2025:UHC:7045-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMB 621/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate, for the MDDA. (2) According to petitioners, they are residents of ‘Serene Greens’, a group housing society developed by respondent no. 4; respondent no. 4 is now in the process of developing another project, known as Oakwood Apartments, in the vicinity of Serene Greens. According to petitioners, the new project is being developed in violation of National Building Code and MDDA Bye-Laws. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the new sanctioned map as approved on dated 18th March 2025 (Annexure No. 11) as being contrary to the report earlier prepared by the MDDA’s investigation team dated 4th September 2024 and 24th September 2024 (Annexure No. 3) which made finding of misrepresentation and fraud in the manner in which the Oakwoods map was sanctioned in the year 2021, and being contrary to clause 2.61 of the Uttarakhand building bylaws as the present project is not in a “Developed Area”. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash clause 2.61 of the Uttarakhand building bylaws as introduced by the amendment of 2019 as being contrary to the National Building Court as being contrary to clause 2.25 of the National Building Code which provides for a minimum 12 meters width for a group housing project. (Annexure No. 15) 2025:UHC:7045-DB iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to act upon the representations as authored by the Petitioner to the Commissioner Garhwal. (Annexure No. 13) and take appropriate action against the erring officials of Respondent No. 2 MDDA, for facilitating the sanctioning of the map as approved on dated 18th March 2025 (Annexure No. 11).” (3) According to petitioners, MDDA has changed the norms regarding width of the road. Petitioners are challenging Clause 2.61 of Uttarakhand Building Construction & Development Bye-Laws, 2011, as amended in 2019. According to petitioners, Clause 2.61 of the said bye-laws, before amendment, provided that minimum width of the road leading to a multi-storey group housing society should be 12 metres, however, by amendment, width of such road is reduced to 9 metres. This, according to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is contrary to National Building Code, which is to be mandatorily followed. (4) Per contra, Mr. Rahul Consul, appearing for MDDA, refers to Clause 1.2(2) of Uttarakhand Building Construction & Development Bye-Laws, 2011, which provides that wherever Uttarakhand Building Construction & Development Bye-Laws, 2011 are silent on any aspect, then the Model Building Bye-Laws framed by Bureau of Indian Standards shall be applicable. He further submits that ‘National Building Code’ is in the nature of guidelines, formulated by Bureau of Indian Standards on the request of Planning Commission. He submits that Uttarakhand Building Construction & Development Bye-Laws, 2011 contain specific provision regarding width of road, therefore National Building Code will have no application on the said aspect, in view of Clause 1.2(2) of Uttarakhand Building 2025:UHC:7045-DB Construction & Development Bye-Laws, 2011. He relies on a judgment rendered by Division Bench of Kerala High Court in WP(C) No. 20706 of 2013 (S) (C.M. Dinesh Mani vs. State of Kerala and Others) for contending that National Building Code is only a general guideline and not binding on the government. (5) We find substance in the submission made by Mr. Rahul Consul. In view of express provision contained in Clause 1.2(2) of Uttarakhand Building Construction & Development Bye-Laws, 2011, provisions of National Building Code will be attracted only when Uttarakhand Building Construction & Development Bye-Laws, 2011 are silent on any particular aspect. Thus challenge to Clause 2.61 of Uttarakhand Building Construction & Development Bye-Laws, 2011, as made in prayer no. (ii), is without any substance. (6) As regards other reliefs claimed by petitioners, they are permitted to approach Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority under Section 7-B(4) of Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting the petitioners to make a joint representation to Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority. If petitioners make representation within two weeks from today, the Authority shall look into the matter and take decision, as per law, within four months thereafter. (7) It goes without saying that respondent no. 4 shall also be heard before taking any decision on petitioners’ representation. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 11.8.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.08.11 18:52:17 +05'30' 2025:UHC:7045-DB