Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87106 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14175 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Tauheed And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. In the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 10 of U.P. (Regulation of Building Operation) Act, 1958, an order was passed by the Presiding Officer/City Magistrate, Pilibhit/respondent No.3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, a statutory appeal as provided under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1958 was filed before the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Pilibhit on 23.12.2024. The aforesaid appeal was admitted by the respondent No.2 vide it order dated 27.12.2024. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that along with the appeal, an application for grant of interim relief had also been filed but till date no decision has been taken in the matter. It is argued that on the one hand, statutory appeal filed by the petitoner is pending consideration before the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Pilibhit and on the other hand, notice dated 24.01.2025 is being issued by the respondent No.3/Presiding Officer/City Magistrate, Pilibhit directing the petitioner to comply with the order dated 12.12.2024 and demolish the illegal constructions. It is argued that since the aforesaid appeal is admitted and still pending, and notices were also issued to the opposite party, the Court below should grant interim protection in favour of the petitioner/revisionist. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur reported in (1982) 3 SCC 484. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the judgement, relevant portion of the paragraph Nos.3 and 4 which are quoted below:- "3. An appeal from this order was preferred being F. A. F.O. No. Nil. of 1982. We are told that appeal was admitted and notice of motion was taken out for suspension of the Order under appeal. But the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court declined to grant stay. Hence, this appeal by Special Leave Petition. 4. We heard Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned Counsel for the appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine any contention on merits at present, but we would like to take notice of the emerging situation if the operation of the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal. If the F. A.F.O. is allowed, obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand would have to vacate the room and handover the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned advocate for respondents, that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is intentional flouting of the Court's order. We are not interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted." 3. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the Instructions, it is admitted that the interim protection application is still pending before the respondent No.2. 4. Heard learned cousnel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the appeal has already been filed before the respondent No.2 along with the interim protection which is still pending and this fact is also admitted by the petitioner. 6. In this view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Pilibhit to pass appropriate orders on the stay application filed with the appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order but after providing opportunity of hearing to the all the parties concerned, unless there is no legal impediment. 7. For a period of two months or till the decision taken on the stay application whichever is earlier, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad