Disposed

Mahendra Dubey @ Pappu Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2023WRIC/32464/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the petitioner to prefer an appeal against a demolition order dated 8.5.2023 under the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, within two weeks, bypassing the alternative remedy objection, and granted interim relief to prevent demolition for four weeks or until stay application disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file appeal within two weeks; demolition of shop restrained for four weeks or until stay application disposal.

Mahendra Dubey @ Pappu Dubey Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184120-DB

¶2

Court No. - 46

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32464 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Mahendra Dubey @ Pappu Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶6

An order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 10 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, dated 8.5.2023, is challenged in the present writ petition. This order is appealable in terms of Section 15(2) of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958.

¶7

An objection is taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the shop in question is in possession of the petitioner but no notice has been issued to him and in fact respondent no.3, who is a member of the demolition team himself has maneuvered to get an order of demolition passed against the shop in question, so that petitioner's possession could be removed. It is also submitted that an order of injunction has otherwise been passed in respect of the shop in question in Original Suit No.259 of 2023.

¶9

Learned State Counsel submits that since an injunction of competent court is already in the operation in favour of petitioner, his apprehension that shop would be demolished is misplaced.

¶10

Be that as it may, in the facts of the case, we permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order dated 8.5.2023 in terms of Section 15 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, within two weeks from today, alongwith a certified copy of this order. Such appeal filed within two weeks shall be entertained on merits, without raising any objection with regard to delay. Petitioner shall also be at liberty to file an application for grant of interim relief.

¶11

For a period of four weeks from today or till the disposal of stay application filed in the appeal, whichever is earlier, the shop itself shall not be demolished.

¶12

With the above observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the rights of the parties and all issues of fact are left open for examination by the appellate authority, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.3.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.9.2023 Anil

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Dubey @ Pappu Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Dubey @ Pappu Dubey 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

Inderdeep Construction Co. Vs Union of India and 4 Others

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

Indian Industrial Development Association Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Col Gautam Mullick Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kusumakar Pandey Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another

Rajat Mohan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others