SHASHI TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. Opposite party No. 2, namely, Allahabad Develop ment Authority, Allahabad filed a complaint under Section 26 of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 against the revisionist. She appeared and filed an application and took a preliminary objection to the maintenance of the proceedings on the grounds that the complaint was filed beyond time and that it was filed without the sanction of the competent authority as con templated under Section 49 of the Act. The trial court came to the conclusion that the sanction was obtained as required by Section 49 of the Act and that the complaint is within time as according to the trial court the limitation is to run from the date the sanction is accorded. The preliminary objections taken were rejected. The accused has come to this Court in revision.

(2.) THE sanction accorded under Section 49 was attached to the complaint. It has been contended in the grounds of revision that the sanction filed with the complaint did not bear the signature of the person authorised by the Vice-Chairman to accord sanction. THE sanction under Section 49 of the Act has to be given by the Vice-Chairman or any officer authorised by him in that behalf. This sanction has to be proved by the complainant at the time of adducing evidence. At present it cannot be said that the complaint was filed without sanction.

(3.) THE revision is allowed in part of the admission stage. THE order of the trial court holding the complaint to be within time is set aside. THE trial court is directed to decide the question of limitation in the light of the discussion made above and in accordance with law. Revision partly allowed. .