Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107175-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18581 of 2025 Petitioner :- Empire Townships Developers Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Kumar Mishra,Avneesh Mishra,Vikrant Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahendra Pratap,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Manoj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 5 and perused the material brought on the record. 2. By means of the present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner questions the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 i.e. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, U.P. in view of the judgment and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court in Writ C. No.2232 of 2025 (Empire Township Developers Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) and alternatively it has also been prayed to immediately stop all unauthorized digging and construction activities over the property in question. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the contesting- respondents raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner and in support of his submissions, they have placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 26.7.2023 passed by this Court in WRIT - C No. - 24257 of 2023 (Rampal Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 Others), wherein, the Court was pleased to observe that petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2006") and the Court had further considered that Rule 3 (iii) of the Rules, 2006 stipulated that every order made by a District or a Commissioner of Police or an authorized officer under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the revision by the Appellate Commissioner i.e., U.P. Regulatory Commission constituted under Section 2(4) of the Rules, 2006. They submit that once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory forum. 4. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner could not overcome the same. 5. Considering the aforesaid factual situation of the matter and the submission so advanced by learned counsel for the contesting- respondents, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Needless to say that in case the petitioner prefers a revision under the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2006 before the appropriate forum within two weeks' from today, we hope and trust that the same would be considered in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad