HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29863 of 2025 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. 1. Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 5 under Section 27(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 has been challenged by way of filing an appeal before the respondent no. 2 i.e. Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the said appeal was filed along with interim application. The interim application was rejected vide order dated 20.08.2025. He has also submitted that the respondent no. 2 has rejected the interim application without considering the averments and submissions made before the appellate authority that if any construction is found to be unauthorized on the premises in dispute, the same shall be subject to compounding as per Uttar Pradesh Building Constructions and Development bye-laws 2025. He has also submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit required compounding fee as per Section 16.3 of the said Act. Learned Senior Counsel has next submitted that since the petitioner has made out a prima facie case in appeal but the appellate authority, without considering the aforesaid submissions and without application of mind, rejected the interim application. Learned Senior Counsel thereafter submitted that the appeal, which is pending before the appellate authority, may be directed to be decided expeditiously in time bound manner. 2. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava vehemently opposed the petition, but have not objected the prayer as made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal, which is pending before the appellate Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gautam Baghel Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, C.S.C. Shalini Dubey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) authority, may be decided expeditiously in time bound manner. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and perused the contents made in the writ petition and the documents on record. 4. Since the appeal is pending before the appellate authority, the appellate authority is directed to decide the said appeal in accordance with law, after hearing both the sides and taking into consideration of all documents and averments made in the appeal, expeditiously preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 5. The effect and operation of the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 shall be kept in abeyance, till the decision of the appeal 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. September 11, 2025 Pratima WRIC No. 29863 of 2025 2 (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad