HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1895 of 2025 (M/S) Ashok Kumar Thapliyal ….......Petitioner Vs. Commissioner, Pauri Garhwal and Another …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Abhishek Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner, through video conferencing. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for respondent no.2. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to an order dated 12.06.2025, passed under Section 20A(4) of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. At the very outset, learned State Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) submit that the impugned order is revisionable before the State Development Authority (“the Act”). 4. When the Court requested learned counsel for the petitioner to explain as to why the instant petition should be entertained in view of the statutory remedy 2 under Section 7A of the Act, by way of filing a revision before the State Development Authority, he submits that he would prefer revision, but till then, his premises may be unsealed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/MDDA submits that sealing was done on 13.05.2025 because the petitioner was running a hostel from one unit of the residential premises. 6. Since there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner, there is no reason to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 27.06.2025 Ravi Bisht