HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 16633 of 2026 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Shri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Zaheer Asghar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Sanding Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 15.04.2026 issued under Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam by respondent no. 5. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish or interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over House No. 39/12, Dalmandi, District Varanasi." 3. Pursuant to the order dated 30.04.2026, Shri Vineet Sankalp has produced instruction dated 30.04.2026 along with inspection report dated 15.04.2026, which are taken on record. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shirish Chandra and others vs. State of U.P. and others; 2017 7 ADJ 146 decided on 12.05.2017 and submitted that in terms of Para-8 of judgment read with Section 331 of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (in short, 'Act, 1959'), Municipal Commissioner shall constitute a Committee consisting of an Architect and Executive Engineer, but in present case there is no Architect in the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Ahmed Faizan, Sr. Advocate, Zaheer Asghar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vineet Sankalp Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) inspection Committee submitted inspection report dated 15.04.2026. Further, while sending notice dated 15.04.2026, inspection report was not provided to the petitioner, therefore, proceeding so initiated is bad and is in teeth of judgment of this Court passed in Shirish Chandra (Supra). Lastly, he submitted that in the light of aforesaid submissions, proceeding initiated through impugned notice may be quashed and petition may be allowed. 5. Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 though opposed the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, but could not dispute the facts so argued. 6. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid facts, we dispose of this petition with direction to respondent no. 5 to constitute a new Committee having at least one Independent Architect from the approved list, Executive Engineer and also one more Executive Engineer from any other department of State, which shall carry out inspection in terms of Section 331 of Act, 1959 and submit report to Municipal Commissioner. Thereafter, Municipal Commissioner may issue notice to the petitioner in terms of Section 331 of Act, 1959 along with inspection report. In case any such notice is issued to the petitioner, he shall submit reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of notice. Thereafter, Municipal Commissioner shall decide the matter in accordance with law after considering the reply of petitioner. 7. Till the aforesaid exercise is completed, parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date with regard to the petitioner's house or shop in question as the case may be. May 7, 2026 Sartaj WRIC No. 16633 of 2026 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad