High Court

Order

- "(C.M. Application No.3 of 2025)

1. This is an application for withdrawal of writ petition.

2. Heard.

3. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Parties to establish the rule of law and to issue a direction for conducting an inquiry and taking action against the concerned persons involved in the Illegal Construction of the sealed building and also to issue directions to demolish the Building which has been raised contrary to the rules and is also in violation of Section 28 (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act-1973 amended in 1997 and the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Rules-2014. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Parties concerned to conduct a proper inquiry against the Officials involved in not complying to the seal orders dated 22.01.2024, 22.06.2024, 21.07.2024, 24.08.2024, 01.10.2024 and 25.10.2024 passed by the Lucknow Development Authority/Opposite Party No.2, in respect of the abovementioned building. (iii) Any other writ order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper"

4. We have perused the orders dated 13.01.2025, 28.01.2025, 30.01.2025 and 19.02.2025. Order dated 30.01.2025 reads as under:- "1.The map along with report related to premises in question, which is the result of the exercise ordered by this Court on 28.1.2025, is taken on record.

2.Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 is also taken on record.

3. Heard.

4. In pursuance to the last order passed by this Court, an exercise was undertaken and result of it is a map prepared by the Lucknow Development Authority, a copy of which has been placed before us by Sri Ratnesh Chandra its counsel, according to which, the portion of the premises inside the blue line in the said map is the portion for which the map was sanctioned. The portion constructed immediately outside it, which is marked by green colour is compoundable but, the portion outside the green colour in the map i.e. the portion marked by red is non compoundable. There exist 22 pillars on the said portion, which have been constructed illegally. The submission of Sri Ratnesh Chandra is that almost 65% of the building is liable to be demolished. Apart from it we would like to know as posed by us in our initial order dated 13.1.2025 as to how even after sealing of the said premises by the LDA and handing over its possession to the local police, the construction continued by the private opposite parties i.e. if it is so.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has received certain instructions. Let him file an affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties no. 3 and 10 separately.

6.The private opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are represent by Sri Manoj Mishra and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla is appearing for opposite party nos. 6 to 9, who may also file their response to the writ petition positively within 10 days.

7. Likewise, the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority shall file his own affidavit within 10 days in response to the writ petition and the queries made in the earlier orders of this Court. Affidavit of Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority shall also indicate as to whether he has instituted any enquiry as to the circumstances in which in spite of sealing by LDA, the construction on the premises in question continued, i.e if it is so and the involvement of the officials of the LDA, if any, in this regard.

8.On the next date, we will consider as to whether any enquiry is required so far as lapse, if any, on the part of the police officials is concerned. 9 .List this case on 19.2.2025 as fresh as first case of the day.

10. Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, who appears today through video conferencing, need not appear through video conferencing unless ordered by this Court."

5. On 19.02.2025, the following order was passed:- "1. Application for impleadment has been filed by certain persons through Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate is taken on record. Petitioner may file his objection to the same.

2. An affidavit has been filed by Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority inter alia mentioning that an order of demolition has been passed on 06.02.2025. Two affidavits have been filed by State-authorities in response to our earlier orders. The petitioner may respond to the said affidavits, if required. All the aforesaid affidavits are also taken on record.

3. Copy of the affidavits filed by State-authorities be provided to Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned Counsel for Lucknow Development Authority, who may file his response to the same likewise the copy of affidavit filed by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority should be provided to Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-authorities, who may file response to the same by the concerned State-authorities.

4. List/put up this case on 19.03.2025."

6. Firstly, the counsel who has filed the withdrawal application is not the original counsel and he has not taken NOC from the earlier counsel. Secondly, vide the aforesaid orders, we had asked opposite party no.10 to file his own affidavit as the stand of V.C. was that after sealing, it is the police which was required to ensure compliance. We wanted to know as to how even after sealing of the said premises by L.D.A. and handing over of its possession to local police, the construction continued by the private opposite parties that is if it is so. The affidavit of opposite party no.10 has not been filed. The affidavit in support of the application for withdrawal does not even refer to the earlier orders passed by us and their compliance. It does not say that the building has been demolished. Only demolition order has been issued in February, 2025. We are now in July, 2025. We have to ensure that the rule of law prevails and dignity of orders of court is maintained. We have an inkling that this application for withdrawal has been filed only to save the persons who allowed the construction to continue inspite of the sealing order, therefore, it is our bounden duty to ensure that the petitioner who earlier filed the writ petition and pressed it resulting in the aforesaid two orders does not misuse the process of law to help those who were responsible for the illegal acts which are the subject matter of this petition nor for any personal gain. It appears that the application has been filed to help such officials who may have facilitated the construction by private opposite parties inspite of an order of sealing or to help the private opposite parties escape the rigour of law and continue the illegality.

7. The petitioner should also appear before this Court on the next date.

8. Let the main matter be posted on 07.07.2025 as fresh."

3. Thereafter, we found that the opposite party No.10 had filed the desired affidavit, accordingly, we passed an order on 07.07.2025, which reads as under:- "Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no. 4 & 5 is taken on record, as also, counter affidavit filed by Shri Piyush Tripathi, Advocate is taken on record. Heard. We have perused our order dated 01.07.2025. In spite of it, the petitioner has not appeared before this Court in person, however, Shri Hari Om Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner has appeared. We have confronted him with the facts noticed in our dated 01.07.2025. He expresses apology but we reject the apology for the moment. List/Put up this case tomorrow i.e. 08.07.2025 as fresh for appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner's Counsel will ensure his appearance. We find that the opposite party no. 10 has filed his affidavit, but we could not notice earlier."

3. The petitioner did not appear on 07.07.2025, therefore, the matter was posted for today. Today, the petitioner, Manzar Ali has appeared. He says that he is an illiterate person and has been unnecessarily entangled to file this writ petition by one Shri Nadeem Siddiqui son of Shri Waseem Siddiqui having mobile number 7007272041, who is a Builder and has a land adjacent to the land in question. He does not deny his signatures on the writ petition or on the affidavit. He further says that on realizing he had been unnecessarily made to file this petition by Shri Nadeem Siddiqui for his own ulterior purposes, he asked his Counsel Shri Shobhit Harsh to withdraw the writ petition but Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate demanded Rs.5,00,000/-. As he being a rickshaw puller was unable to fulfill the demand, he engaged another Counsel namely, Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate. Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate is present in Court. We asked him as to how he came into contact with the petitioner whereupon he says that one Advocate namely Shri Arun Pandey whose mobile number is 9838872970 has brought the petitioner to him. Shri Arun Pandey, Advocate shall also appear on the next date. Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate shall communicate this order to him. Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate filed the application for withdrawal of the petition without seeking the N.O.C. from the earlier Counsel Shri Shobhit Harsh. Shri Shobhit Harsh was summoned and he says that he had declined to file an application for withdrawal of the petition because of the orders passed by this Court earlier. He denies the allegations made by the petitioner, however, the petitioner says that Shri Nadeem Siddiqui is a client of Shri Shobhit Harsh. On being asked, Shri Harsh admitted that he is his client and a builder. At this stage, Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate appearing for opposite party No.4 and 5 says that in fact, several proceedings have been initiated including writ petitions in the name of the petitioner. On being confroned, the petitioner stated that these petitions have been filed by Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate. Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate says that he has filed one P.I.L and an F.I.R. quashing writ petition apart from the present writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Manoj Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.4 and 5 has placed before us details of several I.G.R.S. complaints made by the petitioner. Let Shri Mishra bring all these informations on record. The petitioner-Shri Manzar Ali, who is present in person should narrate his version and his stand in the matter by filing his own affidavit. Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate shall ensure the same.

4. All these observations shall have no bearing whatsoever on the demolition exercise proposed by the L.D.A. as it is said that the appeal of the opposite party No.4 and 5 has been rejected by Lucknow Division, Lucknow on the Commissioner, 05.07.2025. Shri Manoj Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.4 and 5 says that a revision is being prepared under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 which shall be filed shortly. Our observations shall also not have any adverse bearing on any of these proceedings or proposed proceedings, in fact, the opposite parties shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter as per law. Shri L.P. Mishra, Advocate has filed an application for impleadment on behalf of four shop owners as it is said that they also affected by the action proposed by the L.D.A. and it is informed that the appeal of the applicants seeking impleadment has also been rejected and they also propose to challenge it in revision. The said application for impleadment would be considered on the next date.

5. List this case on 15.07.2025 for appearance of the petitioner, Shri Manzar Ali as also Shri Nadeem Siddiqui son of Shri Waseem Siddiqui whose name has been recorded hereinabove and to facilitate this exercise Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate, who is already appearing on his behalf in other proceedings shall ensure his presence before the Court. Let Shri Nadeem Siddiqui aforesaid be impleaded as opposite party herein during course of the day. This is a serious matter where presumably the proceedings of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may have been possibly misused and abused. We would like to go to the root of the matter. We say no more at this stage.

6. Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate and Shri Arun Pandey, Advocate referred hereinabove shall also appear before this Court on the next date.

7. None of the observations made hereinabove shall be treated as adverse to any of the Counsels whose name figures hereinabove as we are only trying to probe and find out the truth. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 -Piyush-

2.Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 is also taken on record.

3. Heard.

4. In pursuance to the last order passed by this Court, an exercise was undertaken and result of it is a map prepared by the Lucknow Development Authority, a copy of which has been placed before us by Sri Ratnesh Chandra its counsel, according to which, the portion of the premises inside the blue line in the said map is the portion for which the map was sanctioned. The portion constructed immediately outside it, which is marked by green colour is compoundable but, the portion outside the green colour in the map i.e. the portion marked by red is non compoundable. There exist 22 pillars on the said portion, which have been constructed illegally. The submission of Sri Ratnesh Chandra is that almost 65% of the building is liable to be demolished. Apart from it we would like to know as posed by us in our initial order dated 13.1.2025 as to how even after sealing of the said premises by the LDA and handing over its possession to the local police, the construction continued by the private opposite parties i.e. if it is so.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has received certain instructions. Let him file an affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties no. 3 and 10 separately.

6.The private opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are represent by Sri Manoj Mishra and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla is appearing for opposite party nos. 6 to 9, who may also file their response to the writ petition positively within 10 days.

7. Likewise, the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority shall file his own affidavit within 10 days in response to the writ petition and the queries made in the earlier orders of this Court. Affidavit of Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority shall also indicate as to whether he has instituted any enquiry as to the circumstances in which in spite of sealing by LDA, the construction on the premises in question continued, i.e if it is so and the involvement of the officials of the LDA, if any, in this regard.

8.On the next date, we will consider as to whether any enquiry is required so far as lapse, if any, on the part of the police officials is concerned. 9 .List this case on 19.2.2025 as fresh as first case of the day.

10. Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, who appears today through video conferencing, need not appear through video conferencing unless ordered by this Court."

5. On 19.02.2025, the following order was passed:- "1. Application for impleadment has been filed by certain persons through Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate is taken on record. Petitioner may file his objection to the same.

2. An affidavit has been filed by Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority inter alia mentioning that an order of demolition has been passed on 06.02.2025. Two affidavits have been filed by State-authorities in response to our earlier orders. The petitioner may respond to the said affidavits, if required. All the aforesaid affidavits are also taken on record.

3. Copy of the affidavits filed by State-authorities be provided to Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned Counsel for Lucknow Development Authority, who may file his response to the same likewise the copy of affidavit filed by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority should be provided to Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-authorities, who may file response to the same by the concerned State-authorities.

4. List/put up this case on 19.03.2025."

6. Firstly, the counsel who has filed the withdrawal application is not the original counsel and he has not taken NOC from the earlier counsel. Secondly, vide the aforesaid orders, we had asked opposite party no.10 to file his own affidavit as the stand of V.C. was that after sealing, it is the police which was required to ensure compliance. We wanted to know as to how even after sealing of the said premises by L.D.A. and handing over of its possession to local police, the construction continued by the private opposite parties that is if it is so. The affidavit of opposite party no.10 has not been filed. The affidavit in support of the application for withdrawal does not even refer to the earlier orders passed by us and their compliance. It does not say that the building has been demolished. Only demolition order has been issued in February, 2025. We are now in July, 2025. We have to ensure that the rule of law prevails and dignity of orders of court is maintained. We have an inkling that this application for withdrawal has been filed only to save the persons who allowed the construction to continue inspite of the sealing order, therefore, it is our bounden duty to ensure that the petitioner who earlier filed the writ petition and pressed it resulting in the aforesaid two orders does not misuse the process of law to help those who were responsible for the illegal acts which are the subject matter of this petition nor for any personal gain. It appears that the application has been filed to help such officials who may have facilitated the construction by private opposite parties inspite of an order of sealing or to help the private opposite parties escape the rigour of law and continue the illegality.

7. The petitioner should also appear before this Court on the next date.

8. Let the main matter be posted on 07.07.2025 as fresh."

3. Thereafter, we found that the opposite party No.10 had filed the desired affidavit, accordingly, we passed an order on 07.07.2025, which reads as under:- "Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no. 4 & 5 is taken on record, as also, counter affidavit filed by Shri Piyush Tripathi, Advocate is taken on record. Heard. We have perused our order dated 01.07.2025. In spite of it, the petitioner has not appeared before this Court in person, however, Shri Hari Om Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner has appeared. We have confronted him with the facts noticed in our dated 01.07.2025. He expresses apology but we reject the apology for the moment. List/Put up this case tomorrow i.e. 08.07.2025 as fresh for appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner's Counsel will ensure his appearance. We find that the opposite party no. 10 has filed his affidavit, but we could not notice earlier."

3. The petitioner did not appear on 07.07.2025, therefore, the matter was posted for today. Today, the petitioner, Manzar Ali has appeared. He says that he is an illiterate person and has been unnecessarily entangled to file this writ petition by one Shri Nadeem Siddiqui son of Shri Waseem Siddiqui having mobile number 7007272041, who is a Builder and has a land adjacent to the land in question. He does not deny his signatures on the writ petition or on the affidavit. He further says that on realizing he had been unnecessarily made to file this petition by Shri Nadeem Siddiqui for his own ulterior purposes, he asked his Counsel Shri Shobhit Harsh to withdraw the writ petition but Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate demanded Rs.5,00,000/-. As he being a rickshaw puller was unable to fulfill the demand, he engaged another Counsel namely, Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate. Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate is present in Court. We asked him as to how he came into contact with the petitioner whereupon he says that one Advocate namely Shri Arun Pandey whose mobile number is 9838872970 has brought the petitioner to him. Shri Arun Pandey, Advocate shall also appear on the next date. Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate shall communicate this order to him. Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate filed the application for withdrawal of the petition without seeking the N.O.C. from the earlier Counsel Shri Shobhit Harsh. Shri Shobhit Harsh was summoned and he says that he had declined to file an application for withdrawal of the petition because of the orders passed by this Court earlier. He denies the allegations made by the petitioner, however, the petitioner says that Shri Nadeem Siddiqui is a client of Shri Shobhit Harsh. On being asked, Shri Harsh admitted that he is his client and a builder. At this stage, Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate appearing for opposite party No.4 and 5 says that in fact, several proceedings have been initiated including writ petitions in the name of the petitioner. On being confroned, the petitioner stated that these petitions have been filed by Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate. Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate says that he has filed one P.I.L and an F.I.R. quashing writ petition apart from the present writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Manoj Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.4 and 5 has placed before us details of several I.G.R.S. complaints made by the petitioner. Let Shri Mishra bring all these informations on record. The petitioner-Shri Manzar Ali, who is present in person should narrate his version and his stand in the matter by filing his own affidavit. Shri Hari Om Pandey, Advocate shall ensure the same.

4. All these observations shall have no bearing whatsoever on the demolition exercise proposed by the L.D.A. as it is said that the appeal of the opposite party No.4 and 5 has been rejected by Lucknow Division, Lucknow on the Commissioner, 05.07.2025. Shri Manoj Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.4 and 5 says that a revision is being prepared under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 which shall be filed shortly. Our observations shall also not have any adverse bearing on any of these proceedings or proposed proceedings, in fact, the opposite parties shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter as per law. Shri L.P. Mishra, Advocate has filed an application for impleadment on behalf of four shop owners as it is said that they also affected by the action proposed by the L.D.A. and it is informed that the appeal of the applicants seeking impleadment has also been rejected and they also propose to challenge it in revision. The said application for impleadment would be considered on the next date.

5. List this case on 15.07.2025 for appearance of the petitioner, Shri Manzar Ali as also Shri Nadeem Siddiqui son of Shri Waseem Siddiqui whose name has been recorded hereinabove and to facilitate this exercise Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate, who is already appearing on his behalf in other proceedings shall ensure his presence before the Court. Let Shri Nadeem Siddiqui aforesaid be impleaded as opposite party herein during course of the day. This is a serious matter where presumably the proceedings of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may have been possibly misused and abused. We would like to go to the root of the matter. We say no more at this stage.

6. Shri Shobhit Harsh, Advocate and Shri Arun Pandey, Advocate referred hereinabove shall also appear before this Court on the next date.

7. None of the observations made hereinabove shall be treated as adverse to any of the Counsels whose name figures hereinabove as we are only trying to probe and find out the truth. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 -Piyush-