Madhya Pradesh HC Upholds Measures By Indore Municipality To Curb Traffic Congestion At Tourist Attraction '56 Dukan' Food Street

Justice Subodh Abhyankar in his order observed:

 “Traffic jams are not new to the world and are known to be highly contagious, and a judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that if the vehicles are allowed to enter in the 56 Dukan area from MG road, it would lead to a total chaos, because it would not only lead to heavy congestion at the 56 Dukan area itself but also on the MG road, and no reasonable person can shut its eyes on the same. It is often seen that even now when the vehicles are not allowed in the 56 Dukan zone from M.G. Road due to barricading, in order to avoid a mile long roundabout with a couple of traffic lights, many vehicles, including two wheelers and four wheelers stop or park on the M.G. Road as their occupants crave for Poha, Jalebi, Samosa, Kachori or any other food items, but these small stops of countless vehicles also create a traffic congestion on the M.G. Road, and since it is in close proximity to one of the heaviest traffic zones...In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the decision of barricading of the road as aforesaid by the Municipal Corporation is a well thought and well considered decision, taken in larger public interest only, and cannot be interfered with.”

The petition was filed by 33 Petitioners, shop owners in the building One Centre (Popularly known as 56 Dukan), Indore. The petitioners were aggrieved by the respondents including the State Government and the Municipal Corporation, Indore for restraining them from free access to their shops from M.G. road, Indore, by erecting steel pillars, and also by encroaching upon the parking space/MOS of the aforesaid building.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that occupancy certificate was issued after completion of One Centre, and the petitioners after purchasing the shops in the aforesaid building had started their respective businesses. However, the respondent Nos. 3/Collector, 4/Indore Municipal Corporation and 5/Indore Smart City Development Limited obstructed the main entrance of the building from MG Road by constructing shops on the open space/MOS parking in the premises which are being used by the respondent No. 4 for running flower shop, pan shop, feeding center and public toilet etc., blocking the main entrance of the building.

It was further submitted that due to the barriers constructed by the respondents on the south side of the building, the vehicles including two wheelers and four wheelers are not able approach the building from MG Road side which has caused extreme financial prejudice to the shop owners.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents has submitted that the customers visiting the disputed building can easily use the parking space of the building through its northern side. It was further submitted that the vehicles have been deliberately restrained from coming to the 56 Dukan area from MG Road, with a view to reduce the traffic jam, which otherwise would have been unmanageable. The respondents argued that the aforesaid steps of blocking the entry of the vehicle was taken to transform the unorganized food street 56 Dukan with no proper utilities. With regard to the construction in the open space, it was submitted that the petitioner could take resort to the provisions as contained in Section 307(5) (Remedy before District Court) of the Act of 1956.

It was further submitted that only on account of the erection of the barriers/blockades, per day footfall in the 56 Dukan area has increased, which is surely beneficial to the petitioners.

With regard to grievance regarding the encroachment, the Court asked the petitioner to take recourse of the statutory remedy under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956, which provides for removal of any encroachment by filing an application before the District Court.

Further, with regard to the issue of removal of obstructions raised on the road, the Court noted that the road has only been partially barricaded, as certain steel barricades have been erected only with a view to restrain the vehicles, including the two and the four wheelers to enter into the 56 Dukan area from MG road.

“…56 Dukan itself is a place of prominent tourist attraction in Indore, being the most visited street food hub. It is also found that due to its location and growing popularity, the Municipal Corporation and the State Government have made certain arrangements for proper traffic regulation, and the vehicles' entry from the MG road to 56 Dukan area has been restricted. This, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be said to be an arbitrary action, especially when the road itself is not blocked/closed and cannot even be said to be partially closed, because being partially closed means that only a certain part of the road is closed and not the entire road, whereas, in the present case, only the entry of vehicles is restricted, and not the entry of the people as the pedestrians are allowed to walk through the steel barricades.”, the Court said.

Thereafter, the Court perused Section 317 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (Closing of Streets) which provides Corporation the power to close the whole, or any part of the public street with the previous sanction of the State Government. Thus, the Court said that the action of the Municipal Corporation to restrict the entry of the vehicles from MG road cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

The Court also took notice of the fact that if the vehicles are allowed to enter in the 56 Dukan area from MG road, it would lead to a total chaos as it would not only lead to heavy congestion at the 56 Dukan area but also on the MG road. Thus, the Court opined that the barricading of the road as by the Municipal Corporation was a well thought decision taken in larger public interest and should not be interfered with.

Case Title: Dharmendra And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh Department Of Urban Development And Housing And Others, Writ Petition No. 28811 Of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 74

Click Here To Read/Download Order