RAKESH SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 30-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 351 
RAKESH SHARMA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7520-23 of 2011) 
AUGUST 30, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Allegations of 
illegal encroachments/constructions by Municipal Corporation 
A 
B 
on footpaths and public streets in the market - Notices to 
C 
shopkeepers that they were in illegal occupation of the front 
portion of their shop - Filing of public interest litigation and 
writ petitions - High Court disposed of the writ petitions and 
issued various directions to the Municipal Corporation for 
construction of a new market complex - Legality of - Held: 
D 
High Court did not overstep its legitimate and legal 
jurisdiction while continuing to pass order after order 
constituting a Committee to supervise the construction of the 
shopping complex - Such directions can be issued by the 
High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 -
E 
High Court passed various orders on the basis of consensus 
of the parties, more particularly, with the consent of the shop· 
keepers - Committee was appointed and a direction. was 
issued for providing alternate place to shopkeepers till new 
construction was completed in the existing place - Also, the 
F 
High Court took into consideration the objections and 
suggestions of the Director, Town and Country Planning 
Department; the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation; and 
the Principal Secretary, Housing Developme_nt -
The 
directions by the High Court safeguards not only the interest G 
of the Municipal Corporation, general public but also all the 
shopkeepers who are running their business in the market -
Thus, directions issued in the final order by the High Court 
cannot be faulted with - Town planning- Urban Development. 
351 
H 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
The State Government constructed 'G' market in 
Gwalior with 250 shops. The shop covering 60 sq.ft. size 
was giveri to 252 incumbents of the market. Each shop 
covers 60 sq.ft. space plus 30 sq.ft. verandah, in total 90 
sq.ft. area. It is alleged that there was encroachment and 
B erection of wooden stalls by the Municipal Corporation 
over the land of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board in 
'N' Market. A public interest litigation was filed. The High 
Court directed the Municipal Corporation to remove the 
said structures and issued several directions. Pursuant 
c thereto, the Municipal Corporation issued notices to the 
appellants alleging that they were in illegal occupancy of 
the front portion of their shops and directed them to 
remove the alleged encroachments. The shopkeepers of 
'G' Market and others filed writ petitions before the High 
0 Court. Thereafter, Special Leave Petitions were filed and 
the same were disposed of, by directing the High Court 
to dispose of the writ petitions. The High Court passed 
various orders and thereafter, disposed of the writ 
petitions and issued various directions to the Municipal 
E Corporation, Gwalior for construction of a new market 
complex. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant 
appeals. 
The question which arose for consideration in these 
appeals whether the High Court overstepped its 
F legitimate and legal jurisdiction while continuing to pass 
order after order constituting a Committee to supervise 
the construction of the shopping complex and any such 
directions can at all be issued by the High Court while 
exercising its powers under Article 226 of the 
G Constitution of India. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is abundantly clear that from time to 
time, on different occasions with the consent of the 
H parties, the construction of new Gandhi Market was 
RAKESH SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. & 
353 
ORS. 
discussed and a Committee was constituted after the 
A 
order dated 20.04.2007. The High Court, on different 
occasions, took into consideration the objections and 
suggestions of the Director, Town and Country Planning 
Department, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, 
Principal Secretary, Housing Development and passed an 
B 
order on 18.05.2007. The same order has been reiterated 
in the subsequent order dated 20.07.2007. [Paras 24 and 
25] [369-E-G; 370-D] 
1.2 If the various orders passed by the High Court are 
analysed, it would not be possible to conclude that the C 
High Court over stepped its limit while giving directions 
in para 8 of the impugned order. The High Court rightly 
observed that it i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.