporting documents.

By linking the statutory requirements of Section 310 with the right to be heard, the Court determined that the municipal authorities cannot proceed with demolition or coercive steps until a reasoned order is passed addressing the petitioner’s specific objections.

The respondents were ordered to comply with Section 310 of the Act, grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order within 15 days.

Critically, the Court held that no coercive steps shall be taken against the building until the authorities have rendered their final decision.