Indore Development Authority vs Mangal Amusement (P) Ltd & Ors

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)