WPMS/259/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 618 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL
         ON THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021
                           BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


       WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 259 of 2021

 BETWEEN:

 Mayfair Residents Welfare Association.        .......Petitioner
       (By Mr. Mayank Datta, Advocate)

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


                       JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his representation by the Joint Secretary, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority vide order dated 26.12.2020.

2. In his representation, petitioner has alleged that building, which is being constructed on the plot adjoining to petitioner society, is being constructed in violation of Bye-Laws of the Development Authority.

3. The Joint Secretary, by the impugned order, has held that violation of building bye-laws was found only in respect of one case and, in remaining cases, it was found that there was no violation and, accordingly, representation was rejected in respect of remaining cases.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the order impugned is revisable before the State Authority under Section 7- B (4) of Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973. Sub-section (4) of Section 7-B of the said Act is reproduced below for the ready reference:

"7-B. Control by the State Authority- (1)..............

(2)..............

(3)..............

(4) The State Authority may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the Local Development Authority or of its Chairman for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit:

Provided that the State Authority shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

5. Upon perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that any order passed by Development Authority is revisable before the State Authority.

6. This Court finds substance in the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent.

7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, with

liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum available to him under law.

8. There will be no order as to costs.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan