Madhya Pradesh High Court

WP/29244/2021 of KRISHNAKANT KUWADIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 30 December 2021

MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.29244 of 2021 Krishnakant

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDOREW.P. No.29244 of 2021Krishnakant Kuwadia Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Indore, Dated:- 30/12/2021

Ms. Poorva Mahajan with Shri Anshuman Shrivastava,Counsels for the petitioner.

Shri Valmik Shakargayen, Counsel for the respondents/State,on advance notice.

Heard.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order,which is not dated, filed as Annexure P/5 and P/6 whereby therespondent No.4 has directed the petitioner to remove hisencroachment in the form of a Gumti.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner isrunning a shop “Sanchi Point” in the Gumti for which he has alsoobtained proper permission under the provisions of ShopsEstablishment Act and a licence has also been issued by the IndoreSahakari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit, Indore. Counsel has submitted thatthe aforesaid action is being taken against the petitioner at theinstance of a private party and earlier also on 11.02.2021 thepetitioner was directed to remove the encroachment of which thepetitioner had also filed a detailed reply on 24.02.2021, but no orderswere passed, however, the present impugned notices Annexure P/5and P/6 have been issued.

Page 1 of 2

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDOREW.P. No.29244 of 2021Krishnakant Kuwadia Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

4. Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, hasopposed the prayer.

5. On due consideration of submissions, perusal of the record, thisCourt finds that as on earlier occasion the petitioner was issued asimilar notice on 11.02.2021 and despite its reply being filed, noorders have been passed, it would be expedient to dispose of thispetition with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner'sreply by a reasoned order within a further period of two weeks time from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

6. Till the petitioner's reply is decided, no coercive action shall betaken against the petitioner.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.C.c. as per rules.C.c. as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

VACATIONJUDGE

PankajDigitally signed by PANKAJ PANDEY Date: 2021.12.31 10:35:52 +05'30'

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead