Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS D/24 WPMS No.1792 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Ravindra Singh Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for respondent no.2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.3. The challenge in this petition is made to a notice dated 06.06.2025, passed by the respondent no.1, the Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 27, 28(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (“the Act”). Heard. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know, as to why this writ petition be entertained in view of alternate efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act? Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would file an appeal. He seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition and he also seeks protection for three days arguing that the time for filing the appeal is expiring tomorrow. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to the proposition, as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy, this writ petition may not be entertained. Therefore, it is rejected accordingly. However, since the petitioner proposes to avail the alternate efficacious remedy by way of filing an appeal, the effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance for next three working days only. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.06.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd 504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE4 0699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.06.20 17:31:27 +05'30'