Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by 33 petitioners, who are shop owners in the commercial building known as One Centre, situated opposite 56 Dukan, a prominent street food hub in Indore regarding obstruction and alleged encroachment on the access routes and parking space of this building, a single-judge bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., held that the action of restricting vehicular entry from MG Road was a “well thought and well considered decision taken in larger public interest,” and not arbitrary or illegal.
In the instant matter, the dispute arises from obstruction and alleged encroachment on the access routes and parking space of building “One Centre”. The petitioners approached the Court seeking removal of encroachments made by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on the Marginal Open Space (MOS)/parking of the building, opening of the 30-meter wide access from MG Road and removal of obstructions and full construction of the 100-feet wide Master Plan Road (Ramnarayan Shastri Marg) in terms of the Indore Development Plan.
A significant history was placed on record, including an earlier round of litigation in W.P. No.919/2000, where a notice issued by the Corporation in 1999 was quashed. Appeals by the Corporation up to the Supreme Court were unsuccessful.
The petitioners claimed that steel barricades and structures erected by the Indore Municipal Corporation on MG Road, including a pan shop, flower shop, public toilet, and feeding center, blocked vehicular entry to their premises and severely affected their business. The petitioners relied on Sections 317 and 318 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and contended that there was no complete road closure, and hence, the erection of barriers was unjustified.
However, the respondents defended their actions as traffic regulation measures and highlighted that 56 Dukan as a major food hub attracts high footfall and restrictions on vehicle movement is aimed at traffic regulation and public safety. It was submitted that vehicles still had access from the northern side of One Centre as the building has functional parking in the basement.
The Court noted that the petitioners’ grievance is twofold, first alleged encroachment on the parking space/MOS of One Centre and second, barriers erected on the 100 ft. wide Master Plan Road, restricting vehicular access from M.G. Road.
The Court noted that this issue regarding encroachment on parking/MOS involved disputed questions of fact and the proper remedy is available under Section 307(5) of the Municipal Corporation Act, which provides for the filing of an application before the District Court. Accordingly, the Court relegated the petitioners to take recourse of the statutory remedy under Section 307(5) of the Municipal Corporation Act.
Regarding the issue related to the barricading of the road, the Court emphasised that no complete closure of the road had taken place, and only vehicular movement was restricted, not pedestrian access. The Court referred to the Commissioner’s inspection report and noted that the building has parking in the basement and vehicular access could still be managed through the northern entrance, albeit through a bottleneck.
Importantly, the Court took judicial notice of the traffic situation around 56 Dukan and observed that “if the vehicles are allowed to enter in the 56 Dukan area from MG Road, it would lead to a total chaos,” impacting not only 56 Dukan but also MG Road and connecting intersections such as Palasia Square, Geeta Bhavan, and Industry House. The Court found the decision to erect barricades was a well-thought and considered action, taken in larger public interest, and could not be interfered with by the Court.
The Court dismissed the petition with respect to the prayer for removal of obstructions on the road and reopening vehicular access from MG Road. As for the alleged encroachment on parking space/MOS, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to seek remedy under Section 307(5) of the Municipal Corporation Act.
[Dharmendra v. State of M.P. Department of Urban Development and Housing, Writ Petition No. 28811 of 2022, Decided on 01-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri R. S. Chhabra, Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit Sinnarkar, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Vishal Singh Panwar, G.A., Counsel for the State
Shri Kamal Nayan Airen, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4
Buy Constitution of India HERE
