Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel as well as Sri K.K. Pandey, Advocate who has filed power on behalf of respondents, taken on record, and perused the record.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially a notice was given to the petitioner under Section 27 Sub-clause 1 of the Urban Plaining and Development Act, 1973 (in short 'Act'), thereafter an ex-parte order dated 26.04.2019 (Annexure No. 1) was passed by respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the said, petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1 along with application for interim relief under Section 27 Sub-Clause 3 of the Act but the same has not been decided by respondent No. 1 without any fault on the part of petitioners till date.
He further submits that in the meantime, on 12.07.2019, during the pendency of the appeal, part of the petitioners' house was demolished by respondents.
Accordingly, a request has been made by learned counsel for petitioners that respondents may be restrained for further demolishing the house of the petitioners till the disposal of the application for interim relief pending in the appeal filed by the petitioners.
Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondents submits that it is incorrect submission on the part of learned counsel for petitioners that the order dated 26.04.2019 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent No. 2 is an ex-parte order rather an opportunity has been given to the petitioners but they themselves not availed the same.
He further submits that once the the petitioners have already filed an appeal along with application for interim relief, so the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable, liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.
In view of the abovesaid facts, the admitted position which emerged out is tat against the order dated 26.04.2019 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent No. 2, petitioners have already preferred an statutory appeal along with an application for interim relief, however the application for interim relief has not been decided by the respondent No. 1 without any fault on the part of the petitioners.
Thus, in view of the abovesaid facts, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 1/Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow/Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow to consider and decide the petitioner's application for interim relief pending in the appeal expeditiously, say, within a period of two weeks form today after hearing the parties concerned.
Looking into the facts of the case that petitioners has already filed an appeal along with stay application before respondent No. 1 and application for stay is not decided till date without any fault on the part of the petitioners, so we hope and trust that respondent No. 2 shall not take any action in the matter till the disposal of the application for interim relief by the respondent No. 1 or till two weeks which ever is earlier.
(Saurabh Lavania, J.) (Anil Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Ravi/