2025:UHC:5745 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 04TH JULY, 2025 WRIT PETITON NO. 1914 OF 2025 (M/S) Mohd. Matlub ..... Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ..…Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manokam Nautiyal, Advocate (through video conferencing) Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate No.1 (through video conferencing) Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate Nos.2 and 3 Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “(i) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned order 17.06.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 contained as Annexure No.7 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 2. Heard Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Sandeep 1 2025:UHC:5745 Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3. 3. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner is residing at House No.311, Charton House, Mallital, Nainital since the year, 2017. A show cause notice dated 17.01.2019 was issued by the respondent no.1. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 21.04.2022. The respondent no.1 directed the petitioner to file objection till 10.05.2022. The petitioner submitted his objection. The respondent no.3 passed an ex-parte order on 27.12.2024 and directed to demolish the petitioner’s illegal construction, which was constructed in violation of the provisions contained under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short, “Act, 1973”) (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand). The petitioner moved a recall application, which was not decided by the respondent no.3. The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition [No.182 of 2025 (M/S)]. On 10.01.2025, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the construction-in-question. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act, 1973. The said appeal was dismissed on 28.05.2025. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred a 2 2025:UHC:5745 Revision before the respondent no.1. The said revision is still pending. Meanwhile, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 and directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction within a period of 15 days. 4. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the respondent no.3 has no authority to pass the impugned order dated 17.06.2025. He has requested to decide the present writ petition directing the respondent no.1 to decide the revision, filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. 5. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel has sought two months time for respondent no.1 to decide the Revision, filed by the petitioner. 6. With the consent of the parties, present Writ Petition (WPMS No.1914 of 2025) is disposed of directing the respondent no.1 to decide the Revision, filed by the petitioner-Mohd. Matlub, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Till decision is taken on the Revision, filed by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 17.06.2025, passed by the respondent no.3, is kept in abeyance and until then, 3 2025:UHC:5745 the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the property-in-question. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Let the certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties today itself as per rules. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 04.07.2025 JKJ/Pant 4