Smt. Nisha Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of with
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a revision under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 before the State Government within two weeks from today. In case, such…
Judgment
Heard Shri Satendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Gorakhpur Industrial Development Authority (GIDA), Sector-7, Gorakhpur, whereby the structure on Plot No. D-4/4, Sector-7 has been sealed by GIDA Gorakhpur.
At the very outset, Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed under Section 9 read with Section 10 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1976"). It is further submitted that by virtue of Section 7 of the Act, 1976, various provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1973") have been made applicable to the industrial development areas, including the provisions under Chapter VII, specifically Sections 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49 to 53, and 58.
It is contended that in view of the applicability of Section 41 of the Act, 1973, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing a revision before the State Government. In support of the objection, learned counsel relies upon the statutory scheme which provides for adjudication of such grievances before the revisional authority rather than invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The availability of a statutory and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 41 of the Act, 1973 cannot be ignored, and there appears to be no exceptional circumstance justifying bypassing of such remedy.
Operative part
In the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a revision under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 before the State Government within two weeks from today. In case, such revision along with an appropriate application for interim relief is filed within the stipulated period, the State Government/revisional authority shall consider and decide the stay application in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of its filing. The revision itself shall also be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Anil K. Sharma
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 — ss. 9, 10; U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 — s. 41; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 01 Jul 2025. The bench was MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, VINOD DIWAKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.