In Chamber
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24735 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vijay Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vineet Pandey learned Chief Standing Counsel-4 alongwith Sri J.N. Maurya learned Chief Standing Counsel-1 for the State respondents.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek a mandamus commanding the respondents not to execute the demolition order dated 6.8.2021 passed by the Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate, Regulated Area, Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau as also the order dated 24.9.2021 passed by the appellate authority under Section 15 of the U.P. Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958 (In short as "the Act, 1958").
It is submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 24.9.2021 and an intimation in this regard has been received only after the notice of demolition was served upon the petitioners through the police force. The copy of the letter of the City Magistrate, Mau dated 24th September, 2021 addressed to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Maunath Bhanjan, Mau has been appended as Annexure '6' to the writ petition to demonstrate that the decision for demolition after dismissal of appeal was taken in haste. While dismissing the appeal by the order dated 24th September, 2021, next date i.e. 25.9.2021 (today) was fixed for demolition. The demolition exercise has commenced from 10:00 AM today i.e. 25.9.2021 under the directions of the City Magistrate, Mau.
The submission is that on account of this approach of the respondent authorities, the petitioners have been deprived of the remedy of the revision under Section 15-A of the Act, 1958 which is maintainable before the Divisional Commissioner under delegation by the State Government under Section 15- A(2) of the Act, 1958.
It is then submitted that the entire exercise of demolition is a malafide act of the authorities, inasmuch as, they had fixed the date of demolition in such a way that the petitioners may not approach the revisional authority.
Sri Vineet Pandey learned Chief Standing Counsel-4 alongwith Sri J.N. Maurya learned Chief Standing Counsel-1 for the State respondents, however, invited attention of the Court to the memo of appeal, wherein it is admitted by the petitioners that they had raised constructions of a City Mall without even a sanctioned map. The admission in this regard is in paragraph '5' of the memo of appeal appended at page '23' of the paper book. A copy of the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24.9.2021 has also been supplied to the Court from a perusal whereof, it is evident that no new ground has been taken for dismissal of the appeal apart from noticing the assertion in the order passed by the prescribed authority that the petitioners had raised constructions without even a sanctioned map.
The order passed by the prescribed authority also indicates that time was given to the petitioners to submit a compounding map by 15.4.2021 but no such map had been submitted.
In the said scenario, in view of the admitted facts on records that the constructions in question had been raised without a sanctioned map, we do not find any good ground to issue mandamus.
The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
It is, however, clarified that in case, the petitioners file revision, the revisional authority would be under obligation to take a decision in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
In the event of filing revision, if the revisional authority is empowered to pass an interim order, the interim application may also be considered.
Order Date :- 25.9.2021 Brijesh