Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1244/2022 on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 1244 OF 2022
08th DECEMBER, 2022
Between:
Kastubha Nand Joshi ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Prabhakar
Joshi and Mr. Alok Mahra, learned
counsels
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand /
respondent Nos. 1 and 3
: Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned
counsel for respondent No. 2
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present
petition to seek the following reliefs :
i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 17.02.2022, passed by respondent
No. 2, in pursuance of the minutes of board
2
meeting of District Development Authority,
Nainital, held on 03.01.2022, and further the
demolition order / notice dated 20.05.2022,
issued by the respondent No. 2 (Contained
as Annexure No. 21 and 24 to the writ
petition).
ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent No. 2 to forthwith
sanction the map of petitioner (map No. 01
of 2014) under the amended provision No.
12.3.11 of Government Order dated
16.07.2012, which has already been
observed / directed by the Learned Appellate
Authority, i.e., Commissioner, Kumaun
Mandal, Nainital, in its judgment and order
dated 10.03.2021.
2) The petitioner has statutory remedy to assail
the order dated 17.02.2022, passed by respondent no.
2, rejecting the application made by the petitioner for
sanction of building plans, by invoking the remedy
available under Section 15(5) of the Uttarakhand Urban
and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973.
3) The second relief sought by the petitioner is to
challenge the order dated 20.05.2022, directing
demolition of the construction un-authorisedly raised by
3
the petitioner. In that regard also, the petitioner has a
statutory remedy under Section 27 of the said Act.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has already made representations
addressed to the Commissioner of the Kumaun Mandal,
Nainital.
5) In the light of the aforesaid, in case the
petitioner prefers the appeals within two weeks, same
shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation, and
same shall be entertained and decided on merits. The
appeals preferred by the petitioner shall be disposed of
as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within six
months of the same being preferred.
6) The petitioner has placed on record the
photographs of the construction raised at the site, which
show that pillars have been erected above the plinth
level, however, no roof has been cast.
7) In the light of the aforesaid, no demolition
activity be undertaken till the appeal of the petitioner is
decided. At the same time, the petitioner is directed not
to raise any construction whatsoever at the site till the
appeal is decided.
4
8) The writ petition stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
9) All pending applications also stands disposed
of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 08th DECEMBER, 2022
Negi
