MARY JYRWA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . S. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in pursuance of the interim order dated 25.05.2010 passed in present writ petition, the respondent No. 3, Meghalaya Urban Development Authority (MUDA), Shillong issued a notice under Section 30B of the Meghalaya Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 to the petitioner. This fact is not disputed by Mr. S.P.Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

(2.) HEARD Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned GA appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2. and Mr. SP Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4.

(3.) THE respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had filed affidavit -in -opposition wherein, it is stated that the notice provided under Section 30B of the Act, 1973 had been issued to the petitioner before issuing impugned notice dated 13.05.2013. Be that as it may, as stated above, the notice under Section 30B of the Act had been issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the interim order of this court dated 23.05.2013. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed representation/show cause statement but the respondent No. 3 is yet to take final decision.