2013 (2) TMI 847 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the authority of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) to levy development charges under Section 32A of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, and the grant of Non-Agricultural Use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

Issue 1: Authority of GIDC to levy development charges
The applicant challenged the order passed by respondent No.3 (GIDC) levying development charges, causing a delay in the construction project. The applicant argued that GIDC does not have the authority to levy such charges. The applicant sought a direction for Non-Agricultural Use permission and issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to proceed with the project. The respondent contended that GIDC is empowered to levy development charges as per the GID Act, and addressing this issue in the present application would amount to deciding the main petition.

Issue 2: Grant of Non-Agricultural Use permission
The applicant requested the court to direct the authorities to grant Non-Agricultural Use permission for the land in question. The applicant's counsel argued that the delay in obtaining the NOC and permission is causing irreparable loss and hindering the project. The respondent opposed the application, stating that granting the relief sought in the application would be akin to deciding the main petition prematurely.

Judicial Analysis:
The court compared the prayers made in the petition with those in the application and found them substantially similar. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that granting final relief at an interim stage is not advisable. Referring to relevant judgments, the court highlighted that interim orders should not provide the principal relief sought in the petition. As the prayers in the application mirrored those in the pending petition, granting them would effectively decide the main issue before final adjudication. Therefore, the court rejected the application based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the application, emphasizing that granting the prayers in the application would amount to deciding the main petition prematurely. The court relied on legal precedents to support its decision, highlighting the importance of not providing final relief at an interim stage. The application was dismissed based on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court regarding interim orders and final adjudication of issues raised in petitions.