Development Authority Vs. Mangal Amusement (P) Ltd & Ors.  INSC 169
(22 January 2010)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 853 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C)
No.36678 of 2009] Indore Development Authority ... Appellant 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
Heard the learned counsel.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)