HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30110 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.2 - Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA). 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to private respondent No.3. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "A. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction done by respondent no. 3 in the courtyard of the petitioner. B. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner." 4. The petitioner, who is the complainant, has approached this Court on the ground that the construction carried out by respondent no.3 is illegal and unauthorized, violating the petitioner’s rights as well as the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Vijeta Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avadhesh Narayan Dubey, C.S.C., Vibhu Rai Kanti Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Town Planning and Development Authority Act, 1973. The Zonal Officer of the PDA has also found the construction to be patently illegal. However, despite the demolition order passed by the competent authority, the structure still exists and continues to cause obstruction. The failure of respondent no.2 to enforce its own order reflects administrative arbitrariness. The illegal construction infringes upon the petitioner’s right to life, liberty, privacy, and peaceful enjoyment of her property. Despite repeated complaints and legal notices, no effective action has been taken, leaving the petitioner with no alternative remedy except to seek relief from this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.2 – PDA, submits on the basis of detailed instructions that the complaint has been duly entertained by the PDA, and a notice was earlier issued on 15.04.2024 granting 15 days’ time to respondent no.3 to remove the illegal construction. He has further placed reliance upon the notice dated 06.09.2025, whereby the PDA had directed to remove the illegal structure immediately. Lastly, he prays that some more time may be granted to finalize the proceedings. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to keep the writ petition pending consideration and call for a counter affidavit. 7. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the observation that, if the proceedings are still pending, the same shall be concluded expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, particularly respondent no.3. October 7, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 30110 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad