Indore: HC admits plea against move to include 29 villages in IMC | indore | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 20, 2017-Monday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Indore: HC admits plea against move to include 29 villages in IMC

indore Updated: Dec 20, 2014 18:23 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times
high court

A double bench of high court on Friday admitted the petition challenging the legality of including only 29 villages, and not the 90, as mandated by the master plan, within the Indore municipal limits. The double bench comprised Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice PK Jaiswal.

The petition had been filed by social activist Kishore Kodwani on January 8, 2013.

The final hearing of this case is likely to take place in the first week of January, 2015, when the court reopens after winter break.

Kodwani’s petition stated that as per the master plan 2021 of Indore, 90 villages on the outskirts should be merged in municipal area and, in the process, it would increase the geographical area of Indore from 130 square kms to 500 sq km.

“But, the IMC is merging only 29 villages and they have even failed to explain the criteria for selection of these villages,” said Kodwani.

He said out of these villages nine were merged in 1960, 11 were merged in 1976, and now 29 are merged in 2014 without giving proper explanation. Forty-one villages were left out without any specific reason.

Legal experts said that an adverse decision might once again derail the municipal elections in Indore.

It may be mentioned that Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the MP high court order of November 11, 2014, in which the judges had ruled that the merger of 29 villages within municipal limits was illegal.

The SC stay order by chief justice of India HL Dattu and Justice AK Sikri and Justice RK Agrawal had come as a huge relief for the administration and had paved the way for holding of corporation elections in Indore.

The petitioner of this case, advocate Anil Trivedi said he was yet to receive the notice issued by the Supreme Court in this connection. “I will have to see what ground was presented by the state government in their petition and I too will get chance to present my arguments,” he said.