HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 25813 of 2025 (Sl. No. 9) Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the show cause notice and order dated 18.6.2024 and 16.7.2024 and further consequential act of illegal demolition/removal of the shutter of the store of petitioner situated on the ground floor of plot no. 951(A), First Floor, Shalimar Garden, Extention-1, 80 ft. road, Ghaziabad by the respondent no. 2-GDA and also issue a suitable direction to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner with respect to installation of shutter of store bearing no. S-1 situated on ground floor of plot no. 951 (A) First Floor, Shalimar Garden, Extention- 1, 80 Feet Road, Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that per se the impugned notice issued against the petitioner is not sustainable as at no point of time any such notice was addressed to him. Contrarily, the notice has been served on Mrs. Sarita Singh, who is not the owner of the property. He submits that previously Sarita Singh, wife of the petitioner, had preferred a writ petition being Writ C No. 36102 of 2024 (Sarita Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others) levelling a complaint that due to some commercial activity which is taking place on the ground floor of the property no. 951, she is facing problems in ingress and egress at the first floor. The said Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra Rajesh Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petition was entertained and direction was issued by the Division Bench acting upon which the GDA had stopped the commercial activity and removed the shutters. He submits that the impugned notice is a retributive action which is issued with mala fide intention without factually verifying the ownership of the property in question. He submits that the respondent Authority has failed to verify the sale deed wherein the property is already mentioned as Store, and no such commercial activity has been carried out by the petitioner as alleged. 4. Considering the factual situation, we find that the complaint of Sarita Singh has already been redressed by the GDA and under such facts and circumstances, what we expect is that the Authority must proceed fairly. Suffice to say that in case the petitioner is found flouting any terms of the zonal plan which is approved by the GDA or found indulged in any activity which is contrary to the activity earmarked in the said locality, definitely the Authority is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner but certainly in accordance with law. 5. We also find as the notice has already been issued to the wife of the petitioner, even though she is not the owner of the property, it would be in the interest of justice that the objection to the impugned notice shall be filed within two weeks and the matter would be considered in accordance with law by the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority within six weeks thereafter. 6. Till the disposal of the said objection, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 10, 2025 Kirti WRIC No. 25813 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad