HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34442 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 08.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 by which the respondent authority directed to the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction in front of new drainage. (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition). (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to act alternate method to construct the drainage system and reexamine the area and after taking measurement marked the are of unauthorized construction before started work." 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notice dated 08.09.2025, by which he has been asked to remove the encroachment made by him on the side of the footpath as a construction of drainage (Nala) is underway, has filed the present writ petition. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent without determining as to whether there is any encroachment by the petitioner has issued notice dated 08.09.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi, Rajesh Tewari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Krishna, C.S.C. Vijay Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Counsel for the respondent submits that the construction of drainage is for the public purpose and, therefore, this Court may refrain from interfering in the impugned notice. 6. Be that as it may, considering the facts of the case, we dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file written reply against the notice issued within a period of one week from today. 7. On the submission of said reply, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the objection of the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing. 8. For a period of four weeks, the respondents may not proceed to demolish the construction of the petitioner. September 26, 2025 Karan WRIC No. 34442 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad