Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19541 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kripal Singh Rawat Respondent :- State Of U P And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devesh Mishra,Atipriya Gautam,Shri Vijay Gautam (Sr Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition for quashing the order dated 24.08.2018 whereby a notice has been issued on 24.09.2019 purported to under Section 10 of the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 for the removal of the unauthorized construction raised by the petitioner.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Vijay Gautam, learned senior advocate assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken on board and is finally disposed of under the rules of the Court.The second respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner to submit a reply regarding alleged unauthorized construction made by him. It is trite law that writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution against a show cause notice. The petitioner is required to submit his reply before the authority concerned and only in the exceptional cases a writ against the show cause notice is maintainable. Where there is lack of jurisdiction an authority has no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice. Reference may be made judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of AIR 2003, 5 SCC, 194.
In the present case our attention has been drawn to order passed by the Court in case Ravi Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Writ Petition No. 35260 of 2018 wherein the same grievance was raised by the petitioners therein. This Court has permitted the petitioner therein to file necessary document before the authority concerned, in pursuance of the notice issue by the Development Authority.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the end of the justice would be subserved by issuing a direction issued upon 2nd respondent to consider the cause of petitioner. In case petitioner submits a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks before passing the order the respondent shall furnish an opportunity to the respondent Nos. 6,7 & 8 in accordance with law expeditiously preferable within three months from the date of the communication of this order.
It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the matter on its merit and the Authority concerned shall pass order independently in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Sachin