"Is Supreme Court only for the rich?" Private resort refused urgent hearing

The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that listing of cases should not be in such a manner that rich litigants are able to secure hearings out of turn..The Court made the observation while refusing to urgently list a plea filed by a Gujarat-based real estate and private resort management company called Wildwoods Resorts and Realties.A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan eventually relisted the matter in August 2025. The Court also asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was appearing for the company, whether there was any urgency to hear the matter on priority, particularly since the company had managed to get it listed today after mentioning it earlier before the Bench led by the Chief Justice of India. The Bench pointed out that while the Gujarat High Court order under challenge was passed in December 2024, the company had filed its appeal only last month. "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," Justice Datta said..This impression goes that Supreme Court is only for the rich? We won't have it.Supreme Court.Though Rohatgi urged the Court to hear the matter in July this year instead, the Court refused to budge. "Milords, have it in July," Rohatgi urged. "No, in January 2026," Justice Datta replied. However, the matter was eventually ordered to be relisted in August 2025. .The matter concerns the grant of approval for Wildwoods to set up a resort near the Gir National Park in Gujarat. The company had earlier moved the Gujarat High Court for relief, after the State Board for Wildlife declined to recommend that the project move ahead.The company told the High Court that it had entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the State government in 2009 and given the assurance that the State would extend logistical support for executing the project, pursuant to which it purchased large parcels of land. It had urged the High Court to direct the State-level Board to reconsider its application. The State government opposed the company's plea, contending that the proposed resort project was too close to the boundaries of the Gir wildlife sanctuary. The State argued that at least 1 kilometer distance has to be maintained.The High Court eventually declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed Wildwoods Resorts' plea. A Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi noted that even its MoU with the State clearly mentioned that the execution of the project would be subject to further approvals. It concluded that there was no good reason for the High Court to interfere with the State Board for Wildlife's decision in the matter. "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," the High Court had said in its December 2024 ruling. .Land deals entered into by Wildwoods Resorts had reportedly drawn controversy in 2016 after it was accused of being able to acquire land near the Gir sanctuary due to political favoritism, since it was led by the business associates of the daughter of the then-Chief Minister. These allegations were denied by the company as well as the State government. Then-Chief Minister, Anandiben Patel's daughter also denied these allegations, while higlighting that she was neither a shareholder nor a director in Wildwoods Resorts. .[Read order]