Stay on Food Court construction cannot continue absent sustainable objections to statutory or guideline violations.

The petitioners sought a writ directing the respondents to remove a proposed food court said to be under construction on Nehru Stadium property and the footpath of National Highway 766C, to consider their representations, and to repair the stadium fencing.

They alleged that construction had commenced without the necessary NOC and that their representations had not received a response.

Respondent No. 5 disputed that the food court was being built on the stadium or highway footpath, and stated that it was proposed to house street vendors on land allotted for the purpose; it also relied on an NOC dated 28 April 2026.

Respondent No. 5 further stated that a highway bypass was nearly complete.

The petition was disposed of after the Court considered the parties’ submissions and the materials on record.

1. Whether the Court should direct removal of the food court on the allegation that it was being constructed on stadium property and the National Highway footpath without the required approvals.

2. Whether the petitioners’ objections to the construction warranted continuation of the interim stay or other directions in the writ petition.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking, among other reliefs, mandamus.

Its stated principle is that sustainable objections raised before the competent respondents must be considered in accordance with law.

The Court considered the respondents’ assertions that the food court was proposed for a designated site, that an NOC had been issued, and that the construction did not offend applicable guidelines or statutory provisions.

In light of those submissions and the materials placed on record, it concluded that the interim stay could not continue.

Rather than adjudicate the disputed site or approval issues conclusively, the Court left any sustainable objections to be considered by the competent respondents in accordance with law.

It held that the interim stay could not continue and disposed of the petition, directing that any sustainable objections to the construction raised before the competent respondents be considered in accordance with law.