Institute of Legal and Management Studies

While hearing a matter relating to the regularisation of alleged illegal construction, the Supreme Court raised concern about why, despite the notice including dasti being served to the parties, they chose not to appear. It passed an order summoning the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, to be present in the next hearing to offer an explanation why no officer was appointed despite the notice served.

The Court also questioned the petitioner's counsel for not serving the two other Respondents despite notice issued, including dasti. It orally remarked that if parties are not particular about their case, the Court shouldn't bother.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order as: "Our order dated reads thus. We made it abundantly clear that Respondent no. 3 and 4 shall depute a responsible officer to personally remain present before us today with the necessary records. We are informed that Respondent no. 3 and 4 are duly served on 24 October, 2024, however, no one has appeared today as directed. We direct the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, to be personally present with the records on next hearing. The Commissioner owes an explanation why our order has not been complied with."

The hearing began with the Respondents' no. 3[Municipal Corporation] and 4[Commissioner, Municipal Corporation] counsel stating that the Law Department of the Corporation had received the files recently, and some days may be granted in order for them to go through the matter.

The Court was also informed that the petitioner is yet to serve Respondent no. 1 and 2, two private respondents. Justice Pardiwala orally remarked that the counsel has been careless for not serving the respondents. "You have been equally careless, so now we are not much concerned about what you have highlighted in the petition. On the first day, we were very much concerned since you pointed out that illegal construction has been very much regularised. You should be concerned about this, but you are not particular. If you obtain an order from the Court and take dasti, you must ensure the respondents are duly served."

He also asked the Respondent's counsel to make sure the Commissioner is personally present with a proper explanation: "Ask your Commissioner to be here and he has to explain why he has not deputed a responsible officer. He should be here with records. We have made it clear," Justice Pardiwala expressed.

On September 23, the Court, while issuing notice in this matter, had directed: "On the returnable date, we want the respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively to depute a responsible officer and remain personally present before this Court with all necessary records including the maps, plans etc. and also the order passed regularising the alleged illegal construction put up by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively."

Recently, another bench refused to hear a matter when it was informed that in an ongoing case, an interlocutory application was filed and taken on record by the Supreme Court Registry without it being first served to the other party.

Case Details: RAJNISH KUMAR SANGHI v RAJ KEMTANI|SLP(C) No. 29936/2025