VISHNU BHAGWAN AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority and Mr. Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. As the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous in nature, issuance of notice to the opposite party No.4 is dispensed with. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the Lucknow Development Authority has filed an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority. Subsequently, he preferred a revision before the State Government under Section 41 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and the same has not been decided by the revisional authority. During pendency of revision, the Lucknow Development Authority is threatening the petitioner to demolish the structures, which have been erected by him and as such, an urgency has arisen for filing the instant writ petition in this Court for a direction to the opposite party No.2 to decide the pending revision, expeditiously. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the revisional authority has fixed the revision for hearing on 10.6.2009. Accordingly, the opposite party No.2 is directed to decide the revision, in accordance with law, on the date fixed, i.e. 10.6.2009. In case, it is not decided by any reason whatsoever, the same shall be decided by 30.6.2009. It is further provided that reasonable opportunity of hearing should be given to the affected parties, before passing the revision. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.