Pratham Kumar v. Shri Ankur Lathav Vice Chairman, Bulandshahar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. "
Judgment
Shri Ankur Lathav Vice Chairman, Bulandshahar Development Authority .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : : Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
The writ Court on 03.12.2025 while disposing of the Writ-C No.40500 of 2025 had passed the following order:- "1. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, and Shri Gaurang Tiwari, holding brief of Shri Tejaswi Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent ? Bulandshahar Development Authority.
This writ petition is preferred for the following principal relief: "i-issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the case No.BLDA/ANI/2024/0000963 pending before him within/stipulated time. "
The petitioner is the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the complaint made by the petitioner regarding illegal construction allegedly carried out by one Chandra Pal Singh, son of Puran Singh, resident of Mohalla Lodh Rajputana, Jasar Darvaja Devi Mandir, Jahageerabad, the Development Authority has not taken any concrete steps to stop the said illegal construction.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Development Authority submits that the complaint was duly entertained and disposed of on 03.05.2024, wherein notice was issued to the aforesaid Chandra Pal under the U.P. 2 CAPL No. 1673 of 2026 Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (?the Act, 1973?). It is further submitted that in response thereto, a compounding map has also been submitted. He prays for some time to place the relevant records to apprise the Court of the status of the said proceedings.
Considering the factual situation, and noting that the petitioner is only a complainant while cognizance has already been taken by the Development Authority under the Act, 1973 and the compounding rules framed thereunder, we expect that the said proceedings shall be finalized strictly in accordance with law.
Operative part
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. "
2. From perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench, it is clear that the applicant is only a complainant, and action has already been taken by the Development Authority.
3. This Court finds that the applicant who is complainant is pressing the matter against the private respondent.
4. No case for contempt is made out.
5. Contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed. March 18, 2026 SK Goswami (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
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.