HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 16053 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Umesh Vats, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vikrant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Gorakhpur Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to approve the map of the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the petitioner's construction till the disposal of the petitioner's representation. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law on the representations dated 31.01.2026 and 28.03.2026 within a stipulated period." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner is having very small holding and as per Building Byelaws prepared under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act, 1973'), no such permission is required. Learned counsel further submits that the notice dated 02.03.2023 issued by the Development Authority under Section 27 of the Act, 1973 is per se Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pal, Vikrant Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Narendra Pratap Singh Qazi Tavassul Husain .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) unsustainable as the petitioner has already submitted the requisite fee towards sanction of plan on 23.04.2025, a copy of the receipt is also annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Learned counsel in this backdrop submits that the Authority is not processing the application of the petitioner for sanction of map and is inclined to widen the road and in this backdrop, plan of the petitioner is not being approved and are deliberately delayed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Development Authority has resisted the relief and submits that the instant proceeding is totally misconceived to the extent that no such application along with requisite fee has been submitted to the Development Authority which is constituted only to ensure that no such development is carried out in its territorial jurisdiction except in accordance with law. He further submits that in case, any such application is preferred, definitely the Authority would process the said application and till the processing of application under Section 14 and 15 of the Act, 1973, the petitioner may not be permitted to carry out any development, otherwise, the Authority is at liberty to carry out the demolition process in lieu of the notice under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the relief as prayed for, we are of the view that substantial justice would be sub-served in case the petitioner moves an appropriate application within a week's time strictly in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 14 and 15 of the Act, 1973. We expect that the said application shall be processed in further six weeks' time as per Building Byelaws. Needless to say, till the finalization of the application under Section 14 and 15 of the Act, 1973, petitioner is also restrained to carry out any further development on the spot. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. May 6, 2026 Sumit S WRIC No. 16053 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad