Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the Mhow Cantonment Board’s decision to shift Rakhi shops from MG Road to designated locations near the district court premises and the food court, observing that the arrangement was made with the objective of keeping the busy road open for traffic.
A division bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi dismissed an appeal filed by a Rakhi shopkeeper challenging an earlier order of the High Court that had refused to interfere with the Cantonment Board’s decision.
The dispute arose after the Mhow Cantonment Board directed Rakhi sellers to shift their shops to designated spaces near the district court and at the food court. The shopkeepers had challenged the move before the High Court, but the writ petition was rejected on Aug 21. The shopkeeper subsequently approached the division bench in appeal.
Board cites traffic congestion
During the hearing, the respondents told the court that notices had been issued since 2025 as part of efforts to keep MG Road open and free from congestion. The Cantonment Board said the alternative spaces were being provided not only to street vendors but also to shop owners operating businesses from their residential premises.
According to the respondents, basic facilities, including electricity and other amenities, were also being provided at the designated locations, making the arrangement more suitable in the larger public interest.
The appellant, however, alleged that the action was motivated by mala fide intentions. He claimed that after he and other shopkeepers had earlier sought allotment of shops on the MG Road footpath, the authorities issued directions requiring them to shift to temporary food-court stalls during the festive season. He also challenged subsequent notices relating to alleged change in land use.
Court: Traffic-management objective cannot be doubted
The division bench noted that all the writ petitioners, including the present appellant, had already accepted allotment of the alternative shops, though the appellant claimed that they had done so under pressure.
The court nevertheless held that the material fact was that the Cantonment Board had made the arrangement with the specific objective of keeping the street open for traffic, an intention the bench said could not be doubted.
Finding no illegality or error in the earlier order, the bench dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.
