Satendra Prasad Asthana vs Varanasi Development Authority and others

K.N. Goyal, J.—Admit.

As only a short question is involved, I proceed to dispose of the petition finally.

The petitioner allegedly made some unauthorised constructions. In respect of the same, the Vice Chairman of the Varanasi Development Authority levied penalty compounding fee of Rs. 9996.68 P. vide notice dated 211181, annexure2. The petitioner made representation against the same, contending that the amount of penalty had been wrongly calculated and that it should have been much less. This was rejected by the Vice Chairman on 24383, vide intimation annexure4. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 41 (3) of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, with the State Government. The State Government has rejected the revision on the ground that Section 41(3) did not give it the power to entertain a revision against a mere letter of intimation, namely annexure4.

The State Government has approached the matter in a hypertechnical manner. The substance ought to have been seen. Actually the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 211181, annexure23 against which his representation was rejected, an intimation whereof was given through annexure4. So even if the petitioner may have mentioned the impugned order as the one dated 24383 in the title of his revision petition annexure5, the State Government ought to have considered the revision on merits against the order dated 211181 which was duly mentioned in the body of the revision.

The impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 4285, annexure8, is hereby quashed. The State Government, opposite party No. 3, shall decide the revision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the directions made above.