Tanuj Jain & Anr. v. Advocate
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Judgment
Supplementary affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is the respondent no.4-Meerut taken on record. Learned counsel for Development Authority.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the Meerut Development Authority has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which has not been availed. It is thus contended that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of such alternative remedy.
Learned counsel for the prays for withdrawal of instant petition with liberty to avail aforesaid statutory remedy.
Operative part
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
It is provided that, in the event of any delay in filing the revision, the same shall stand condoned, provided the appeal is instituted within a period of one month from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order.
Certified copy of relevant documents may be returned to the learned counsel for the applicant after retaining the photocopy of the same on record as per the rules of the High Court. April 23, 2026 A. Tripathi (Vinod Diwakar,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 — s. 41(3).
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.