MOHAN ASHRAM MANAGING TRUSTEE/MUKHYA ADHISTHATA, VIRENDRA KUMAR SHASTRI, SHISHYA SWAMI SACHIDANAND, SARASWATI Vs. HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Pooja Banga, Advocate for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.8.2008 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) which has been passed by the Secretary of Haridwar Development Authority. By the impugned order permission to make a construction has been granted to respondent no. 2 in the development area which is under Haridwar Development Authority. The facts of the matter are that the petitioner had also moved a representation before the Commissioner of the Haridwar Development Authority who has ordered for status quo. However, Sri U.K. Uniyal, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 1 states that once the status quo has already been ordered in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has no grievance to agitate the present matter. On the other hand, Sri Sharad Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that respondent no. 2 is not abiding by the interim stay order. Sri U.K. Uniyal, learned senior counsel for the Haridwar Development Authority has further stated that the main argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 28.8.2008 has been obtained by respondent no. 2 i.e. by not presenting the entire facts before the Haridwar Development Authority and, therefore, the permission has been granted due to misrepresentation. Sri Uniyal further states that in such a given contingency the petitioner has a remedy under the statute, i.e. Section 15 (9) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 which reads as follows :"15. Application for permission .

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the above provision would also mean that in case a permission for making construction has been obtained by any person by which a third party is aggrieved, he can apprise the Vice Chairman of the development authority by stating that such a permission has been obtained either by misrepresentation or by not placing the entire facts and, therefore, the Vice Chairman is authorized under the statute to make necessary correction, modification in the earlier order which would include recalling the stay order. This being the provision of law, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Vice Chairman, Haridwar Development Authority to decide the representation of the present petitioner. The Vice Chairman shall consider all the relevant facts as well as the law presented by the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order. While deciding the representation of the petitioner, the Vice Chairman will also consider the objections and contentions of respondent no. 2. In case such a representation is made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the matter be decided expeditiously in any case within eight weeks. It is also clarified that till such representation is disposed of the status quo on property in dispute shall be maintained and no construction shall be allowed on the property in dispute.