ORDER 1. Shri Bagadiya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that vide order dated 11.12.2020 this Court has granted stay of operation of impugned order dated 28.9.2019 (Annexure P/9) whereby respondent was granted development permission. This Court has granted ex-parte stay in favour of the petitioner treating respondent No.2 as served in this petition, but respondent No.2 has never been served. Hence, respondent No.2 has filed an application (I.A. No.4218/2020) for vacating stay. 2. Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that vide order dated 22.2.2021 this Court has directed the State Government to file reply because the order passed in favour of respondent No.2 is under challenge in this petition and till today, reply has not been filed, therefore, hearing of the application for vacating stay be deferred. 3. Shri Bagadiya, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the present petition is not maintainable for want of alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal available u/s. 31 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1973” for short) and the petitioner has given a wrong declaration in Para 3 of the petition that there is no alternative and efficacious remedy available to it, hence on this ground alone the petition is liable to be dismissed. Shri Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner 4. submits that he is ready to argue the matter on this preliminary objection. He submits that u/s. 31 of the Act of 1973 the remedy of appeal is available to the 'applicant' who submitted an application for permission for develop0ment u/s. 29 of the Act of 1973, hence the present petitioner being an objector is not having any remedy to file an appeal and writ petition is the only remedy available to it. 5. Shri Bagadiya, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the word 'applicant' mentioned in section 31 cannot be given restrictive meaning to the 'applicant' who submitted an application for development. Any person aggrieved by an order granting permission can file an appeal. 6. For ready reference, section 29, 30 and 31 of the Act of 1973 are reproduced below : “29. Any person aggrieved by an order granting permission can file an appeal. 6. For ready reference, section 29, 30 and 31 of the Act of 1973 are reproduced below : “29. Application for permission for development by others.- [(1) Any person, not being the Union Government, State Government, a local authority or a special authority constituted under this Act, intending to carry out any development on any land, shall make an application in writing to the Director for permission, in such form and containing such particulars and accompanied by such documents complying with the provisions of Acts, rules and bye-laws relating to development, control of the natural hazard prone area as may be prescribed.] (2) Such application shall also be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. 30. Grant or refusal of permission. - (1) On receipt of an application under section 29 the Director may, subject to the provisions of this Act, by order in writing,- (a) grant the permission unconditionally; (b) grant the permission, subject to such conditions as may, be deemed necessary under the circumstances; (c) refuse the permission. (2) Every order granting permission subject to conditions, or refusing permission shall state the grounds for imposing such conditions or for such refusal. (3) Any permission granted under sub-section (2) with or without conditions shall be in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) Every order under sub-section (2) shall be communicated to the applicant in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) If the Director does not communicate his decision whether to grant or refuse permission to the applicant within [sixty days] from the date of receipt of his application, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant on the date immediately following the date of expiry of [sixty days] : Provided that in computing the period of [sixty days] the period in between the date of requisitioning any further information or documents from the applicant and date of receipt of such information or documents from the applicant shall be excluded. 31. Appeal. 31. Appeal. - [(3) Any applicant aggrieved by an order granting permission on condition or refusing permission under section 30 may, within thirty days of the date of communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal to such authority, in such manner and accompanied by such foes as may be prescribed.] (2) [The appellate authority may], after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant and the Director to be heard, by order, dismiss the appeal or allow the appeal by granting permission unconditionally or subject to the conditions as modified. (3) Subject to the provisions of section 32 the order of the appellate authority shall be final.” 7. According to section 29, any person not being the Union Government, State Government, a local authority or a special authority constituted under this Act, intending to carry out any development on any land, shall made an application in writing to the Director for permission for development. Sub-section (3) of section 29 permits the applicant to submit an application for modification of the permission granted u/s. 30, if not already lapsed. In the present case, respondent No.2 had already been granted permission for development by the Director, but an application under sub-section (3) of section 29 was filed seeking modification of the permission in which the present petitioner and one another have submitted objections. 8. As per section 30 of the Act of 1973, on receipt of an application u/s. 29, the Director may, subject to the provisions of this Act, by order in writing - (a) grant the permission unconditionally; (b) grant the permission, subject to such conditions as may, be deemed necessary under the circumstances; and (c) refuse the permission. As per Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30, in case of an application under sub-section (3) of section 29, the Director shall not pass any order unless he has heard such persons as may have interest in the proposed modification. In the present case, vide impugned order (Annexure P/9), the development permission has been granted to respondent No.2 with certain conditions. 9. Section 31 of the Act of 1973 gives right to file an appeal by the applicant who is aggrieved by an order granting permission with conditions or refusing the permission u/s. 30. It is settled law that the right of appeal is a statutory right. 9. Section 31 of the Act of 1973 gives right to file an appeal by the applicant who is aggrieved by an order granting permission with conditions or refusing the permission u/s. 30. It is settled law that the right of appeal is a statutory right. No person can prefer an appeal without there being any right given in the statute. It is clear from section 31(1) of the Act of 1973 that only an “applicant” aggrieved by an order grant permission with condition/s and refusing permission can prefer an appeal. Therefore, the present petitioner does not come under the category of “applicant” in this case. Respondent No.2 is an applicant to submit an application u/s. 29 of the Act of 1973 and the permission has been granted u/s. 30. Hence, Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is right in contending that the petitioner has no remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the present petition is maintainable. 10.In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by respondent No.2 is hereby overruled. The respondent/State is directed to file reply positively within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, application for vacating stay shall be heard without the reply because there is stay operating against the development permission granted for limited period. 11. List on 28.6.2021.