Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37605-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5718 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Parul Petroleum Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the demand notice dated 16.1.2025 issued by the Competent Authority, Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority, Hapur, demanding certain charges from the petitioner towards compounding fee, plan fee, impact fee and case fee, totalling Rs. 7,70,631/-, for sanctioning map of a building meant for running of Bio-Diesel Plant at Khasra No. 804, Garh Road, Village Upeda, Tehsil and District Hapur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of making oral submissions, confined the challenge to the demand of impact fee only. He submits that the same cannot be charged in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and Another Vs. Rajesh Sharma and Others : AIR 2023 SC 2957, decided on 28.4.2023. 3. Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Development Authority, has placed before us a notification dated 28.1.2025 issued by the State Government notifying the U.P. Urban Planning and Development (Assessment, Levy and Collection of Impact Fee) Rules, 2024. The said Rules have been framed under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 55, read with sub-section (2) of Section 15 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. It defines impact fee under Rule 2(l) as follows: - 2(l) "Impact Fee" means a fee levied upon a person or a body under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act for seeking permission for a higher use or activity in a lower land use in accordance with the zoning regulations. 4. It is urged that the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and Another Vs. Rajesh Sharma and Others (supra) had considered the government orders by which various charges were imposed and held that the State does not have power under Section 41 of the Act to provide for levy of any charge not provided for under Section 15(2-A) of the Act. However, it is urged that the instant Rules have been framed under Section 55(2)(c), read with Section 15(2) of the Act. It is urged that Section 15(2) itself provides that application for sanction of building plan shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Rules. It is urged that now Rules having been framed, the petitioner is liable to pay the charges stipulated under the Rules. 5. The Rules are not under challenge. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid issues would fall for consideration in case the Rules are challenged. 6. We therefore dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Rules along with the impugned notice, if so advised. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 17.3.2025/Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad