Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudhir Badoliya vs Indore Development Authority Through ... on 1 August, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20309
1 WP-3202-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3202 of 2024
SUDHIR BADOLIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Naveen Kumar Singh, Advocate for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
" It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court maybe pleased to issue a writ, order or direction of appropriate nature against the respondents for:-
7.1 Refund of amount to the tune of Rs.
31,57,270/- along with interest @ 8% p.a.to petitioner no. 2;
7.2 Issuance of fresh demand note to petitioner no.1 with respect of payment of first installment of premium amount for Shop no. 15, RCM-13 according to reservation letter dated 19. 12.2019;
7.3 Not to charge any penal interest on the subsequent demand notes being the petitioner no. 1 not at fault;
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 02-08-2025 12:41:13NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20309 2 WP-3202-2024 7.4 Cost be awarded to the petitioners;
7.5 Any other directions as this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice may deem fit."
2. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 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 the petitioner No.1 by the petitioner No.2, and in the present case also, the premium amount as per the bid condition has been paid by the petitioner No.2.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioner No.1 is also ready to deposit the amount as has been ordered by this Court in the case of Devendra (Supra).
4. Counsel for the respondent 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 Sampatiyon 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 02-08-2025 12:41:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20309 3 WP-3202-2024 case of the petitioner is identical to that of Devendra (Supra) and thus, the petition is hereby disposed of 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 the petitioner No.2 on behalf of petitioner No.1, it is directed that the amount of Rs.31,57,270/- be returned to the 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 of.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE sumathi Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 02-08-2025 12:41:13