Smt. Kamla Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—In the writ petition, a sealing order dated 7th June 2011, and the order rejecting the appeal against the said order were assailed. When the writ petition was considered, it was contended that those orders were passed without issuing any notice under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act, to the Petitioner. The court found that such notice was issued to the tenant of the Petitioner, who is not the owner and landlord of the property in question, and accordingly, passed an interim order, whereby the sealing order was stayed. Subsequently, MDDA filed an affidavit and thereby brought on record certain evidence suggesting that illegal construction activities are continuing. That having been noticed, by the judgment and order under appeal, MDDA has been directed to seal the premises. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been filed. It is the contention of the Appellant / Petitioner, that by reason of the impugned order, the commercial activities at the said premises has come to an end. It is being contended that commercial activities are carried on by the tenant of the Appellant. The court felt that after having had obtained an order restraining the sealing order, either the Appellant or his tenant is carrying on illegal construction activities, and in that background passed the order directing the MDDA to seal the premises. By reason of that order, the tenant of the Appellant is directly affected. It is a question of fact, which is required to be gone in, whether, after the order of this Court dated 1st September 2011, any further construction activities had been carried out, or not. That can only be done after taking into account the materials on record, as collected or would be collected, in the writ petition.

We see no reason to interfere with the matter, and accordingly, dismiss the appeal, but at the same time request the learned Judge to deal with the writ petition at an early date.