Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118043-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23182 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pushp Lata Shakya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents, and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate, Regulatory Area, Farrukhabad (respondent no. 3). The petitioner has further sought a direction to permit her to operate the Sabha Bhawan situated at Village Kharbandi Kuinyaboot, District Farrukhabad, and for a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioner's pending application in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is running "Pratiksha Sabha Bhawan" at the aforementioned location, which is stated to be registered under the Companies Registration Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.05.2025, whereby the City Magistrate directed that the guest house being operated by the petitioner's husband shall not be permitted to run and any further attempt to do so would invite strict action. Learned counsel contends that the said order has been passed arbitrarily and without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing, causing grave prejudice and potential irreparable loss to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition. He submits that the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 is a self-contained Act and provides for a statutory appellate remedy under Section 10. Any person aggrieved by an order under the said provision may prefer an appeal to the Controlling Authority within thirty days. He states that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.02.2025 and the impugned order has been passed thereafter, and that the petitioner has not availed the alternative statutory remedy available under the Act. 5. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has an equally efficacious and statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Controlling Authority under the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958. The writ petition has been filed without availing such remedy. Hence, no indulgence is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy by approaching the Controlling Authority, by filing an appeal under the Act, along with a stay application, if so advised, within two weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the stipulated time, the Controlling Authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a further period of three weeks, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 7. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be decided by the appropriate authority. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Shafique Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad