Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Anil Kumar Rana vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 November, 2020

Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis, Vivek Varma





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 46
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16858 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Rana
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Tripathi,Irshad Husain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
 

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

Heard Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satyam Singh holding brief of learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

It is a case of the petitioner that he has deposited certain amount towards development charges for carrying out development work as per lay out and some amount remained to be paid to the authority, which the petitioner could not arrange due to unavoidable circumstances, as such he defaulted payment of the amount as per demand notice dated 21.5.2014 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ-C No. 2259 of 2019 (Anil Kumar Rana Vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit a representation to the authority and the said authority was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. In pursuance to the order passed by the writ court the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 4.7.2019, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent authority has raised preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 41 (3) of the Urban Planning Development Act, as such the present writ petition may not be entertained.

Admittedly, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the State Government under Section 41 (3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government and in case the petitioner approaches the respondent no. 1 within two weeks from today the said respondent shall entertain the same and shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter.

Order Date :- 3.11.2020 Shahnawaz