Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:102016-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14375 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Nisha Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Singh,Chandra Vijai Singh,Satendra Tirpathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Satendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Gorakhpur Industrial Development Authority (GIDA), Sector-7, Gorakhpur, whereby the structure on Plot No. D-4/4, Sector-7 has been sealed by GIDA Gorakhpur. 3. At the very outset, Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed under Section 9 read with Section 10 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1976"). It is further submitted that by virtue of Section 7 of the Act, 1976, various provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1973") have been made applicable to the industrial development areas, including the provisions under Chapter VII, specifically Sections 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49 to 53, and 58. 4. It is contended that in view of the applicability of Section 41 of the Act, 1973, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing a revision before the State Government. In support of the objection, learned counsel relies upon the statutory scheme which provides for adjudication of such grievances before the revisional authority rather than invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The availability of a statutory and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 41 of the Act, 1973 cannot be ignored, and there appears to be no exceptional circumstance justifying bypassing of such remedy. 6. In the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a revision under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 before the State Government within two weeks from today. In case, such revision along with an appropriate application for interim relief is filed within the stipulated period, the State Government/revisional authority shall consider and decide the stay application in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of its filing. The revision itself shall also be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Anil K. Sharma Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad