Heard Dr. L. P. Mishra, alongwith Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, Shri Abhinav Singh and Shri Amit Jaisawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Uttam Kumar for opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Shri Ratnesh Chandra learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no.3 to 5.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially the petitioners had preferred writ petition bearing No.22665 (M/S) of 2020 assailing the demolition order dated 28.02.2012 which was affirmed in an appeal by the Commissioner. However, upon a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the Development Authority, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 25.11.2020 had dismissed the aforesaid petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file a revision under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973. The Co-ordinate Bench also provided that in case if a revision is filed within a period of three days alongwith an application for interim relief then the Revisional Authority shall consider and decide the application for interim relief within a period of 15 days from the date of filing of the application, leaving all pleas open to be taken by the parties before the Revisional Authority. This Court as an interim measure provided that for a period of 20 days or till the date of passing of the order on the interim relief application, no coercive action shall be taken in pursuance of the impugned orders dated 19.11.2020 and 28.02.2012.
It is further submitted that in furtherance of the aforesaid order dated 25.11.2020, the petitioners had preferred a revision before the Revisional Authority which was registered as revision No.1376/Aath-8-2020-70-PUNN/2020. Referring to the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Revisional Authority, it is submitted that the Revisional Authority noted that since the Development Authority and the officials were aware of the pendency of the revisional proceedings and even a specific query was put to the Development Authority whether they were contemplating any demolition within the next seven days, the Development Authority replied that no such demolition was planned for the next seven days as well as the fact that matter was already seized by the Revisional Authority. It is submitted by the learned counsel that on the understanding that the revision itself would be decided within few days, hence the application for interim relief was rejected. However, while rejecting the same there was no consideration regarding the well settled principle of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
It is also submitted that since the revision itself was to be decided finally at the relevant time i.e. after 24.12.2020. The petitioners being under the bonafide impression that the revision would be decided had not assailed the impugned order but unfortunately the Presiding Officer/Revisional Authority was transferred on 31st of December, 2020 and this fact has also been brought on record by the petitioners by means of supplementary-affidavit dated 12.01.2021 wherein it has been stated in paragraphs no.6 and 7 that the petitioners had already submitted their written arguments on 30.12.2020 as the matter was finally heard on 29.12.2020. It has also been stated that the Revisional Authority has handed over the charge and has joined as District Magistrate, Fatehpur.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that now since the new Presiding Officer/Revisional Authority would be required to hear the matter and the interim protection which was granted by the earlier Revisional Authority had also lost its efficacy. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition.
It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the new incumbent/Revisional Authority has yet not fixed any date and it is not known when the aforesaid revision would taken up or would be finally heard and decided. In the interim period, the petitioners cannot be left remediless and protection be granted to the petitioners as was granted earlier to protect the substantial rights failing which the purpose of filing of revision would be frustrated.
Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the Development Authority, Shri Uttam Kumar, learned counsel for the State-Respondents submit that in effect the instant petition is nothing but a challenge to be order dated 24.12.2020 whereby their application for interim relief was rejected. This being on interlocutory order the petition is not maintainable.
Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the Development Authority could not dispute the fact that the revision was heard on 29th of December, 2020 and that the petitioners had filed their written submissions on 30th of December, 2020. In the interim period, on intervening night of 31st of December, 2020 the Revisional Authority has been transferred as District Magistrate, Fatehpur and thus no orders were passed.
Considering the rival submissions and from the perusal of the material on record and taking a holistic view, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending specially in view of the fact that the matter is under consideration before the Revisional Authority and all contentious issues are yet to be considered and decided by the Revisional Authority. Hence, ends of justice can be served by directing the Revisional Authority to consider and finally decide the revision most expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of three weeks from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the Revisional Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the written arguments are already on record and only the final hearing is to be done and petitioners are ready to undertake that they shall not seek any adjournment before the Revisional Authority and thus some timeline be fixed and protection be granted till such time the matter is decided. Considering the aforesaid, time has been provided and the Revisional Authority shall adhere to the aforesaid time line. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, as an interim protection, it is provided that for a period of three weeks or till the decision on the revision on merits whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken by the development authority. The Revisional Authority shall decide the revision by a speaking order in accordance with law and a copy of the same shall be duly communicated to the petitioners.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021 ank