20 February vs Mussoorie Dehradun Development ...

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

20 February vs Mussoorie Dehradun Development ... on 20 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2026:UHC:1122



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
        Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 374 of 2026
                       20 February, 2026
Jama Masjid Society Thano                                --Petitioner
                               Versus
Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and Anr.
                                                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
     Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
     Gaurav Kandpal, learned counsel for petitioner.
     Mr. Pawan Sanwal, learned counsel holding brief of
     Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for respondent No.1-
     MDDA.
     Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr.
     Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. B.S.
     Koranga, learned Brief Holder for State of
     Uttarakhand/respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner for the following reliefs:-

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order/notice dated 13.02.2026 passed by the respondent Authority directing the SSP, Dehradun, to provide police assistance for sealing the mosque operated by the petitioner society.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action, including sealing of the mosque, until the petitioner society is afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit the mitigation/compounding map in accordance with the prescribed regulations.

2. It is admitted to petitioner that he has never applied for permission to respondent No.1-MDDA to construct the disputed structure, therefore, notice for sealing for aforesaid premise has been issued by respondent No.1-MDDA.

2026:UHC:1122

3. It is also admitted to the petitioner that he has never applied for Compounding Map for the aforesaid construction raised by him.

4. In such view of the matter, this Court cannot come to the rescue of a person, who is totally acting in violation of law, and now, at the same time seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which can only be granted to a person who comes with a clean hand before this Court.

5. Since, petitioner-Society itself is a defaulter, this Court cannot become a party to the illegality committed by petitioner-Society by raising construction without even applying for permission to raise construction.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is dismissed in-limine. However, it is open to petitioner to apply for Compounding of the illegal construction raised by it to respondent No.1-MDDA. If such application for Compounding is moved by petitioner within four weeks' from today with requisite documents, the same shall be considered by respondent No.1-MDDA within four weeks' thereafter, in accordance with provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (as applicable to State of Uttarakhand).

7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.02.2026 PN 2