MP HC Bars Coercive Action Against Property Owners Until Bhopal Corporation Decides Show-Cause Notice

In brief

The question

Whether the directions in Mohammad Mumtaz Anwar should apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioners’ case

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioners may file a detailed reply with relevant documents within seven working days, if not already filed; the Corporation must hear them and take a final decision within four weeks, in accordance with law and having regard to Rajendra Kumar Barjatya

It also directed

No coercive action may be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned notice until that final decision is made

No order as to costs

01Facts

The petitioners challenged a notice dated 20 August 2026 and sought consideration of their reply dated 24 August 2026, along with an opportunity to compound the matter before coercive action was taken

p. 1

They relied on an earlier order in Mohammad Mumtaz Anwar v. The Principal Secretary and Others, which had applied directions issued in Ajay Mohgaonkar v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal

¶ 2

The Municipal Corporation accepted that the present case was identical to Mohammad Mumtaz Anwar and stated that it would consider the petitioners’ reply and pass a final order after hearing them

¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the directions in Mohammad Mumtaz Anwar should apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioners’ case

¶ 3–5

ii.Whether the petitioners should be protected from coercive action while the Corporation considers their reply and reaches a final decision

¶ 6–7

03Law Applied

The Court applied the procedural directions in Mohammad Mumtaz Anwar, which in turn followed Ajay Mohgaonkar v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, including the requirement that the authority consider the affected parties’ reply and decide the matter in accordance with law after giving them an opportunity of hearing

¶ 2, 5–6

The Court also directed the Corporation to take note of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, without setting out or independently elaborating its legal principles

¶ 6

04Reasoning

The Corporation accepted that the case was materially identical to the earlier matter and undertook to consider the petitioners’ reply and hear them before making a final decision

¶ 4

In light of that concession and the directions in the cited cases, the Court extended the earlier directions to the petitioners, allowing time to submit a detailed reply and requiring the Corporation to decide the matter in accordance with law, with regard to the Supreme Court judgment

¶ 5–6

To preserve the position pending that decision, it barred coercive action in pursuance of the impugned notice

¶ 7