High CourtsSingle Bench

Trilok Semwal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 13 May 2021 · Citation: (2021) 05 UK CK 0031

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 986 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 366 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Heard.

2.

For the reasons stated, Amendment application IA No.04/2021 is allowed. Let amended memo of parties be filed during the course of the day.

3.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(a) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent’s to take action against the illegal construction being made by

the respondent no.7.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the resopndent’s to prohibit the respondent no.7 to carry out further

construction of the Petrol Pump which is in utter disregard to the Rules and regulations as applicable in the present case.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take a decision upon the representation/letter of the petitioner dated

01.05.2021.

3.

According to the petitioner, respondent no.7 is running a petrol pump at Dehradun, even without getting the necessary permission from Mussoorie

Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA).

4.

Shri Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7 admits that the respondent no.7 is running a petrol pump, although necessary

permission from MDDA is awaited. However, he submits that respondent no.7 has obtained NOC/permission from other government agencies.

5.

Shri Rahul Consul, learned counsel appearing for MDDA submits that the competent authority in MDDA has issued a show-cause notice to

respondent no.7 on 4.05.2021, requiring him to show cause as to why the construction raised by her be not demolished. He further submits that by the

said notice, respondent no.7 has been asked to stop any further construction on the site of the petrol pump.

6.

Shri Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate submits that pursuant to the order dated 04.05.2021, his client has stopped further construction.

7.

Having regard to the nature of reliefs claimed in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority in

MDDA to take decision on petitioner’s representation dated 01.05.2021, which is Annexure no.2 to the writ petition, within four weeks from

today. It goes without saying that while taking decision on petitioner’s application, respondent no.7 will also be heard.

8.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.