Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75583-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (Sl No.252) Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14584 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Chinta Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The following prayers have been made in the writ petition: "i. TO ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.3.2023 passed in Map No.306/2023 (Vijay Mishra Vs Chinta Devi) under Section 7-Ka of R.B.O. Act 1958 [filed as Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition] by the prescribed authority regulated area Padrauna District Kushinagar in accordance with law. ii. TO ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition against the authority concerned i.e. Respondent No.4 by way of prohibiting him the adjudication of Case No.411/2023 (State Vs Chinta Devi) in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 24.3.2023 as expeditiously as possible within the stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 2. By the order dated 24.03.2023, the approval granted to the building plan dated 29.06.2019 was cancelled and direction was issued for issuance of notice under Section 10 of the U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958 to the petitioner. 3. Pursuant thereto, it seems that Case No. 411 of 2023 was registered. The petitioner filed Writ No. 5139 of 2025 seeking a direction to the respondents to decide Case No. 411 of 2023 and another Case No. 103 of 2016 pending against another person expeditiously. The said writ petition was disposed of on 06.05.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to apply before the Authority for expeditious disposal. 4. Although, by the time the instant petition was filed, the petitioner had already filed another Writ No. 5139 of 2025, but the said fact was not disclosed in the instant writ petition. 5. When the Court confronted counsel for the petitioner about the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the relief claimed is different, therefore, the said disclosure was not necessary. 6. We observe that Case No. 411 of 2023, in respect of which relief has also been prayed in the instant petition, relates to the same building map and the constructions existing over the property in dispute. Therefore, it was essential for the petitioner to have disclosed the said material fact in the writ petition. 7. We find absolutely no justification for not disclosing the same. 8. In view of the above, we do not interfere at this stage and leave it open to the petitioner to pray for expeditious disposal before the authority in terms of the leave granted to the petitioner in the earlier petition. 9. The petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad