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.

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.  

2

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)

3