JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by respondent No. 1. 2. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that vide order dated 13.7.2009 respondent No. 1 has rejected the sanctioned map plan dated 6.2.2009 holding that it is not in consonance with law. Petitioner is the holder of plot at Mohalla Arya Puri, Muzaffarnagar and wanted to construct a building for commercial use and hence with this view in mind she applied for sanction of the map to respondent No. 1 and submitted the Map No. 13/09 for the proposed building. The aforesaid map was sanctioned by the respondent vide order dated 6.2.2009 which is annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. The required charges Rs. 85,057 were deposited by the petitioner for construction of the commercial complex as aforesaid, copy of the receipt is annexed as annexure-2 to the writ petition. The aforesaid map was sanctioned for basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The endorsement made by the authorities is annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. 3. The map was sanctioned by the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority after due verification and there was no misrepresentation or concealment of any fact on the part of the petitioner. The aforesaid commercial complex structural design was worked out by approved Structural Engineer, the report of whom is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. The Nursing Home by the name of Rama Krishna Hospital is adjacent to the disputed property and both sides of the plot of the petitioner they have their plot on one side and they have constructed their nursing home without following the norms as laid down by the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority and huge illegal construction made by them. The owner of the aforesaid Nursing Home wanted to purchase the plot of the petitioner and factually they are behind the scene and they do not like the construction of the petitioner’s complex, hence they made several complaints to the M.D.A. about the construction of the Plot. 5. The Suit No. 486 of 2009 was filed by one Sunil Chaudhary, annexure-5 is annexed herewith as the photostat copy of the map in which the notices were issued. Against which petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed on 11.5.2009 as not maintainable. 5. The Suit No. 486 of 2009 was filed by one Sunil Chaudhary, annexure-5 is annexed herewith as the photostat copy of the map in which the notices were issued. Against which petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed on 11.5.2009 as not maintainable. Later on, injunction application was also dismissed by the Court below. The rejection order is annexed as annexure-6 to the writ petition. The said suit is still pending. The basement of the petitioner’s complex has completed according to the sanctioned map as well as the first floor is also constructed. The Muzaffarnagar Development Authority also obstructed and stopped the construction of the petitioner. It was pointed out by the petitioner that vide order dated 12.5.2009 the permission was accorded, true copy of which is annexed as annexure-7 to the writ petition. On 29.5.2009 the sanctioned map of the petitioner was cancelled without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, though the petitioner’s major part of the construction was completed in accordance with the map previously sanctioned. The police was given intimation, directing the petitioner to stop the further construction. The cancellation of the previously sanctioned map was absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the map was cancelled at the behest of the Pooja Chaudhary and others. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31080 of 2009 and the Hon’ble High Court on 26.6.2009 passed an order, staying the operation of the order dated 29.5.2009, wherein the order was passed as follows : “The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his sanctioned map has been cancelled without giving him any opportunity of hearing. Hence in connected writ petition No. 31080 of 2009, the Hon’ble High Court directed vide order dated 26.6.2009 that both the impugned orders dated 29.5.2009 annexure-5, to the writ petition and annexure-SA-1 attached to the supplementary affidavit, shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. It would be open to the respondent authority to proceed to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties”. 6. After service of the aforesaid order on 4.7.2009, respondents issued a letter to petitioner, directing petitioner to appear on 10.7.2009 without assigning any reason, copy of the order dated 4.7.2009 is annexed as annexure-10 to the writ petition. 6. After service of the aforesaid order on 4.7.2009, respondents issued a letter to petitioner, directing petitioner to appear on 10.7.2009 without assigning any reason, copy of the order dated 4.7.2009 is annexed as annexure-10 to the writ petition. The petitioner appeared on 10.7.2009 and filed his objections dated 9.7.2009 which is annexed as annexure-11 to the writ petition. The petitioner alleged in the said objections that the map had been rightly sanctioned and cannot be cancelled as petitioner has not concealed any material facts from the authorities and in view of Section 15 of Urban Planning Development Act, once a map is sanctioned it cannot be cancelled unless some fraud has been played by the person and in the present case, the petitioner has not played any fraud or misrepresentation. 7. It was also asserted that authorities have no jurisdiction to take up the matter with regard to cancellation of the map, as the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court has made the matter open except the cancellation of the map, as the said matter pending in this Court, therefore has no jurisdiction. It is submitted that later on authorities have changed the rule that basement can be constructed two meters ahead to the adjacent building. The Rule was passed on 22.1.2009 after the map was submitted to the authorities and was passed on 6.2.2009 and information with regard to the said rule was circulated on 30.5.2009 in the office, annexure-13 is the relevant document in this regard. On 30.7.2009 again an order was passed, cancelling the petitioner’s map which is annexure 14 to the writ petition. The map was sanctioned by the respondents themselves and the plan was submitted in January, 2009. The map was sanctioned in accordance with prevailing law on the date of submission of map and no part was concealed by the petitioner but basement was already constructed, there was no reason for the respondents to cancel the map on the ground that it was wrongly sanctioned. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 while rebutting the contention raised in the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner applied for sanction of map for her plot in question before the development authority on 17.1.2009. The bye-laws 2008 of the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority were adopted by the authority on 22.1.2009. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 while rebutting the contention raised in the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner applied for sanction of map for her plot in question before the development authority on 17.1.2009. The bye-laws 2008 of the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority were adopted by the authority on 22.1.2009. The petitioner has managed to get sanction of her said map on 6.2.2009 according to the old bye laws of the Development Authority concealing the material fact which was contrary to law because at the time of sanction of her map the bye-laws 2008 was in operation as such his map must have been passed according to the new amended bye-laws. The petitioner was raising construction on the said plot contrary to his sanctioned map also for which notice under Section 28 (1) dated 30.4.2009 was already issued and the aforesaid notice was duly served to the petitioner. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.7.2009 for providing an opportunity of hearing which is annexed as annexure 3 of the Counter-affidavit-4 to the letter. 9. In the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are relying upon the Rule dated 22.1.2009 and stated that the information in regard to the said rule was not circulated in the office, in para 24 of the writ petition it was categorically mentioned that Sri Ajay Garg had given a report in this regard which is part of the record, which mentions that the Niyamawali dated 22.1.2009 was not brought to the notice of the office. He has filed supplementary affidavit - 1 in this respect which is an explanation of Sri Ajay Garg. 10. In the second supplementary affidavit, it is admitted on behalf of the petitioner that the bye-laws 2008 adopted dated 22.1.2009 as alleged by M.D.A was not published in any newspaper nor circulated by beat of drum or by any other means nor published in the gazette as contemplated under Section 44 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development 1973 as such it cannot be said that it was known to the petitioner or other resident of the locality. From the document filed by the petitioner it is also clear that the amendment was not circulated with in the department and also was not known to the department who passed the map. 11. From the document filed by the petitioner it is also clear that the amendment was not circulated with in the department and also was not known to the department who passed the map. 11. In the second supplementary counter-affidavit it is alleged in para 3 that the aforesaid rule adopted on 22.1.2009 by MDA was published in newspaper Muzaffarnagar Ujala dated 25.1.2009. 12. In the second rejoinder affidavit, it has come that publication in newspaper Muzaffarnagar Ujala dated 25.1.2009, it is stated that mere alleged publication in aforesaid newspaper which too is neither reputed nor have wide circulation in the locality is not sufficient compliance of Section 44 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with Section 23 of U.P. General Clauses Act that Section 44 of the Act 1973 envisages publication in newspaper having wider circulation in the locality. Other newspaper like Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran, Muzaffarnagar bulletin etc. have wide circulation in Muzaffarnagar locality and are reputed newspapers. It is further stated that respondent No. 1 Development Authority itself published even small information in newspapers Amar Ujala on 18.1.2009 and further information in the same paper dated 3.3.2009, photocopies of relevant extract of these newspapers are being annexed herewith as annexure R-A-1 & R-A—2. 13. In view of the above averments made by the respondent in the second supplementary counter-affidavit, it is clear that respondent failed to comply provisions of Section 44 of Act, 1973 read with Section 23 of U.P. General Clauses Act as alleged by the petitioner. 14. The main controversy involved in the writ petition is whether bye-laws 2008 adopted by the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority were widely circulated by way of notice in accordance with Section 44 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 which provides as follows : “Section 44. Public notice how to be made known.—Every public notice given under this Act shall be in writing over the signature of the secretary to the Authority and shall be widely made known in the locality to be affected thereby affixing copies thereof in conspicuous public places within the said locality, or by publishing the same by beat of drum or by advertisement in a newspaper having circulation in the locality or by two or more of these mean, and by any other means that the secretary may think fit.” 15. Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides as follows : “Section 23. Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye- laws after previous publication.—Where, by any Central Act or Regulation, a power to make rules or bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the rules or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the following provisions shall apply, namely : (1) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws shall, before making them, publish a draft of the proposed rules or bye-laws for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby; (2) the publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so requires, in such manner as the Government concerned prescribes; (3) there shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration; (4) the authority having power to make the rules or bye- laws, and, where the rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction, approval or concurrence of another authority, that authority also, shall consider any objection or suggestion which may be received by the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the date so specified; (5) the publication in the Official Gazette of a rule or bye- law purporting to have been made in exercise of power to make rules or bye-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-law has been duly made.” 16. In compliance of the provisions as initiated under Section 44 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it comes out that due compliance of these provisions have not been made by MDA. The notice has not been widely circulated and neither any objection or suggestion have been received from any persons affected. 17. Nothing could be shown by the Development Authority that notice was circulated in a widely circulated newspaper and hearing was given to the affected persons and it could not be shown that whether the concerned department itself was aware of the amended bye-laws as is evident from the report of Sri Ajay Garg, which is annexed as annexure SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit. 18. 18. In the circumstance, the contention of the petitioner that map was passed in accordance with the provisions of the rules appears to be sustainable. 19. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed and it is directed that the order passed by the Authority dated 13.7.2009 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. ————