Appellate authorities must independently decide appeal maintainability, uninfluenced by observations in the writ order.

Respondent No. 13 had sought a direction for the authorities to decide an application concerning development permission under the Chhattisgarh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973.

The Single Judge directed the authorities to consider and decide the application under Section 74 after notice to affected persons, without expressing any view on its maintainability or merits, and to complete the exercise within 90 days.

The appellant challenged that order, contending that Section 74 did not provide a maintainable remedy and that the relevant permissions had been granted in 2000; he also relied on the dismissal of an earlier writ petition and submitted that his maintainability objection before the authority remained pending.

Respondent No. 13 disputed that the objection remained pending.

1. Whether the Single Judge’s direction to consider the Section 74 application warranted interference in the writ appeal.

2. Whether the appellate authority could determine the application’s maintainability and merits independently, without being influenced by the impugned order.

Section 74 of the Chhattisgarh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 was the provision under which the application or appeal before the authority had been brought.

The appellant referred to Sections 30(3) and 31 of the Act in support of his contention that the proper remedy was an appeal subject to a 30-day limitation period.

The Division Bench did not decide the statutory maintainability question or apply any cited precedent; it left that question, along with the merits, to the competent authority for determination in accordance with law.

The authority was to afford the concerned parties an opportunity of hearing.

The Court noted that an appeal had already been filed before the authority and that the parties disagreed about whether the appellant’s preliminary objection to maintainability was still pending.

Because the authority could decide that objection and the merits, and because the Single Judge had expressed no opinion on either, the Division Bench found no reason to interfere at that stage.

It clarified that the authority must decide the matter independently and not be influenced by any observations in the impugned order.

The appellate authority was left to decide the maintainability and merits in accordance with law, after hearing the concerned parties, and was requested to endeavour to dispose of the matter early.