Disposed

M/S Ramesh Auto Mobile v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2021WRIC/31238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a demolition notice alleged to be issued in ignorance of prior Collector sanction, the Court permitted the petitioner to present representation to the respondent and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to represent respondent No.2 afresh within ten days; coercive action stayed for 45 days or till decision on representation.

M/S Ramesh Auto Mobile Vs State of U.P. and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31238 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Ramesh Auto Mobile Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Mohan Asthana

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana who has put in appearance on behalf of the second and third respondents. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice of the writ petition on behalf of the first respondent.

¶6

The petitioner is aggrieved by a Notice dated 13.10.2021 (Annexur-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Moradabad Development Authority under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, stating therein that the petitioner is running the petrol pump over the land without proper approval from the Development Authority and requiring the petitioner to visit the office of the Development Authority and submit his explanation failing which the unsanctioned constructions would be demolished.

¶7

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is running a petrol pump under the dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. since 1971, the petrol pump is situate on the Delhi-Bareilly-Lucknow National Highway. The pump was set up after proper sanction from the Collector, Moradabad under Section 6 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945. The notice issued at the instance of the second and third respondents is without jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that he has already moved a reply to the notice u/s 27 on 20.10.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) but no consideration to the same has been accorded by the respondents and they continue to interfere in the day to day business of the petitioner.

¶8

Per contra, Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that the Authority has not received any such reply as stated by the petitioner. He further submits that the land on which the retail outlet is situate falls within the jurisdiction of the

¶9

Development Authority and since the constructions existing have not been sanctioned, the notice is valid.

¶10

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the retail outlet is being run after due sanction from the Collector, Moradabad as is evident from Annexures-1, 2 & 3 to the writ petition. Prima facie, the notice dated 13.10.2021 has been issued in ignorance of the above facts.

¶11

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the writ petition pending and accordingly, dispose of the same by permitting the petitioner to represent the respondent No.2 afresh within ten days from today clearly stating its case and substantiating it with documents. The respondent No.2 on receipt of the representation of the petitioner is expected to pass appropriate orders thereon, after considering all aspects of the matter within three weeks.

¶12

For a period of 45 days from today or till the decision on the representation of the petitioner, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

¶13

Order Date :- 25.11.2021 Vandana

M/S Ramesh Auto Mobile v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ramesh Auto Mobile v. State of U.P. 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

M/S Supertech Limited Vs Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority and 3 Others

M/S Supertech Township Project Limited Vs Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority and 3 Others

Jaipal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Mohan Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rinku Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others