Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 853 OF 2010
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.36678 of 2009]
Indore Development Authority … Appellant
Vs.
Mangal Amusement (P) Ltd. … Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted. Mr. T. Mahipal, learned counsel
appears on caveat for respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3
and 4 being proforma parties, insofar as the present
appeal is concerned, notice to them is dispensed. Heard
the learned counsel.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before the
Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the constitutional
validty of section 23-A of the Nagar Tathagram Vinesh
Adhiniyam 1973, as amended by Act No.22 of 2005, and
challenging the notification dated 19.11.2003 issued by
the State Government regarding change of use of land and
certain consequential reliefs.
2
3. It would appear that the writ petition was listed on
several occasions. However, as it could not be finally
disposed of, a Division Bench of the High Court on
9.10.2009 passed the impugned interim order permitting
the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2) to construct
at their own risk, a restaurant, Banquet Hall etc., in
seven acres of land granted by the appellant-Authority to
them on licence basis for running a children’s amusement
park. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Authority has
filed this appeal by special leave.
4. Among several contentions on merits, the Authority
has also contended that the interim order virtually
amounts to allowing the writ petition at the stage of
interim order. We agree with the said contention. If
respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to construct the
restaurant and banquet hall, etc. in a land held by them
on licence from the Authority, even before the writ
petition filed by them is heard and disposed, it would
amount to allowing the writ petition at interim order
stage. It will also cause complications if the writ
petition is rejected ultimately. The more appropriate
course would be to hear the main matter itself
expeditiously.
3
5. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2
submitted that the appellant herein was not extending co-
operation, for hearing and disposal of the writ petition
and that was one of the reasons why the interim order was
issued. Learned counsel for the appellant denied the
allegation, but assured that the appellant will be ready
to argue and will extend co-operation for early disposal.
6. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed, the
impugned interim order is set aside with a request to the
High Court to dispose of the writ petition itself
expeditiously, preferably within three months.
___________________J.
(R. V. Raveendran)
New Delhi; ____________________J.
January 22, 2010. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)