Petitioner challenged an HRDA notice barring further construction while his building bye-laws compounding application remained pending. The court found no reason to interfere, held HRDA justified, and directed the competent authority to decide the compounding applications promptly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:UHC:7867
| SL. No. |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPMS No. 2599 of 2025 With WPMS No. 2600 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J |
|||
| 1. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent-HRDA. 3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, both the petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 2599 of 2025 alone are being considered. |
|||
| 4. Petitioner constructed a residential house, since there was some violation of Building Bye-laws, therefore, he applied for compounding. His compounding application is pending before Haridwar- Roorkee Development Authority (HRDA). |
|||
| 5. In this petition, petitioner has challenged notice dated 02.08.2025 issued by Assistant Engineer, HRDA, whereby petitioner has been asked not to raise any further construction till the time his compounding application is pending. |
|||
| 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not adding any further structure and he only wants to finish the already constructed portion. |
|||
| 7. This Court does not find any reason |
2025:UHC:7867
to interfere with the notice. Since
compounding application submitted by
the petitioner is pending, therefore,
HRDA was justified in asking the
petitioner not to raise any further
construction.
8. Having regard to the facts of the
case, the writ petitions are disposed of
with a direction to the Competent
Authority in HRDA to decide the
compounding application(s) submitted by
petitioners, as early as possible.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
04.09.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.08 06:35:53 -07'00'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether HRDA was justified in directing the petitioner not to raise further construction while his compounding application for bye-law violations remains pending?
Petitioners (WPMS No. 2599 of 2025 and WPMS No. 2600 of 2025)
Haridwar-Roorkee Development Authority (HRDA)
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
