Section 323 provides a statutory remedy to seek suspension of allegedly unlawful municipal resolutions.

The petitioner filed a public-interest petition under Article 226 challenging Nagar Parishad, Khilchipur Resolution No. 371(06), dated 4 November 2025, which granted a no-objection for allotment of 1.416 hectares of land in Survey No. 667/2 to Janpad Panchayat, Khilchipur, for a new office building.

He alleged that the resolution was not passed by a majority and that the land had traditionally been used for religious congregations, fairs, and other public activities.

The respondents relied on public notices inviting objections, approvals and funding for the project, and the construction already undertaken; the Janpad Panchayat President also asserted the need for a new building.

The Court had earlier granted status quo while leaving open the respondents’ objection that the petitioner should pursue the remedy under Section 323 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.

1. Whether the petitioner could challenge the Nagar Parishad resolution by a writ petition under Article 226, despite the remedy available under Section 323 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.

2. Whether the record established grounds to interfere with the resolution, including the claim that it was not passed by a majority and that the land’s public use required protection.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to review public decisions, while Section 323 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 provides that the Divisional Commissioner, Collector, or another officer authorised by the State Government may suspend a Council resolution or order where the statutory grounds are met—including non-conformity with law or applicable rules or bye-laws, detriment to the Council or public, likely public injury or annoyance, or risk of breach of peace.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not state a broader rule displacing the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The Court held that Section 323 provided an available avenue to challenge the resolution before the designated authority.

It also found that, although an objection signed by councillors was on record, no councillor had filed an affidavit supporting the petition, and none had challenged the resolution under Section 323.

The Court further noted that public notices had invited objections, none had been raised by the petitioner or others, and the petition was filed only after substantial construction had taken place.

In those circumstances, and considering the petitioner’s acknowledged political role, the Court viewed the petition as an attempt to stall the project for a personal purpose and found no basis for interference.

It directed the petitioner to pay costs of ₹5,000 to the specified account of the High Court Employees Union within two weeks and obtain a receipt.