Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25262 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gaurhari Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pandey,Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Atul Kumar Tiwari,C.S.C.,Punit Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.6, Sri Atul Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed today, notices need not be issued to private respondent no.4. 3. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:- " (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 in Appeal No.205 of 2023, (Gaurhari Agarwal Vs. State of U.P.), u/s 15 (2) of U.P. Regulations of Building Operations Act 1958, as well as the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No.282 of 2014 (State Vs. u/s 10 of U.P. Gaurhari Agarwal), Regulations of Building Operations Act 1958, and the impugned demolishing notice dated 10.07.2025 issued by the Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate Regulatory Area Farrukhabad-Fatehgarh. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and respondent authorities construction of the not to the directing demolish th petitioner over Gat No. 3645, 3646, 3648, 3654 and 3658 situated at Village Garhi Nawab Nyamat Khan Thandi Sadak, district Farrukhabad." 3. At the very outset, Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.6, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that against the order passed under Section 15(2) of the U.P. Regulations of Building Operations Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as well as the order passed under Section 10 of the Act by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring a revision under Section 15-A of the Act. 4. Confronted with the said objection, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed, and liberty may be granted to pursue the reliefs before the appropriate authority/court. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the said statutory forum. Since, the equity is in favour of the petitioner a leave is granted to the petitioner who may institute a revision before the authority concerned within two weeks from today alongwith stay application. We hope and trust that the stay application so filed shall be decided by the authority concerned within a further period of three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondents shall maintain the status quo qua the disputed property and the revision may also be decided expeditiously. The petitioner is also restrained to change the nature of the property till the disposal of his application. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad