Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23632 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhusudan Dikshit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 has issued a notice dated 10.7.2019 regarding alleged encroachment made by the petitioner. In paragraph nos. 5 & 6 of the writ petition the petitioner has made an averment that earlier the Development Authority had issued a notice on 13.6.2017 and the petitioner had replied to the said notice on 9.11.2017. Copies of notice and reply are on the record.
It is stated that now for the same alleged encroachment, a fresh notice has been issued whereas the reply of the petitioner dated 9.11.2017 has not been considered by the respondents as yet. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that current notice is exactly the same which was issued earlier to the petitioner.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Satyam Singh, learned Advocate who has filed memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2.
In view of the above, we are of the view that ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the second respondent to consider the reply of the petitioner dated 9.11.2017 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. We grant liberty to the petitioner to file a copy of reply dated 9.11.2017 along with a certified copy of this order to the authority concerned. In the event any such reply is submitted to the Development Authority, same shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Digamber