Raj kum ari Bhat t v. St at e of Ut t arakhand Anot her

const ruct ion. Learned Counsel furt her subm it s t hat on appellant ’s request , validit y period of perm ission was ext ended for t hree years vide order dat ed 24.9.2010. He subm it s t hat since Ut t arakhand Jal Sanst han did not grant perm ission for connect ing t he sewer line t o t he appellant and it was one of t he condit ions indicat ed t he earlier perm ission let t er dat ed

24.2.2003, t herefore, appellant could not const ruct ion during t he ext ended validit y period of perm ission. Ult im at ely, when appellant applied for ext ension of validit y period of perm ission, she was t o subm it original copy of t he earlier sanct ioned m ap. He furt her subm it s t hat appellant subm it t ed all requisit e docum ent s, however t he validit y period of perm ission was not ext ended and t hereaft er appellant was asked t o apply under One Tim e Set t lem ent Schem e. Appellant deposit ed cert ain am ount , as required by t he developm ent aut horit y, however, by t he order dat ed 7.12.2015, perm ission was grant ed only for const ruct ing t he ground floor of t he building and perm ission for const ruct ion of first floor was denied on t he ground t hat as per t he new bye- laws of 2015, such perm ission cannot be grant ed. Challenging t he said order dat ed 7.12.2015, appellant filed writ pet it ion. The writ pet it ion having been dism issed by learned Single Judge, appellant has filed t his appeal. 2

4. Learned Counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat t he building was proposed t o be const ruct ed st rict ly as per t he bye- laws and t he developm ent aut horit y, in 2003, had also grant ed perm ission for raising const ruct ion as proposed, however due t o rest raint order passed by t his Court , const ruct ion could not be raised earlier. He subm it s t hat Secret ary of t he Developm ent Aut horit y t ook a hyper t echnical view and com plet ely overlooked t he fact t hat t he building bye- laws, which was enforced in 2015, would not apply in a case where perm ission for const ruct ion was grant ed in 2003 and sim ply ext ension of t hat perm ission was sought by t he appellant .

5. Wit hout expressing any opinion on t he m erit s of t he cont ent ions raised by learned Counsel for t he appellant , t his Court t hinks t hat ends of j ust ice would be m et if t he appellant is perm it t ed t o approach t he Secret ary of t he Developm ent Aut horit y for reconsidering t he decision t aken by him earlier. We, t herefore, dispose of t he special appeal by perm it t ing t he appellant t o m ake a represent at ion t o t he Secret ary of t he Developm ent Aut horit y. I f she m akes such represent at ion wit hin t wo weeks from t oday, t he Secret ary concerned shall revisit t he issue t ake decision, st rict ly as per law and uninfluenced by t he decision t aken by him earlier, wit hin t wo m ont hs t hereaft er. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 1 8 .8 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C9195 7BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 3 4