USHA SAVITA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved by action of the respondents whereby, they are not unlocking/opening the marriage garden known as Swayamvar Vatika situated in front of R.R.Tower, Near Janaktal Bahodapur district Gwalior despite of the fact that name of aforesaid marriage garden finds place in the list of marriage gardens which are fulfilling the required criteria as per news published in daily Newspaper 'Swadesh' on 11.1.2020. The marriage of petitioners' son/daughters is to be solemnized on 15th, 16th, 17th, 29th and 31st of 2020 and entire preparations have been made. But marriage garden has been locked and not being opened by the authorities despite repeated requests. He has drawn attention of this court to the newspaper report dated 11th January, 2020 wherein, names of marriage gardens whose locks are to be opened are specifically mentioned and the name of Swyamvar Marriage Garden A.B. Road has also been mentioned. The marriage cards are being filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that if the lock is not opened then marriage could not be solemnized and they will be suffering irreparable loss and it will cause aspersion to them. He has drawn attention of this court to the order passed by Division Bench of this court in Review Petition No.29 of 2020 (Vrithar Gwalior Marriage House Assn. Gwalior Vs. State of M.P.) wherein, interim order has been passed on 7.1.2020 to the following effect :

(2.) He prayed for opening of the lock of the marriage garden as stated herein above.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the State has drawn attention of this court to the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this court on 10.1.2020 in W.P.No.835 of 2020 (Rajendra Prasad Sharma and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others) wherein, in similar circumstances, the coordinate Bench has dismissed the writ petition holding that the remedy is available to the petitioner to file civil suit for claiming damages. It is further contended that the coordinate bench has considered this aspect that the writ petition has been filed seeking specific performance of contract entered into between petitioners and respondent No.5. It is further contended that the matter is pending consideration before Division Bench. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.