Today, On 1st May, The Supreme Court declined an urgent hearing for a private resort, asking, “Is the Supreme Court only for the rich?” and listed the matter for January 2026 since the order was from December 2024.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court cautioned against case listing practices that could favor wealthy litigants, allowing them to bypass standard procedures for expedited hearings. This statement came during the refusal to expedite a hearing for Wildwoods Resorts and Realties, a real estate company from Gujarat.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan scheduled the case for January 2026. The court questioned the urgency of the matter, especially considering the company’s swift listing after an earlier mention before the Chief Justice.
Also Read: Supreme Court: Courts Have Authority to Determine Interest Rates
They noted the delay between the Gujarat High Court’s December 2024 order and the company’s appeal filing in April.
Justice Datta stated,
“Mr. Rohatgi, what was the urgency in the matter, you mentioned it before the Chief Justice?…it’s an order of 11th December and you file SLP in April and mention without any urgency and your matter is listed on May 1 (today)? I want to see the mention memo that your AoR moved. This impression goes that Supreme Court is only for the rich? We won’t have it. What is the urgency? I am directing your matter to be relisted in January 2026.”
Despite Rohatgi’s plea for an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the request.
Rohatgi urged,
“Milords, have it in July,”
Justice Datta replied,
“No, in January 2026,”
The case revolves around the approval for Wildwoods to establish a resort in proximity to Gujarat’s Gir National Park. Wildwoods had initially sought relief from the Gujarat High Court after the State Board for Wildlife refused to endorse the project’s advancement.
Also Read: ANALYSIS| ‘How High Courts Should tackle Conflicting Judgments’: Supreme Court clarifies
The company informed the High Court that a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was established with the state government in 2009, guaranteeing logistical support for the project’s execution, which prompted the company to acquire significant land parcels.
Wildwoods requested the High Court to instruct the State-level Board to re-evaluate its application. The State government opposed the plea, asserting that the proposed resort was situated too close to the Gir wildlife sanctuary’s boundaries, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining a minimum 1-kilometer distance.
Ultimately, the High Court opted not to intervene and dismissed Wildwoods Resorts’ plea.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the MoU with the State explicitly stated that project execution was contingent upon obtaining further approvals. They concluded that there was no valid justification for the High Court to override the State Board for Wildlife’s decision.
The High Court stated in its December 2024 judgment,
“Within the limited scope of judicial review, this Court cannot act as a Court of appeal to substitute its view with that of the decision taken by the expert body in its domain area,”
Also Read: Supreme Court Petition Challenges Delhi High Court’s Senior Advocate Designation Process
Land transactions involving Wildwoods Resorts reportedly sparked controversy in 2016, with accusations of the company securing land near the Gir sanctuary through political favoritism, given its leadership by business associates of the then-Chief Minister’s daughter.
Both the company and the State government refuted these allegations. The daughter of the then-Chief Minister, Anandiben Patel, also denied the claims, emphasizing that she held no shares and was not a director in Wildwoods Resorts.