JUDGMENT By the Court.—Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. With the consent of the parties’ counsel, the petition is being disposed of finally. 3. Sri Mritunjay Kumar Narayan, Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, appeared in person. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the notice dated 27.11.2009, which has been issued by the Prescribed Authority is absolutely vague and does not make out a case for passing an order of demolition but even then the demolition order has been passed on 4.5.2010. 5. The notice aforesaid says that (i) the party did not show the sanctioned building plan on the spot; (ii) the party has already constructed the basement, ground floor and first floor; and (iii) action against the parties under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is proposed. 6. The notice aforesaid does not show anywhere that there was any unauthorized construction nor it specifies the unauthorised constructions. 7. Sri D.K. Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel, has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners were having full knowledge of the proceedings and that they also put in appearance through their counsel but after taking adjournments after adjournments, they have chosen not to appear in the proceedings and in the writ petition, they deliberately did not mention the fact that the proceedings had taken place on various dates and they had appeared in the proceedings. The petitioners had put in appearance through their lawyer and had also appeared personally and had asked for adjournments also, therefore, it was necessary for the petitioners to have mentioned this fact in the writ petition, particularly, when they themselves appeared in the proceedings. 8. We also take notice of the conduct of the L.D.A. that by issuing said vague notice which is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, the petitioners were at a loss as to what portion of their building, is unauthorized, and what reply they should give. 9. 8. We also take notice of the conduct of the L.D.A. that by issuing said vague notice which is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, the petitioners were at a loss as to what portion of their building, is unauthorized, and what reply they should give. 9. We also take notice of the fact, as informed by the learned counsel for L.D.A, in the presence of Vice Chairman, that the copy of all the sanctioned building plans is kept in the office of the L.D.A, therefore, in case the petitioners had not shown the sanctioned building plan on the spot and had not put in appearance, rather they did not file any objection, the Lucknow Development Authority, before passing the order of demolition, ought to have confirmed from its own record, whether there is a sanctioned building plan of the constructions in question or not, and if so, then what construction is unauthorized. In absence of such enquiry, the Lucknow Development Authority would have no right to demolish the entire construction. 10. Sri D.K. Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel and the Vice Chairman of the L.D.A. candidly admit, that the notice issued was absolutely vague and not in conformity with Section 27 of the Act, therefore, the notice will be withdrawn and the demolition order shall not be given effect to, which shall also be recalled, or in the alternative may be quashed by the Court. 11. We, under the circumstances, quash the demolition order dated 4.5.2010 and also the notice dated 27.11.2009 issued by the respondent authorities. 12. The writ petition stands allowed. However, this order would not come in the way of the respondents in taking fresh action, if required, in accordance with law. ————