During the hearing of a matter concerning the regularisation of alleged illegal constructions, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the non-appearance of officials despite notices — including dasti service — having been duly served. Consequently, the Court has directed the Commissioner of the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation to personally appear at the next hearing and explain why no responsible officer was deputed in compliance with the earlier order.

A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan observed,

“Our previous order made it abundantly clear that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall depute a responsible officer to remain personally present with the relevant records. We are informed that service was effected on October 24, 2024, yet none has appeared today. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, shall be personally present with records on the next date and explain the non-compliance.”

The proceedings began with counsel for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (Municipal Corporation and its Commissioner) submitting that the Law Department had only recently received the case files and sought additional time to examine them.

Meanwhile, the Bench noted that the petitioner had failed to serve Respondent Nos. 1 and 2—two private parties—even though notice, including dasti, had been issued earlier. Justice Pardiwala reproached the petitioner’s counsel, stating,

“You have been equally careless. If you obtain an order and take dasti, you must ensure service is completed. You are not being particular about your own case, so we are not inclined to take your submissions seriously.”

He further directed the respondents’ counsel to ensure that the Commissioner is present with an adequate explanation and all relevant documents:

“Ask your Commissioner to be here personally and explain why a responsible officer was not deputed as earlier directed,” Justice Pardiwala emphasized.

Earlier, on September 23, while issuing notice, the Court had explicitly ordered Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to personally remain present before it with maps, plans, and the regularisation order concerning the alleged illegal construction.

Recently, in a separate case, another Supreme Court Bench also declined to proceed when it was informed that an interlocutory application had been taken on record by the Registry without being served on the opposing party.

Case Title: Rajnish Kumar Sanghi v. Raj Kemtani

Case No.: SLP(C) No. 29936/2025