HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1774 of 2025 (M/S) Janki Sah ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 09.06.2025, passed under Section 27 of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 (“the Act”) in Case No.UCMS/NDA/R0347/2023, State Vs. Smt. Janki Sah and Another, by the Joint Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as to how and why this petition should be entertained in view of available alternate efficacious remedy under Section 27(2) of the Act? 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may prefer an appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act, but she is aggrieved by some observations, which were made in the body of the judgment. 5. Be it as it may, whatever petitioner is aggrieved by, she may make a challenge under Section 27(2) of the Act. This is an alternate efficacious remedy. Therefore, there is no reason to make any 2 interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 19.06.2025 Ravi Bisht