Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 634 (MP)

Mantri Mantri and Company v. State of M. P.

2007-06-21

J.K.MAHESHWARI, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2007
ORDER Kulshrestha, J. -- 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.3.2007 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 1642/2007 in relation to the action taken by the respondents against the appellant under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974, allegedly after cancellation of the plots No. 28 and 29, which were allotted to the appellant by the District Trade and Industries Center, Indore. The said petition was filed assailing the order of the Commissioner, Indore Division, declining to grant stay during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the petition, has granted liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for interim relief before the appellate authority (Commissioner, Indore Division) with direction to the appellate authority that it shall consider the application and decide the same on merit by a reasoned order expeditiously. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that on account of the refusal of the Commissioner to grant stay during pendency of the appeal before him against the order of the Competent Authority under the said Adhiniyam, the proceedings before the" Commissioner have virtually become infructuous and in the meanwhile, the respondents have obtained possession from the appellant and the respondents are taking expeditiously steps to allot the said plots to the intervenor Nilesh Jain. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that since in the lease deed the dispute was to be referred to the named arbitrator, namely the Commissioner, the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Bedakhali Adhiniyam were null and void and the order passed by the Competent Authority, a nullity. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that insofar as the stipulation with regard to arbitration is concerned the appellant has not agitated the same either before the Competent Authority or before the appellate authority (Commissioner) and, therefore, the appellant is trying to seek relief on the basis of extraneous material, in the present case we are not required to deal with the contention that in the case of the arbitration clause in the agreement, whether the proceedings under the Bedakhali Adhiniyam are a nullity. The appeal of the appellant is pending before the Commissioner and the appellant will be at liberty to raise all legal grounds in the said appeal. The appeal of the appellant is pending before the Commissioner and the appellant will be at liberty to raise all legal grounds in the said appeal. The only aspect that concerns us is as to whether stay should be granted during the pendency of the appeal. 4. From the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the penultimate paragraph it is manifest that the learned Single Judge has also shown concern about the refusal of the stay during pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner and it is in this backdrop that the Commissioner has been directed to decide the application renewing the prayer, by a reasoned order. Under these circumstances, instead of dilating the issue, we are of the considered view that stay should be granted to the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner. The appellant submits that although possession has been obtained from him of the said plots, the plots have not been allotted to any third party. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Commissioner, Indore Division, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the said plots and in the event the possession of the plots has not been given to any third party, the respondents shall not, in any manner, alienate the property. 6. With the above direction with regard to the stay application filed by the appellant before the Commissioner, this appeal is finally disposed of. We expect that the Commissioner would dispose of the appeal pending before him expeditiously and preferably within six months from today.