Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/36/2020 on 24 March, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.36 of 2020
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. Amit Satyawali, Advocate,
holding brief of Mr. Rahul Consul,
Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for
intervener.
Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Petitioner is challenging a
communication issued by Joint
Secretary, Mussoorie Dehrdaun
Development Authority, Dehradun
(hereinafter referred to as 'M.D.D.A.') to
Senior Superintendent of Police,
Dehradun, on 20.12.2019. By the said
communication, request was made to
provide police force for demolition of
unauthorized construction raised by the
petitioner.
The reliefs sought in the writ
petition are as follows:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of quashing the impugned letter no.6014
dated 20-12-2019 issued by the respondent no. 3
(contained as Annexure No.8 to this writ petition).
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the
respondent no. 3 not to demolish the house of the
petitioners, in pursuance of the impugned letter
no.6014 dated 20-12-2019 and further be pleased
to direct the respondent no.3 to pass appropriate
order as per the direction given by the respondent
no. 1 in its order date04-04-2019/26-03-2019
(contained as Annexure No.6 to this writ petition)."
The facts, on which there is no
dispute, are that M.D.D.A. issued a
notice to petitioner on 01.07.2015 to
show cause as to why construction
raised by him, without necessary
permission, be not demolished. In his
reply, petitioner contended that the
construction is not a new construction,
but it was raised before 1984. The
Competent Authority in M.D.D.A. asked
the petitioner to produce evidence in
support of his contention. Since
petitioner could not produce any
evidence despite several reminders,
therefore, a show cause notice was again
issued to him on 23.01.2016.
Ultimately, on 27.05.2016, an order was
passed for demolition of the
unauthorized construction raised by the
petitioner. Petitioner filed Appeal against
the demolition order, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated
18.03.2019. Petitioner, thereafter, filed
Revision, which was disposed of with a
direction to M.D.D.A. to again make spot
inspection to ascertain as to whether the
construction in question amounts to
renovation as, according to petitioner, he
had merely repaired the tin roof, which
had worn out or it amounts to new
construction.
The sole contention of the petitioner
is that, without undertaking the exercise
as per the order by the Revisional
Authority/Additional Chief Administrator,
the impugned communication has been
issued to Senior Superintendent of Police
requesting for police force. Averment to
this effect has been made in paragraph
nos. 9 & 10 of the writ petition, however,
in paragraph no. 18 of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of M.D.D.A., it is
stated that spot inspection was made by
Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer
and, in the Inspection Report, it was
stated that, in the eastern side of the
main building, there is a room measuring
15ft. 08 inch X 10ft. 08 inch constructed
with bricks and RCC slabs and the said
construction does not fall within the
ambit of repairs.
Thus, the stand taken by petitioner
that direction issued by the Revisional
Authority was not complied with and,
without making any inspection,
impugned communication was issued,
cannot be accepted. Since petitioner has
lost from all the forums, therefore, there
is no scope for interference in the
matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails
and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
24.03.2023
Arpan
