HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1566 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents no. 2 and 3, i.e., District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority to enquire into the complaint of the petitioner in the Loni area, Ward No. 33 (Ankur Vihar and Khushhal Vihar) about the standards of the construction and also how much permission for construction has been granted and how much they have constructed the building and whether the same are in contravention of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ('the Act'). 2. On 14.08.2025, it was submitted by learned Standing Counsel that against the petitioner, already an order for demolition of his house has been passed on 27.07.2022, which fact has been suppressed in the petition, when learned Standing Counsel was directed to place the demolition notice on record. 3. Today, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the said instruction was given by the respondent-Authority on account of similarity in the name of the petitioner and the person to whom notice was issued, however, parentage is different and that notice was not issued to the petitioner and that he withdraws his submission made on 14.08.2025. 4. It is, inter alia, claimed that petitioner has been making representations alleging the lack of construction as per the prescribed standard, however, the respondent-Development Authority has been giving standard response, i.e., Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bijai Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manu Ghildyal, Sant Ram Sharma, Tejasvi Misra Ram Niwas Tripathi .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and 10 others .....Respondent(s) as soon as such violation comes to the notice, action under the relevant provisions of the Act has been taken and as the complainant has not indicated any specific flat, on indicating specific flats, action will be taken, which response of the Development Authority is ex facie illegal and incorrect as the violations are rampant and no effort is being made to identify such violations and take action. Submissions have also been made that petitioner has supplied the list of such flats, however, no action has been taken. 5. Instructions have been produced, inter alia, indicating that absolutely general allegations are being made qua the construction. The petitioner is habitual of making complaints and reference has been made regarding the action taken qua the flats indicated by the petitioner. 6. We have considered the material available on record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. A bare look at the complaints made clearly indicates that absolutely generic allegations have been made regarding the constructions being wholly illegal, raising of extra storeys, lack of parking facilities, failure to leave setback, construction of excessive flats, quality of construction material, lack of proper drainage, lack of fire safety equipments and illegal builders having protection of Developmetn Authority. Though list of flats have been indicated, no indication has been made as to which flat/building has violated which condition. Making sweeping allegations and not pinpointed specific allegations against specific construction, essentially, is seeking a roving enquiry by the Development Authority, which nature of complaints have rightly been discarded by the Development Authority. 8. We do not find any good reason to entertain the petition of present nature. The same is, therefore, dismissed. September 24, 2025 P.Sri. WPIL No. 1566 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad