Allahabad High Court
Arun Rana vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 May, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96369-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18417 of 2024
Petitioner :- Arun Rana
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Anjali Upadhya,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mrs. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 - Greater NOIDA.
2. The present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia with following relief:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI by quashing the impugned order dated 6.9.2023 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent no.3.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the Unit, run by the petitioner at his residence under a valid certificate B & B GOLD category issued in terms of the guidelines, issued by the Government of India (Annexure-2 to this petition)."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in April 2008, the Government of India launched the Incredible India Bed and Breakfast Establishments scheme to attract foreign tourists by offering affordable, quality accommodations. Detailed guidelines for approval and registration were issued, and a brochure was widely published to encourage applications. The Government of Uttar Pradesh adopted this scheme on 08.05.2008, specifying that residential units providing Bed and Breakfast services would be considered non-commercial, exempt from luxury tax, and subject to domestic rates for water and electricity. A vacant plot, CF-132 H in Ansal Golf Link-1, Greater Noida, was transferred to the petitioner from Ansal Housing Limited by a registered deed on 26.12.2019. The petitioner then built a residential house on the plot, which was approved by the competent authority. Fully eligible under the scheme, the petitioner applied for and received a B&B-Gold Category Certificate from the Ministry of Tourism, valid from 10.11.2023, to 09.11.2025. Since then, the petitioner has operated the unit, named Kusum House, without any complaints. However, on 13.05.2022, authorities mistakenly issued a notice to cease operations, incorrectly identifying the unit as a hotel. The petitioner clarified that the unit was part of the Bed and Breakfast scheme, and the notice was dropped. Despite this, on 06.09.2023, another order was issued under similar incorrect assumptions, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner has not raised any unauthorized construction and operates strictly under the Bed and Breakfast scheme. No show cause notice was issued before the impugned order, further violating natural justice principles. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench dated 06.12.2010 in Writ-C No.66774 of 2010 (Pranesh Gupta and another vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein, the Division has placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by this Court in R.K. Mittal and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (1) AWC 558 and the court had finally set aside the notice issued by the authority and allowed the writ petition. He has also placed reliance upon an order dated 09.11.2023 passed in Writ-C No.37761 of 2023 (Ashok Kumar Tyagi and 9 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), wherein, the Division Bench vide order dated 09.11.2023 had disposed of the writ petition with an observation to decide the objection of the petitioner within eight weeks and till the disposal of the objection, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner. He submits that the matter squarely cover and similar indulgence may also be extended in favour of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, Mrs. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 - Greater NOIDA has raised an objection that the present writ petition is premature and only notice has been served and till date, the petitioner has not filed any detailed objection to the same. Moreover, the proceedings have not come to its logical conclusion and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on this sole ground. Further, she has raised an objection that the said club is per se illegal as the same is against the zonal plan approved by the authority concerned.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that as the coordinate bench in the similar fact has disposed of the matter vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed in Writ-C No.37761 of 2023 (Ashok Kumar Tyagi and 9 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), which is extracted below:
"1. Heard Sri Samarth Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel appearing for the Industrial Development Authority and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. At present it is undisputed that in response to the notice dated 6.9.2023, no consequential order has been passed by the respondent authority. At the same time, petitioners claim to have filed their objections to the notice dated 6.9.2023.
3. In view of the fact that the impugned show-cause notice is not an order, we decline to offer interference under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
4. As to the proceeding that may be pending, without entering into the merits we disposed of the writ petition with the observation subject to the petitioners filing their individual objections to the notices received by them, within a period of two week from today, as may be supported by their personal affidavits annexing thereto all documents on which the petitioners may seek to rely, the competent authority of the Greater Noida may pass appropriate reasoned order dealing with such objections within a period of three weeks therefrom.
5. Subject to compliance made by the petitioners, for a period of eight weeks or disposal of the objection that may be filed by the petitioners, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned notice."
6. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to take a different view as taken in the order passed in Ashok Kumar Tyagi's case (supra) and this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
NLY
