Rajesh Vasudeva vs Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (ORAL)

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

Exemption Application (CLMA No.10796 of 2018) is allowed.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed calling in question notice dated 17.07.2018 issued purportedly by the Assistant Engineer

of the respondent under Section 27(1) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Actâ€). The

learned Single Judge, noticing that the writ petition is directed against the show-cause notice, observed that no interference at this stage can be made.

It is stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the appellant/writ petitioner must first give a reply to the show-cause notice given to him. It

is further stated in the judgment that thereafter decision on reply to show cause, there is a provision for appeal under the Act and, thereafter, revision

under the Statute, and the writ petition was dismissed IN LIMINE.

We heard Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel on behalf of the

respondent/M.D.D.A.

No doubt, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner would draw our attention to the word ‘development’ as defined

under Section 2(e) of the Act. Section 2(e) of the Act reads as follows:

“2(e) “developmentâ€, with is grammatical variations, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or

under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, and includes re-development;â€​

He, thereafter, drew our attention to Section 27(1) of the Act. He would submit that this is a case, where the show-cause notice is actually issued

without jurisdiction as the appellant/writ petitioner has not carried out any activity as the construction was preexisting. In the show-cause notice, in the

portion defining ‘development’, reference is that there is a change of user. The appellant/writ petitioner has already given response to the show-

cause notice vide Annexure No. 6 dated 19.07.2018 to the writ petition. In fact, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner

would also contend that the appellant/writ petitioner apprehends that the building will be demolished even before decision is taken on the reply filed by

him to the show-cause notice.

Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the respondent/M.D.D.A. would point out that Section 27(1) of the Act, in its proviso, contemplates giving an

opportunity of showing cause against action under Section 27(1) of the Act. He would submit that at this stage, it is only a show-cause and the

appellant/writ petitioner has, in fact, availed of the opportunity to show cause; he has given reply. Thus, he contends that apprehension expressed is

without any basis.

We also notice, as was noticed by the learned Single Judge, that there is a right of Appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act, which is a statutory

remedy available to the appellant/writ petitioner against any alleged action, if at all taken. Further, it is undisputed that there is a right of revision also.

In such circumstances, we feel that the apprehension of the appellant/writ petitioner appears to be unfounded.

In such circumstances, the Appeal will stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the respondent/M.D.D.A., in fact, would submit at the bar that until and unless a decision is taken on the

show-cause notice, there can be no question of demolition. We record the said submission.