(1.) This is an intra-Court appeal filed by appellant-opposite party no.5 against the order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2015 by which direction has been given to Cuttack Development Authority to take a decision on the notices issued to the allottees, who have deviated the approved plan and the terms and conditions of the allotment order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
(2.) Mr. G.K. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant assails the judgment of the learned Single Judge mainly on two counts, namely, respondent no.1-petitioner filed the writ application in the nature of PIL and, further due to availability of alternative remedy under the Development Authorities Act, the learned Single Judge could not have passed the impugned order. Therefore, the appellant-opposite party no.5 seeks for interference of judgment of learned Single Judge in this appeal. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Anirudh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2015 2 Supreme 677.
(3.) Respondent no.1-petitioner appearing in person stated that since he is a "person aggrieved", he approached this Court by filing the writ application because the appellant-opposite party no.5, who is a next door neighbour of respondent no.1- petitioner, has allowed 30 students to use the residential house as a hostel which causes nuisance to him. By giving an instance, respondent no.1-petitioner further stated that not only he himself but also other residents in the locality are facing similar difficulties, thereby within the residential area, if the same is used for other purpose than the plan approved by the Cuttack Development Authority, then it violates the condition of the grant of approval of plan. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in passing the impugned order giving reasons and directing Cuttack Development Authority to take a decision on the notices issued to the allottees, who have deviated the approved plan and the terms and conditions of the allotment order, and thereby she has acted well within her jurisdiction. So far as availability of alternative remedy is concerned, it is urged that there is no bar to invoke the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.