Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. K. Singh, learned Advocate who appears for the development authority.
Challenge in this petition is to the order of sealing passed by the development authority.
There is no dispute about the fact that order of the development authority is in two parts.
Be as it may, against the order of the development authority petitioners have preferred appeal which is said to be still pending.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have moved an application before the appellate authority and an undertaking has been given to fill up the digged portion on just leveling the roof portion of the basement so that other structure/columns may not be in a position of being damaged and in the event the petitioners being successful in their move finally in respect to their construction that will be removed at their own cost.
In view of the aforesaid, although we are not to go into the merits of the matter and it is for the development authority to decide the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by giving the following directions :
1. Petitioner is to fill up the portion which is vacant in the basement, on getting the roof completed but at the same time in the event of petitioners are not successful in respect to their construction/map then that will be removed at their own cost.
With the aforesaid direction this writ petition stands disposed of, However, this court directs the appellate authority to consider the application of the petitioner which is still pending on merits in accordance with law preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.6.2010 Sachdeva