Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Rawat vs Indore Development Authority on 4 December, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35497
1 WP-15087-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15087 of 2025
RAVI RAWAT AND OTHERS
Versus
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harshavardhan Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondents [R-1, 2].
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"7.1.Quashing the impugned revocation notice dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P/11);
7.2.Refund of amount to the tune of Rs. 46,22,762/- along with nterest @ 8% p.a. to petitioner no. 2;
7.3 Issuance of fresh demand note to petitioner no. 1 with respect of payment of first instalment of premium amount for Shop no. 9, RCM-14 according to reservation letter dated 19.12.2019; 7.4 Not to charge any penal interest on the subsequent demand notes being the petitioner no. 1 not at fault; 7.5 Cost be awarded to the petitioners;
7.6 Any other directions as this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice may deem fit."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/4/2025 6:30:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35497 2 WP-15087-2025 i n W.P. No.16120/2023 (Devendra and Another Vs. Indore Development Authority and Another) dated 17.02.2024 wherein also, a similar petition was allowed, when the respondents had refused to accept the payment made on behalf of petitioner No.1 by petitioner No.2, and in the present case also, the premium amount as per the bid condition has been paid by petitioner No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that petitioner No.1 is also ready to deposit the amount as has been ordered by this Court in the case of Devendra (Supra).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer but could not deny that the order passed in Devendra (Supra) has not been challenged as yet before the Division Bench, however, he has submitted that the said order is distinguishable as the Rule 12 of Madhya Pradesh Vikas Pradhikarano Ki Sampattiyon Ka Prabandhan Tatha Vyayan Niyam, 2018 is not interpreted in a proper manner.
5. Firstly, it is not for this Court having co-ordinate jurisdiction to enter upon the said question. In any case having gone through the entire judgment passed in the case of Devendra (Supra) I am in complete agreement with the same and do not see any reason to take a different view.
6. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioners is identical to that of Devendra (Supra) and thus, the petition is hereby disposed off in terms of the order passed in the case of Devendra (Supra).
7. Accordingly, considering the fact that the amount is already lying with the respondents, which has been paid by petitioner No.2 on behalf of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/4/2025 6:30:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35497 3 WP-15087-2025 petitioner No.1, it is directed that the amount of Rs.46,22,762/- be returned to petitioner No.2 along with 6% interest, and within seven days therefrom, the petitioner No.1 shall be allowed to deposit the entire amount along with 6% interest.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE VD Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/4/2025 6:30:47 PM