WPMS/733/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 1124 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
                         BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 733 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Smt. Reena Panwar.                          ..........Petitioner
     (By Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, Advocate)

AND:
Mussoorie Dehradun Development
Authority, through Secretary.                 ...Respondent
     (By Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate)


                      JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2021 passed by Joint Secretary, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (for short 'M.D.D.A.'), whereby she has been asked to stop the construction activity till conclusion of enquiry.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to one order dated 03.02.2021 passed by Commissioner, Garhwal Division/Chairman, M.D.D.A, whereby the order passed by Joint Secretary, M.D.D.A. directing petitioner to stop construction, was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned in the writ petition is dehors the powers available to the Joint Secretary. He further submits that when the Chairman of the Authority has set aside similar order passed by the

Joint Secretary earlier, then Joint Secretary could not have passed the impugned order.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that earlier order passed by Joint Secretary was set aside by the Chairman on the ground that construction work cannot be stopped merely based on the complaint and now situation has changed, as Enquiry Committee has been set up to look into the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is raising construction strictly as per the sanctioned house plan and she will not cause any deviation in the house plan as sanctioned by the Development Authority. He further submits that petitioner will abide by the decision taken in the pending enquiry and he prays that petitioner be permitted to raise construction at her own risk and cost and if decision of the Enquiry Committee goes against the petitioner, then petitioner will remove the construction raised by her.

5. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to raise construction as per sanctioned house plan. It is, however, made clear that if decision of Enquiry Committee goes against the petitioner, then petitioner shall be bound to remove the construction, so raised by her.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan