M/S Dysnieland Mela (Opc) Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs The State Of Tripura And 3 Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 611 Tri

Tripura High Court

M/S Dysnieland Mela (Opc) Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs The State Of Tripura And 3 Others on 16 February, 2026

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA

                       IA No.1 of 2026 in WP(C) 99 of 2026

M/S Dysnieland Mela (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. and another
                                                                      .........Applicant(s)
                                         Versus
The State of Tripura and 3 others
                                                                      ........Respondents.

For Applicant(s) : Mr. D.P. Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Jyotishmay Das, Advocate Mr. Monojit Biswas, Advocate Mr. Naushad Alam, Advocate Ms. Adwitiya Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Nabin Das, Advocate Mr. J. Samed, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A. Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate

HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD

Order

16.02.2026 [1] Heard.

[2] The present interlocutory application has been filed seeking stay of the operation of File No. 185/TSC/Permission/2018 (L)/3370 dated 15.12.2025 issued by the Secretary, Tripura Sports Council and/or direct the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to produce the original file record under File No. 185/TSC/Permission/2018(L)/3370 dated 15.12.2025, including the application of Respondent No. 4, noting sheets, approvals, and permission granted, for perusal by this Court.

[3] It has further been sought by the applicant by filing this instant application that the operation of the Letter under File No. 185/TSC/Permission /2018(L)/143 dated 05.02.2026 issued by the Secretary,

Tripura Sports Council (Annexure-7 to the connected WP) be also stayed. And prayer has also been made for maintaining status quo in respect of Swami Vivekananda Maidan, Agartala, as per the petitioners' prior permission dated 04.12.2025 and to restrain the respondents from proceeding with respondent No.4's proposed Expo on the said Maidan.

[4] Upon hearing the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of records more particularly paragraph 14 of the instant IA, this Court is of the view that the applicant by filing this instant interlocutory application has sought for multiple reliefs. In a single interlocutory application, it would not be proper to decide multiple issues. Further granting of injunction orders in respect of respondent No.4 in preventing him to run the exhibition which is functional from 15.02.2026 onwards by passing an ex parte order is not proper.

[5] In view of the above observations, this present IA stands dismissed.

[6] However, petitioner is granted liberty to file separate Interlocutory application in respect of separate reliefs.

JUDGE

Sabyasachi G.

SABYASACHI Digitally signed by SABYASACHI GHOSH GHOSH Date: 2026.02.16 17:21:59 +05'30'