<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (8) TMI 1562 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT  </title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305406</link>
    <description>A preliminary inquiry by the Lokayukt Organisation into whether municipal construction permission was granted illegally was held maintainable, because it was directed at officers of the Municipal Corporation and had not yet reached a coercive stage. The writ challenge was found premature, as the petitioner had not been summoned in any criminal case and any future coercive action remained contingent. The notice issued by the Corporation regarding alleged illegal construction was treated as an independent matter, and the petitioner was permitted to raise her defence before the Corporation, which could then proceed according to law. The writ petition was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=697513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1562 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT  </title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305406</link>
      <description>A preliminary inquiry by the Lokayukt Organisation into whether municipal construction permission was granted illegally was held maintainable, because it was directed at officers of the Municipal Corporation and had not yet reached a coercive stage. The writ challenge was found premature, as the petitioner had not been summoned in any criminal case and any future coercive action remained contingent. The notice issued by the Corporation regarding alleged illegal construction was treated as an independent matter, and the petitioner was permitted to raise her defence before the Corporation, which could then proceed according to law. The writ petition was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>