High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bhairo Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru' Princpal Secy. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 33375 of 2004  RD-AH 5431 (28 March 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33375 of 2004
Bhairo Prasad Yadav
State of U.P. & Ors.
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.
This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11/2/2004 by which the Divisional Commissioner being the Chairman of the Varanasi Development Authority rejected the application of the petitioner as not maintainable.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner raised the construction illegally without getting the map sanctioned up to 5th storey and thus a notice under Section 27 (1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 (hereinafter called the Act, 1973) was issued to him to show cause. Instead of filing reply to the said show cause he approached this Court by filing Writ petition No. 29827 of 1999 which was disposed of vide order dated 03/08/1999 directing the authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner to decide the representation dated 18/3/1999 filed by the petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Court considered the case. However, there was no representation dated 18/3/1999 pending before him and what was found on record had been a representation dated 06/9/2001 which was rejected vide order dated 11/2/2004 pointing out that the direction had been given by this Court to decide the representation dated 18/3/1999, and thus in pursuance of the said order the representation dated 06/9/2001 could not be decided.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain that if by any means he is aggrieved by the order of the authority, an appeal under Section 27 (2) of the Act 1973 was maintainable. Even against the order of the appellate authority revision under Section 41 (3) of the Act 1973 lies.
In such a fact situation, no writ could have been entertained by this Court at the behest of the petitioner. More so, if he had come before this Court and obtained an order dated 03/8/1999, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to explain as under what circumstances the representation dated 06/9/2001 i.e. after two years of the order of this Court could be filed. It has not been explained as on what date petitioner had submitted the certified copy of the order dated 03/8/1999 before the said authority. In such a fact situation we are not inclined to entertain the petition. It is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.