Disposed

M/S Saya Buildcon Consortium (P) Ltd. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018WRIC/23222/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed against an order sealing premises without providing a post-decisional hearing. The bench directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority to afford the petitioner an opportunity for submission of explanation and personal hearing before deciding the merit.

What did the court decide?

Order to seal the premises quashed; Respondent directed to provide post-decisional hearing to the petitioner within one week and personal hearing within three days thereafter.

M/S Saya Buildcon Consortium (P) Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23222 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Saya Buildcon Consortium (P) Ltd. Respondent :- Ghaziabad Development Authority And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Suresh C. Dwivedi, Vrindavan Mishra, M.C. Chaturvedi

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶6

Arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner is in use of land bearing Plot No. G.H.-11, Ahinsa Khand-2, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, in contravention with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, a notice as per Section 26(2) of the Act, 1973 was issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2018. The petitioner was called upon under the order aforesaid to satisfy as to why the premises in question be not sealed as per provisions of Section 28A(1) of the Act, 1973 for illegal use of House No. 389, Shipra Suncity, Vaibhav Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. On 30.06.2018 itself, an order was passed to seal the premises aforesaid as per provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 28A of the Act, 1973. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.

¶7

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that as per provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act, 1973, the petitioner was called upon to explain the circumstances referred and to satisfy that no need was there to seal the premises in question. Without providing any adequate opportunity for tendering explanation, an order to seal the premises in question was passed on the same date. The order impugned as per learned counsel is bad being passed without having any explanation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶8

Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Advocate, appearing for Ghaziabad Development Authority submits that the scope of Section

¶9

28A(1) is quite different than the process initiated under Section 26(2) of the Act, 1973 and, as such, being both the proceedings different, there was no need to wait for the explanation from the petitioner.

¶10

Having considered all facts of the case specifically the averments contained in the notice dated 30.06.2018 that refers for taking action as per provisions of Section 28A(1) of the Act, 1973, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by directing respondent no. 1, i.e., Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority to provide the post decisional hearing to the petitioner in relation to the notice dated 30.06.2018. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority to consider the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner within a period of one week from today and by providing an opportunity of personal hearing, if demanded to the representative of the petitioner within a period of three days subsequent thereto and to decide the entire issue on merits on or before 25.07.2018.

¶11

Till then, the parties are required to maintain status quo as that is existing today.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.7.2018 Shubham

¶13

(Chandra Dhari Singh.J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)

M/S Saya Buildcon Consortium (P) Ltd. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Saya Buildcon Consortium (P) Ltd. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. and Others Vs Phool Singh Pal

Sanjay Jaiswal Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bhawani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Nanauta Saharanpur Vs Moti Ram and 7 Others

M/S Shiv and Company, Vs State of U P and 3 Others