Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38441 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manjeet Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has passed an order for sealing the premises of the petitioner, against which he has filed an appeal under Section 28-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which is still pending. It is stated that in the appeal he has moved a stay application but the same has not been considered so far.
We have heard Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first and second respondents and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the third and fourth respondents.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have illegally sealed the premises of the petitioner which has adversely affected his business. A stay application has been filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner but the same has not been considered as yet.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others, (1982) 3 SCC 484, has held that where a vested right is involved and in case the interim order is not passed, the matter can become infructuous or irreversible loss can be caused, the appellate authority should consider the application for interim prayer at the earliest.
Having due regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the application for interim prayer of the petitioner pending in the appeal be considered by the second respondent as early as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 SKT/-