(Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) What is challenged in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is interlocutory order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in a petition filed by the respondent herein for certain reliefs on the ground that after the respondent (original petitioner) purchased the property at the auction sale conducted by the appellant-GSFC under Section 29 of the SFC Act, 1950, the original owner of the property initiated the legal proceedings which lasted for a little over two years before the learned Single Judge, the Letters Patent Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that during pendency of the petition and the Letters Patent Appeal, the respondent herein was also prevented from renovating the property and, therefore, prevented from running the business of a hotelier. As the Officers of the appellant-Corporation were not permitting the respondent to carry on with the renovation of the property on the ground of default in payment as per the auction sale order dated 21.7.2000, the respondent herein filed the present civil application contending that the respondent was not responsible for the time taken in litigation initiated by the original owner against the appellant-Corporation and for the interim stay and uncertainty during pendency of the litigation. The respondent also stated that after making initial payment of Rs.1.58 Crores in August 2000 to the appellant-Corporation on acceptance of the respondent's offer to purchase the property at a price of Rs.4.51 Crores, the respondent had also paid a further sum of Rs.1.15 Crores in the years 2003 and 2004 and that the respondent had also undertaken the liabilities of the original owner to various statutory authorities to the tune of Rs.2.26 Crores and that in addition to the aforesaid amounts it had invested a total sum of Rs.4 Crores towards cost of renovation of the property in question till the date of filing the application on 20.12.2004. The respondent herein, therefore, prayed in the civil application for the following reliefs:-
"(A)to direct the opponent-Corporation to remove wire-fencing erected and signboard displayed on the site of the property in question at its instance and also the security personnel posted by it on the site immediately;
(B)to direct the opponent-Corporation to permit the applicant to resume work of renovation of the property in question and not to create any construction in the work of renovation so as to enable the applicant to start the hotel immediately in the property in question;"
2.The relevant portion of the order under appeal, reads as under:-
"Since the litigation was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 20.12.2002, Clause 3 of the order dated 21.7.2000 will come into operation from 1.1.2003 onwards.
Hence, if the applicant makes payment as per Clause 3 of the order dated 21.7.2000 from 1.1.2003 onwards to till date, the respondent is directed to hand over the possession to the applicant. The handing over of the possession to the applicant shall be subject to the condition of his making the payment of the installments."
3.It is contended by Mr Dave learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that the order under appeal purports to grant installments to the petitioner which cannot be done in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4.The order under appeal is obviously an interlocutory order and, therefore, has to be read as a temporary arrangement during pendency of the petition and would, therefore, abide by the final outcome of the petition. There is nothing in the order of the learned Single Judge which would prevent the appellant-Corporation from raising all available contentions at the final hearing of the petition including the contention that the respondent herein (petitioner) is bound to pay the Corporation interest for the entire period from 21.7.2000 onwards. We, however, make it clear that we refrain from expressing any opinion on the above contention which is to be examined at the final hearing of the petition.
5.As regards the apprehension raised by Mr Dave for the appellant-Corporation that the petitioner may not comply with the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-Corporation would be in a position to act in accordance with the conditional order of the learned Single Judge for which no clarification is required to be made by this Court. Moreover, it will be open to the appellant-Corporation to move the learned Single Judge for appropriate directions in case the respondent herein (petitioner) does not comply with the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge within a reasonable period.
6.Subject to the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7.As the appeal is disposed of, the Civil Application does not survive the same is accordingly disposed of.
(M.S. SHAH, J.) (D.H. WAGHELA,J.) zgs/-