MAYA DEVI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is in effect directed against the Public Works Department, Aligarh and the Municipal Board, Aligarh, the two respondents, ar rayed in the writ petition. The petitioner seeks certiorari to quash the order dated 9. 5. 1994 passed in proceeding No. 38 under sub-clause 13 (2) of the U. P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945.

(2.) THE issue is that upon a notice which was given to the petitioner to resist con struction next to a road, the petitioner took law in her hands and completed the con struction. THE construction was a shop. THE petitioner says that she had purchased the shop in 1984. THE notice from the Public Works Department (P. W. D.) addressed to the petitioner is dated 9. 5. 1994, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By this notice issued by the Collector, Aligarh, the petitioner had also been cautioned that the construction on progress, if not removed, will be demolished. THE petitioner continued with her action. Ultimately, she was required to appear before the Court of the S. D. M. /prescribed Authority, under the Act aforesaid.

(3.) BEFORE the Court, it has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the area is densely populated and no reason has been given why the petitioner was singled out for proceeding in removing the construction or her occupation on the present site. In running an administration there is no inequality from where an ad ministrative action may begin in taking care of an illegality as the issue clearly is to make the petitioner conform to the law. The notice which the petitioner received had already indicated to her that she had proceeded with the construction without the permission of the Collector. Even to day as submissions are made in this matter before the Court, it is accepted that the construction was made without permission. The petitioner took the law in her own hands and must face the risk and consequen ces.