Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 267 (UTT)

Vijay Prakash v. MDDA

2016-06-24

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.05.2016, passed by respondent no. 1, in case no. R-419/S-7/2015. 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that a demolition order (Annexure No.1) has been passed by respondent no.1 directing the petitioners to demolish the unauthorized constructions within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of impugned order. 3. A remedy is available to the petitioners to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner Garhwal Division, a remedy which is already availed, but the problem of the petitioners is that their interim relief application has not been decided by the Commissioner Garhwal Division i.e. respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 2). It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that no orders have been passed by the respondent no. 2 on the interim relief application of the petitioners till date. 4. The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioners is that property of the petitioners may be demolished even in the absence of decision by respondent no. 2 on the interim relief application of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that 05.07.2016 is the date fixed before respondent no. 2 and if some orders are passed in the present writ petition, the same will facilitate decision on the interim relief application of the petitioners by respondent no. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 admitted that interim relief application of the petitioners is pending adjudication before respondent no. 2, in statutory appeal filed against the order dated 27.05.2016 passed by the respondent no. 1. 7. Since, the statutory appeal is pending before respondent no. 2 against the order passed by respondent no. 1, therefore, it is desirable that respondent no. 2 should pass an order, in accordance with law on the interim relief application of the petitioners which is directed against demolition of their property. 8. The very purpose of statutory appeal and interim relief application shall be frustrated if the property is permitted to be demolished without any order being passed on the application of the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners confined his prayer only to the extent that respondent no. 8. The very purpose of statutory appeal and interim relief application shall be frustrated if the property is permitted to be demolished without any order being passed on the application of the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners confined his prayer only to the extent that respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the interim relief application of the petitioners and in the meanwhile impugned order be kept in abeyance. 10. Such a prayer of learned counsel is worth accepting. 11. Writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent no. 2 to make an endeavour to decide the interim relief application (and/or the statutory appeal itself), in accordance with law, at an early date, preferably within a period of three weeks from today and, till then demolition order (Annexure No.1) shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioners and respondent no. 1 both agreed to maintain status quo over the property in question during the pendency of statutory appeal filed by the petitioners. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners today itself on payment of usual charges.