Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 266 (UTT)

Sanjay Kumar v. Commissioner Garhwal

2016-06-24

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.06.2016, passed by Commissioner Garhwal Mandal, Pauri/ President Doon Ghati, Special Area, Development Authority, Dehradun in appeal no. 47/2015-16, Sanjay Kumar vs. Secretary, Doon Ghati Special Area Development Authority, Dehradun, as also the order dated 15.06.2016, passed by the Secretary, Doon Ghati, Special Area Development Authority, Dehradun, in case no. 264/2015-16. A further prayer has been made commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to compound the alleged deviation of the construction. 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a sealing order (Annexure No. 2) has been passed by respondent no. 3, in which 25.06.2016 was fixed for sealing of property of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner Garhwal Division, which was dismissed by said authority on 18.06.2016. 3. The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s property may be sealed even if further remedy of filing revision before the appellate authority is still available to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is going to file the revision on 27.06.2016 (25.06.2016 and 26.06.2016 being Saturdays and Sundays). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he may be permitted to avail such remedy before the appropriate authority and till then the orders passed by respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 should be kept in abeyance. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 admitted that such remedy is still available with the petitioner. He, however, stated that status quo be directed to be maintained by the petitioner during the pendency of such revision. 6. Since, remedy of filing revision is still available with the petitioner, therefore, it is desirable that respondent no. 3 should restrain itself from sealing the property of the petitioner till the said remedy is exhausted. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to the extent that respondent no. 3 be directed to restrain himself from sealing the property of the petitioner till any decision is taken on the revision which the petitioner will file shortly before the appropriate authority and, in the meanwhile, impugned orders be kept in abeyance. 8. Such an innocuous prayer of learned counsel is worth accepting. 3 be directed to restrain himself from sealing the property of the petitioner till any decision is taken on the revision which the petitioner will file shortly before the appropriate authority and, in the meanwhile, impugned orders be kept in abeyance. 8. Such an innocuous prayer of learned counsel is worth accepting. It is not seriously opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a revision before the appropriate authority and try to obtain a stay on the impugned orders within a week. Till then, the impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 1 and 3 shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner and respondent no. 3 shall maintain status quo over the property in question during the pendency of such revision to be filed by the petitioner. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges.