Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 164829 (ALL)

SMT. GEETA DEVI @ GUDDI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BALRAMPUR AND 4 OTHERS

/9165/2025 · 2025-09-23

Brij Raj Singh, Sangeeta Chandra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9165 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the State-respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed the issuance of notice to the Opposite party nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the Opposite parties nos.1 to 3 to stop the illegal construction of House of the opposite party nos.4 and 5 till disposal of the Appeal No.11 of 2024 [Smt. Geeta Devi @ Guddi Vs. Bhawani Prasad and Another] so that the petitioner could get justice. (ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner." 4. It has been submitted that the private-respondents had filed a complaint before the Regulating Authority Regulated Area, Balrampur, the petitioner filed objections on receiving notice. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Irfan Alam Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Geeta Devi @ Guddi .....Petitioner(s) District Magistrate Balrampur And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) However, his objections have been rejected by order dated 28.11.2024. The petitioner has filed an Appeal under Section 15 of the U.P. Regulation of Building Operations Act, before the Controlling Authority but no impugned order has been passed and the private- respondents are raising construction during the pendency of the Appeal, rendering said Appeal infructuous by time it is decided. 5. Learned Standing counsel has pointed out Section 15(3) of the U.P. Regulation of Building Operations Act where there is a provision for passing an interim stay, in case of pendency of the Appeal. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an application for interim relief before the Controlling Authority within a week from today. If such an application is filed, the said application for interim order shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three weeks' thereafter. September 23, 2025 N.PAL WRIC No. 9165 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench