Allowed

Peeush Prakash Saxena v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023WRIC/29204/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus restraining coercive action by the respondent authority against his school while an appeal before the Commissioner remained pending. The Court ordered the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within one month and restrained the respondents from taking any action pending its disposal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within one month and restraining respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner till the dec

Peeush Prakash Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178925

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29204 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Peeush Prakash Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh,Hitesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Anand Prakash Paul

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Hitesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent No.1 and Sri A. P. Paul, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.2 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner's school namely Anand Convent School, New Krishna Vihar Post Jawala Nagar, Rampur, till the final disposal of his Appeal, registered as Case No.582 of 2020, which is stated to be pending before the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad.

¶8

Record reveals that the petitioner had approached a Division Bench of this Court by means of Writ (C) No.39933 of 2019, seeking quashing of the demolition notice dated 25.09.2019. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy by observing that the petitioner may file an Appeal under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 before the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks and in case the Appeal is filed the concerned authority shall decide the same on merits within six weeks from the date of filing of said Appeal in accordance with law and without reference to the period of limitation. For a period of eight weeks or till the disposal of the Appeal, whichever was earlier, the Respondent No.3 was restrained from taking any action against the petitioner.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petition, the Appeal which was filed within time frame fixed by this Court, has not been decided till date and the interim protection that had been granted by the Court has since expired. He submits that since the Appeal is still pending, the Respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to carry out the demolition itself at the

¶10

same time the premises has been earmarked for carrying out the demolition by the Respondent Authority. Being aggrieved by the said, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶11

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the Respondent No.3 is totally unwarranted in the wake of the fact that the Appeal of the petitioner is pending consideration. Since the Appeal entails the civil consequences and in case the respondents are permitted to carry out the demolition, the whole purpose of the Appeal would stand frustrated. He further submits that a direction be issued to the Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal within time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

Sri A. P. Paul, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel have no objection to the aforesaid proposition.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondent No.4, Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad/Appellate Authority before whom the Appeal of the petitioner is stated to be pending to make all endeavour to decide the same within a period of one month from the date of service of a certified copy of this order taking into fact that such direction has also been issued to it on previous occasion which has not been followed. The Appeal shall positively be decided by the Respondent No.4 within a period of one month.

¶14

Till the decision in the Appeal, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.

¶15

Needless to say that the parties shall cooperate in getting the matter decided within the time frame fixed by this Court. If the petitioner or for that matter the Respondent Development Authority does not cooperate in the proceedings and do not present themselves on the date fixed, it shall be open for the Respondent No.4 to proceed ex-parte and pass appropriate orders accordingly.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 pks

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Peeush Prakash Saxena v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peeush Prakash Saxena v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saibaba Temple Gram Katara and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manager and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

M/S Shyam Ji Ice and Cold Storage Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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