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. 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