JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Since the parties in these two writ petitions are same and the facts are also same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order. 2. Prayers in the writ petition no.1230 of 2016 are as follows:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to compound the compoundable part of construction of the petitioner.” 3. Prayer in the writ petition no.3073 of 2016 is as follows:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner for compounding/permission to run the construction as a Wedding Point within the stipulated time as this H’onble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case”. 4. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petitions, are that the petitioner as well as Mrs. Pushpa Verma, registered owner of plot no.765 situated at Nathanpur, applied for sanction of plan for raising the construction. After due enquiry, the plan was sanctioned. The petitioner raised construction as per the sanctioned plan, but due to inadvertent mistake, during the construction, small deviation was made, against which a notice was issued by the respondent no.2 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice and requested for compounding of deviated area and agreed to pay the requisite fee. It is alleged by the petitioner that without considering the fact that the petitioner is ready to complete the anomalies and without providing him reasonable opportunity of hearing, the respondent no.2 by an order dated 29.01.2016, directed for demolition of entire construction raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Camp Dehradun. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Camp Dehradun. Learned Commissioner, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of evidence, by an order dated 01.02.2016, partly allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the respondent no.2 to reexamine the same and to decide the compounding application on its merit, after hearing the petitioner, and to compound the construction which is compoundable, and directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law for non-compoundable part. Learned Commissioner further directed that till 05.02.2016, the order dated 29.01.2016 shall be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 again passed the same order on 16.03.2016 as it was passed on 29.01.2016, against which, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who again remitted the matter back to the respondent no.2. On 27.04.2016, the respondent no.2, again passed the same order of demolition and directed the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised construction raised by him within 15 days otherwise the same would be demolished by the M.D.D.A. and the expenses incurred on the said demolition would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Hence, these writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter has been remitted back to the respondent no.2 Secretary, M.D.D.A. by the respondent no.1 Commissioner, who is Chairman, M.D.D.A., twice, for re-examination and for deciding the compounding application of the petitioner and to compound the compoundable part, but the respondent no.2, with some ulterior motive, best known to him, is adamant for demolition of entire construction raised by the petitioner including the part which is duly sanctioned. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the conduct of the petitioner is not fair and he has not come before this Court with clean hands. He further submits that once the petitioner has given an undertaking to the effect that he will not develop the property in question as wedding point and will adhere to the sanction plan, the petitioner should not have raised the construction as wedding point. He submits that this undertaking was also recorded by the Court in the order dated 11.05.2016 passed in WPMS No.1230 of 2016. He further submits that due to this undertaking, the compounding application was not considered by the respondent no.2. 7. He submits that this undertaking was also recorded by the Court in the order dated 11.05.2016 passed in WPMS No.1230 of 2016. He further submits that due to this undertaking, the compounding application was not considered by the respondent no.2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order for demolition has been passed on the ground that for running a Wedding point there is a requirement under the law that the road should be 18 meters whereas at the spot there is only 6 to 7 meter road. He submits that the petitioner is ready to provide 18 meters road in front of the construction, as required under the law, and as such a direction may be issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the compounding application of the petitioner. 8. Before going further, it would be relevant to go through the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in writ petition (m/s) no.1230 of 2016, which reads as under:- “……Petitioner is present in person before this Court alongwith with his learned counsel. The MDDA has already sanctioned a map in favour of the petitioner for running a farm house on 28.08.2015. It is the statement of the petitioner that he is not running a wedding point, although, the Junior Engineer while inspecting the spot has mentioned that the petitioner has developed the property in question as wedding point. The petitioner also states that an extra construction, i.e. tin-shed, was raised by him on the spot, which he has demolished himself. According to him, construction on the spot is exactly in accordance with the sanction plan. Petitioner also undertakes that he will not develop the property in question as wedding point and will adhere to the sanction plan. Petitioner shall file an affidavit stating the aforesaid undertakings within a week. As prayed, four weeks’ time is granted to the respondents for filing counter affidavit. It is provided, as an interim measure, that the property in question shall not be sealed by the respondent authority for a period of four weeks….” 9. In my view, the petitioner should have honored the undertaking given by him before the Court. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has force. He, however, submits that in case some order is passed for considering the application of the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. In my view, the petitioner should have honored the undertaking given by him before the Court. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has force. He, however, submits that in case some order is passed for considering the application of the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 10. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, the Court thinks that against the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the respondent no.2, the petitioner has a remedy to file an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 27(2) of The U.P. Planning and Development Act, 1973. It is provided that in case, such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the learned Commissioner within a period of one month. 11. The petitioner is also permitted to move a compounding application before the respondent no.2 Secretary, M.D.D.A., indicating all the facts on record. In case, the petitioner fulfills all the conditions, as required under the law, his application shall be considered and decided within a period of one month after the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes that till the decision is taken on the compounding application of the petitioner, the demolition of the construction raised by the petitioner shall not be carried out. 13. With the above observations and direction, the writ petitions stand disposed of.