High Court · 2025

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged show cause notice dated 30.12.2023 issued by opposite party no.3-Executive Engineer (Map Cell), Lucknow Development Authority which is addressed to the petitioner. The notice, as is apparent from its reading, is under Section 15(9) of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1973'). The said provision reads as under:- Page No.2 "15(9) If at any time after the permission has been granted under Subsection (3), the vice-Chairman is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation made or any fraudulent statement or information furnished, he may cancel such permission for reasons to be recorded in writing and any work done there under shall be deemed to have been done without such permission). Provided that a permission shall not be cancelled without affording to the person or body concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.]" (3) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner proposing to undertake construction of a building at Plot No.12, Rani Laxmi Bai Road, Jahangirabad Palace, Hazratganj, Lucknow which is situated just adjacent to the house/ camp office of District Magistrate, Lucknow, applied for sanction of map which was sanctioned by the Lucknow Development Authority on 30.06.2015 conditionally requiring certain NOCs to be submitted. It is not in dispute that all the NOCs were received except the NOC from Archaeological Survey of India. The petitioner applied for the said NOC before the competent authority of the Archaeological Survey of India and the same was supplied to him on 24.10.2017 copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.17 to the writ petition. The said NOC was valid for a period of three years. However, thereafter, it is contended by Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that under the pressure of the District Magistrate, Lucknow, the premises were sealed on 18.12.2017 by the orders of prescribed authority under Section 28A of the Act, 1973 Page No.3 during pendency of proceedings under Section 27 of the Act,

1973. However, on correct facts being pointed out as claimed by Sri Mishra, the said order of sealing was put in abeyance on

05.06.2018. Thereafter, a final order of demolition was passed under Section 27 of the Act, 1973 on 03.09.2019. A challenge was made to the same before the appellate authority who is Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow and the appeal of the petitioner was allowed and demolition order dated 02.11.2019 was set-aside. As there were minor variations in the construction already undertaken vis-a-vis the map sanctioned on

30.06.2015, therefore, an application for compounding was filed and as the variation was less than five per cent of the total construction, therefore, the map was duly sanctioned on

19.03.2020 which was valid for a period of five years which would be coming to an end on 18.03.2025. As the time limit for the NOC issued by A.S.I. on 24.10.2017 had expired or was due to expire, therefore, an application for its renewal was filed annexing therewith the compounding report and the compounding map etc. whereupon the same was renewed on

22.07.2022 and copy of the renewed NOC is annexed as Annexure no.18 to the writ petition. The said renewal was issued after an inspection report dated 30.06.2021 copy of which is annexed as Annexure no.SA-2. We have perused the inspection report wherein the earlier sanction of map as also the compounding map have been mentioned and the difference in the areas etc have also been mentioned. Variations in the construction vis-a-vis the earlier sanction of map and the compounding of this variation is specifically mentioned. However, from a reading of the renewed NOC dated 22.07.2022, Page No.4 it appears that due to an inadvertent error, the measurements of the earlier sanctioned map have been mentioned. Annexure no. SA-5 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner is a recommendation of Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow to the Director, National Monument Authority, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi recommending renewal of NOC and the said recommendation is dated 04.04.2022 and based thereon, renewal was done on

22.07.2022. We may also refer to a communication of Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dated

09.03.2022 to the Superintendent, Indian Archaeology Survey, Lucknow Division, Lucknow wherein it has been mentioned as under:- ßmDRk ds laca/k esa vkosnd Jh jkts'k dqekj jLrksxh] 12] jkuh y{ehckbZ ekxZ] gtjrxat] y[kuÅ ds layXu izkFkZuk i= fnukad 03-03-2022 }kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS fd mUgksus Hkw[k.M la[;k&12 jkuh y{ehckbZ ekxZ ij fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k gS] ftlesa FkksM+k lk ,fM'ku vFkok vkYVsª'ku gqvk Fkk] ftldk dEikmf.Max ,y0Mh0,0 }kjk djk fy;k x;k gS] ftlds i'pkr~ Lohd`r ekufp= ,y0Mh0,0 }kjk iznku dj fn;k x;k gSA mDr Hkw[k.M ds fuekZ.k esa iqjkrRo foHkkx ds fdlh Hkh ekud tSls fd Hkou dh ÅapkbZ rFkk Hkou dh nwjh vkfn ekudksa dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkosnd }kjk y[kuÅ fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk Lohd`r ekufp= dh izfr layXu djrs gq, Hkw[k.M dh iqu% tk¡p djkdj fuekZ.k gsrq ,u0vks0lh0 foLrkj fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA vr% Jh jkts'k dqekj jLrksxh }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 03-03- 2022 ,oa ,y0Mh0,0 }kjk Lohd`r ekufp= vkidks bl vk'k; ls layXu dj izsf"kr fd;k tk jgk gS fd iqu% LFkyh; fujh{k.k djkdj iwoZ esa fuxZr vukifRr izek.k&i= dh vof/k dk foLrkj fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa viuh laLrqfr lfgr vk[;k 'kh?kz miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsaA Þ (4) It is only thereafter that inspection was got done. Copy of the inspection report is annexed as Annexure SA-2 as already Page No.5 referred hereinabove. Thereafter, the renewed NOC was issued on 22.07.2022 for a period of three years. This NOC would expire in July, 2025. (5) In the interregnum, that is, on 30.12.2023, the impugned show-cause notice has been issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer (Map Cell), Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow to the petitioner asking him to show case as to why the compounded map should not be canceled. (6) The contention of Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is firstly that the notice has not been issued by the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority as is envisaged under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973. Secondly, none of the ingredients of Section 15(9) of the aforesaid Act are satisfied prima facie even for the purposes of issuance of a show cause notice based on the recitals contained in the impugned notice. Thirdly, this entire exercise is a malfide exercise merely because the building has come up just adjacent to the house/ camp office of District Magistrate, Lucknow who does not want it to be constructed. He says that compounding map permits construction of Basement + Ground Floor (GF) + 3 Floor, however, as of now, Basement + Ground Floor + 2 Floors have been constructed and the petitioner considering the scenario which has been presented before him would not undertake construction of top floor so as to give a quietus to this unnecessary litigation and harassment meted out to him. For all these reasons, he says that the impugned notice needs to be quashed. He also emphasized upon the fact that this entire exercise is being done so that the time limit of 18.03.2025 Page No.6 expires and then the L.D.A. can again ask the petitioner to submit a fresh application for sanction of map thereby delaying the project and by then NOC granted by A.S.I. would also expire. He also submitted that A.S.I. is only concerned with the height of the building and distance from the building under its perview and not as to how construction is to be made inside the premises and this is totally within the domain of L.D.A. which has already compounded the variations and sanctioned the compounding map. (7) Per contra, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for L.D.A submits that there were serious variations between the map which was sanctioned earlier and the construction actually undertaken. He has invited our attention to the reviewed NOC granted by A.S.I. to submit that even in this NOC the measurements as referred in earlier map dated 30.06.2015 have been mentioned which itself goes to show that NOC is not with regard to the compounding map. He says that there is no NOC by the A.S.I. with regard to the revised construction area as mentioned in the compounding map. As regards lack of jurisdiction with the Executive Engineer, he relied upon supplementary affidavit which has been filed today wherein a notesheet has been annexed which mentions about the reasons mentioned in the impugned notice and the approval of the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority for fixing date and time for personal hearing. Based on the aforesaid, he submitted that merely ministerial act of issuance of notice has been performed by the Executive Engineer but the hearing, date and time has been fixed by the V.C., L.D.A. and hearing would take place before the V.C., L.D.A., therefore, this ground is not Page No.7 tenable. As regards the contention of Sri Mishra that none of the ingredients of Section 15(9) are made out, he has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court dated

29.06.2021 rendered in Writ Petition No.12242 (M/B) of 2021 'Daud Ahmad & Anrs. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' to submit that in the facts of this case, the notice is justified and should not be interfered with. He, therefore, says that this is not a case for interference. He also says that A.S.I. has not been impleaded as an opposite party herein which could have clarified the correct factual position and that A.S.I. also grants approval in respect of the area also. (8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, what we find is that the Lucknow Development Authority has sanctioned the compounding map on 19.03.2020, therefore, at least L.D.A. cannot have any objections so far as construction is undertaken as per the compounded map. Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a statement before this Court that although Basement+GF+3 Floors have been sanctioned, the petitioner has undertaken construction of only Basement + GF + 2 Floor and would not undertake construction of top floor which is sanctioned. This is only to give a quietus to the entire matter and buy peace. Further, we have seen the documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The documents contain the exercise which has preceded the issuance of renewed NOC dated

22.07.2022 issued by A.S.I. What we find is that an inspection was got conducted which clearly mentions the measurements of the construction undertaken subsequent to the sanction of map dated 30.06.2015 regarding which application for compounding Page No.8 was submitted and compounding map was sanctioned. It refers to the compounding/revised plan for residential/ commercial purposes. The report is Annexure No.SA-2. Therefore, the contention of Sri Ratnesh Chandra that because NOC does not actually mention revised measurements, therefore, NOC has not been granted for the revised measurements is factually incorrect. At best, it appears to be a clerical error and nothing more. The veracity of the documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit are not denied, therefore, to say that A.S.I. has not been impleaded as a party herein has no significance whatsoever for the reason that there is no dispute between the petitioner and the A.S.I. and the documents of the A.S.I. have been filed along with supplementary affidavit. We have perused other documents filed with the supplementary affidavit also which amply prove that renewed NOC dated 22.07.2022 has been granted by the competent authority conscious of the compounding map and sanction of the said compounding map by L.D.A. (9) No doubt, the contention of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for L.D.A. is correct that Executive Engineer has merely performed ministerial act of issuance of notice and in fact, what is borne out from a reading of the notesheet copy of which is annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by L.D.A. today, which has been taken on record, the entire matter was placed before Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority who has approved issuance of notice and also fixed date and time for hearing. Therefore, contention of Sri Mishra to the contrary is not acceptable. However, there is another aspect of the matter. On a bare perusal of Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973, two Page No.9 ingredients should exist, prima facie, for the purposes of issuance of show cause notice i.e. that there should be a satisfaction of the vice-Chairman that permission envisaged under sub-Section (3) of Section 15 was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation made or any fraudulent statement or information furnished. It is only on prima facie satisfaction on these two grounds that notice can be issued. We have perused contents of the notice. On a bare perusal of it, we do not find any such ingredients being present even prima facie. Therefore, the notice has been issued without the pre-requisite for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973 having been satisfied. As regards reliance placed by Sri Chandra upon the judgment of this Court dated 29.06.2021 passed in 'Daud Ahmad & Anrs. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' and by a Bench to which one of us (Rajan Roy, J.) was a member, we have carefully gone through the said judgment. The said judgment turns on its own facts as is evident from a bare reading of it, moreover, it was a final order of demolition which was under challenge in the said writ petition which is not the case here. Here, it is a case where we are at the initial stage of initiation of proceedings under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973. It is not the case of the L.D.A. that notice is not under Section 15(9). Moreover, considering the background of the case which we have already noticed hereinabove, there is more to it than what meets the eye as far as issuance of this notice is concerned but say no more. Suffice it to say that ingredients of Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973, not being satisfied, the L.D.A. already having sanctioned the compounding map, the NOC already having been granted by the A.S.I. and when it is read conjointly with the Page No.10 documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner i.e. the inspection report etc it is evident that the compounding map sanctioned by LDA has been taken into consideration, there is absolutely no reason mentioned in the impugned notice which may be germane for proceedings under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973 considering the ingredients referred therein. We, accordingly, quash the impugned notice. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law. (10) In the connected Writ-C No.6553 of 2022 [Rajesh Kumar Rastogi vs. State of U.P. & Ors.], the petitioner had filed the same alleging interference by the District Magistrate, Lucknow in construction of the building by the petitioner which was a subject matter of the other writ petition which has been decided by the judgment rendered hereinabove. Petitioner's counsel says that District Magistrate has filed an affidavit saying he is not interfering with the construction of the said building. In view of the aforesaid, as no relief has been sought against the Lucknow Development Authority and the District Magistrate has filed the affidavit averring as aforesaid in para no.25, petitioner's counsel, therefore, says that nothing is required to be adjudicated in this petition especially in view of the judgment passed in the other matter. (11) Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Shanu/-

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged show cause notice dated 30.12.2023 issued by opposite party no.3-Executive Engineer (Map Cell), Lucknow Development Authority which is addressed to the petitioner. The notice, as is apparent from its reading, is under Section 15(9) of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1973'). The said provision reads as under:- Page No.2 "15(9) If at any time after the permission has been granted under Subsection (3), the vice-Chairman is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation made or any fraudulent statement or information furnished, he may cancel such permission for reasons to be recorded in writing and any work done there under shall be deemed to have been done without such permission). Provided that a permission shall not be cancelled without affording to the person or body concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.]" (3) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner proposing to undertake construction of a building at Plot No.12, Rani Laxmi Bai Road, Jahangirabad Palace, Hazratganj, Lucknow which is situated just adjacent to the house/ camp office of District Magistrate, Lucknow, applied for sanction of map which was sanctioned by the Lucknow Development Authority on 30.06.2015 conditionally requiring certain NOCs to be submitted. It is not in dispute that all the NOCs were received except the NOC from Archaeological Survey of India. The petitioner applied for the said NOC before the competent authority of the Archaeological Survey of India and the same was supplied to him on 24.10.2017 copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.17 to the writ petition. The said NOC was valid for a period of three years. However, thereafter, it is contended by Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that under the pressure of the District Magistrate, Lucknow, the premises were sealed on 18.12.2017 by the orders of prescribed authority under Section 28A of the Act, 1973 Page No.3 during pendency of proceedings under Section 27 of the Act,

1973. However, on correct facts being pointed out as claimed by Sri Mishra, the said order of sealing was put in abeyance on

05.06.2018. Thereafter, a final order of demolition was passed under Section 27 of the Act, 1973 on 03.09.2019. A challenge was made to the same before the appellate authority who is Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow and the appeal of the petitioner was allowed and demolition order dated 02.11.2019 was set-aside. As there were minor variations in the construction already undertaken vis-a-vis the map sanctioned on

30.06.2015, therefore, an application for compounding was filed and as the variation was less than five per cent of the total construction, therefore, the map was duly sanctioned on

19.03.2020 which was valid for a period of five years which would be coming to an end on 18.03.2025. As the time limit for the NOC issued by A.S.I. on 24.10.2017 had expired or was due to expire, therefore, an application for its renewal was filed annexing therewith the compounding report and the compounding map etc. whereupon the same was renewed on

22.07.2022 and copy of the renewed NOC is annexed as Annexure no.18 to the writ petition. The said renewal was issued after an inspection report dated 30.06.2021 copy of which is annexed as Annexure no.SA-2. We have perused the inspection report wherein the earlier sanction of map as also the compounding map have been mentioned and the difference in the areas etc have also been mentioned. Variations in the construction vis-a-vis the earlier sanction of map and the compounding of this variation is specifically mentioned. However, from a reading of the renewed NOC dated 22.07.2022, Page No.4 it appears that due to an inadvertent error, the measurements of the earlier sanctioned map have been mentioned. Annexure no. SA-5 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner is a recommendation of Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow to the Director, National Monument Authority, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi recommending renewal of NOC and the said recommendation is dated 04.04.2022 and based thereon, renewal was done on

22.07.2022. We may also refer to a communication of Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dated

09.03.2022 to the Superintendent, Indian Archaeology Survey, Lucknow Division, Lucknow wherein it has been mentioned as under:- ßmDRk ds laca/k esa vkosnd Jh jkts'k dqekj jLrksxh] 12] jkuh y{ehckbZ ekxZ] gtjrxat] y[kuÅ ds layXu izkFkZuk i= fnukad 03-03-2022 }kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS fd mUgksus Hkw[k.M la[;k&12 jkuh y{ehckbZ ekxZ ij fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k gS] ftlesa FkksM+k lk ,fM'ku vFkok vkYVsª'ku gqvk Fkk] ftldk dEikmf.Max ,y0Mh0,0 }kjk djk fy;k x;k gS] ftlds i'pkr~ Lohd`r ekufp= ,y0Mh0,0 }kjk iznku dj fn;k x;k gSA mDr Hkw[k.M ds fuekZ.k esa iqjkrRo foHkkx ds fdlh Hkh ekud tSls fd Hkou dh ÅapkbZ rFkk Hkou dh nwjh vkfn ekudksa dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkosnd }kjk y[kuÅ fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk Lohd`r ekufp= dh izfr layXu djrs gq, Hkw[k.M dh iqu% tk¡p djkdj fuekZ.k gsrq ,u0vks0lh0 foLrkj fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA vr% Jh jkts'k dqekj jLrksxh }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 03-03- 2022 ,oa ,y0Mh0,0 }kjk Lohd`r ekufp= vkidks bl vk'k; ls layXu dj izsf"kr fd;k tk jgk gS fd iqu% LFkyh; fujh{k.k djkdj iwoZ esa fuxZr vukifRr izek.k&i= dh vof/k dk foLrkj fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa viuh laLrqfr lfgr vk[;k 'kh?kz miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsaA Þ (4) It is only thereafter that inspection was got done. Copy of the inspection report is annexed as Annexure SA-2 as already Page No.5 referred hereinabove. Thereafter, the renewed NOC was issued on 22.07.2022 for a period of three years. This NOC would expire in July, 2025. (5) In the interregnum, that is, on 30.12.2023, the impugned show-cause notice has been issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer (Map Cell), Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow to the petitioner asking him to show case as to why the compounded map should not be canceled. (6) The contention of Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is firstly that the notice has not been issued by the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority as is envisaged under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973. Secondly, none of the ingredients of Section 15(9) of the aforesaid Act are satisfied prima facie even for the purposes of issuance of a show cause notice based on the recitals contained in the impugned notice. Thirdly, this entire exercise is a malfide exercise merely because the building has come up just adjacent to the house/ camp office of District Magistrate, Lucknow who does not want it to be constructed. He says that compounding map permits construction of Basement + Ground Floor (GF) + 3 Floor, however, as of now, Basement + Ground Floor + 2 Floors have been constructed and the petitioner considering the scenario which has been presented before him would not undertake construction of top floor so as to give a quietus to this unnecessary litigation and harassment meted out to him. For all these reasons, he says that the impugned notice needs to be quashed. He also emphasized upon the fact that this entire exercise is being done so that the time limit of 18.03.2025 Page No.6 expires and then the L.D.A. can again ask the petitioner to submit a fresh application for sanction of map thereby delaying the project and by then NOC granted by A.S.I. would also expire. He also submitted that A.S.I. is only concerned with the height of the building and distance from the building under its perview and not as to how construction is to be made inside the premises and this is totally within the domain of L.D.A. which has already compounded the variations and sanctioned the compounding map. (7) Per contra, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for L.D.A submits that there were serious variations between the map which was sanctioned earlier and the construction actually undertaken. He has invited our attention to the reviewed NOC granted by A.S.I. to submit that even in this NOC the measurements as referred in earlier map dated 30.06.2015 have been mentioned which itself goes to show that NOC is not with regard to the compounding map. He says that there is no NOC by the A.S.I. with regard to the revised construction area as mentioned in the compounding map. As regards lack of jurisdiction with the Executive Engineer, he relied upon supplementary affidavit which has been filed today wherein a notesheet has been annexed which mentions about the reasons mentioned in the impugned notice and the approval of the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority for fixing date and time for personal hearing. Based on the aforesaid, he submitted that merely ministerial act of issuance of notice has been performed by the Executive Engineer but the hearing, date and time has been fixed by the V.C., L.D.A. and hearing would take place before the V.C., L.D.A., therefore, this ground is not Page No.7 tenable. As regards the contention of Sri Mishra that none of the ingredients of Section 15(9) are made out, he has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court dated

29.06.2021 rendered in Writ Petition No.12242 (M/B) of 2021 'Daud Ahmad & Anrs. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' to submit that in the facts of this case, the notice is justified and should not be interfered with. He, therefore, says that this is not a case for interference. He also says that A.S.I. has not been impleaded as an opposite party herein which could have clarified the correct factual position and that A.S.I. also grants approval in respect of the area also. (8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, what we find is that the Lucknow Development Authority has sanctioned the compounding map on 19.03.2020, therefore, at least L.D.A. cannot have any objections so far as construction is undertaken as per the compounded map. Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a statement before this Court that although Basement+GF+3 Floors have been sanctioned, the petitioner has undertaken construction of only Basement + GF + 2 Floor and would not undertake construction of top floor which is sanctioned. This is only to give a quietus to the entire matter and buy peace. Further, we have seen the documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The documents contain the exercise which has preceded the issuance of renewed NOC dated

22.07.2022 issued by A.S.I. What we find is that an inspection was got conducted which clearly mentions the measurements of the construction undertaken subsequent to the sanction of map dated 30.06.2015 regarding which application for compounding Page No.8 was submitted and compounding map was sanctioned. It refers to the compounding/revised plan for residential/ commercial purposes. The report is Annexure No.SA-2. Therefore, the contention of Sri Ratnesh Chandra that because NOC does not actually mention revised measurements, therefore, NOC has not been granted for the revised measurements is factually incorrect. At best, it appears to be a clerical error and nothing more. The veracity of the documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit are not denied, therefore, to say that A.S.I. has not been impleaded as a party herein has no significance whatsoever for the reason that there is no dispute between the petitioner and the A.S.I. and the documents of the A.S.I. have been filed along with supplementary affidavit. We have perused other documents filed with the supplementary affidavit also which amply prove that renewed NOC dated 22.07.2022 has been granted by the competent authority conscious of the compounding map and sanction of the said compounding map by L.D.A. (9) No doubt, the contention of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for L.D.A. is correct that Executive Engineer has merely performed ministerial act of issuance of notice and in fact, what is borne out from a reading of the notesheet copy of which is annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by L.D.A. today, which has been taken on record, the entire matter was placed before Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority who has approved issuance of notice and also fixed date and time for hearing. Therefore, contention of Sri Mishra to the contrary is not acceptable. However, there is another aspect of the matter. On a bare perusal of Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973, two Page No.9 ingredients should exist, prima facie, for the purposes of issuance of show cause notice i.e. that there should be a satisfaction of the vice-Chairman that permission envisaged under sub-Section (3) of Section 15 was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation made or any fraudulent statement or information furnished. It is only on prima facie satisfaction on these two grounds that notice can be issued. We have perused contents of the notice. On a bare perusal of it, we do not find any such ingredients being present even prima facie. Therefore, the notice has been issued without the pre-requisite for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973 having been satisfied. As regards reliance placed by Sri Chandra upon the judgment of this Court dated 29.06.2021 passed in 'Daud Ahmad & Anrs. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' and by a Bench to which one of us (Rajan Roy, J.) was a member, we have carefully gone through the said judgment. The said judgment turns on its own facts as is evident from a bare reading of it, moreover, it was a final order of demolition which was under challenge in the said writ petition which is not the case here. Here, it is a case where we are at the initial stage of initiation of proceedings under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973. It is not the case of the L.D.A. that notice is not under Section 15(9). Moreover, considering the background of the case which we have already noticed hereinabove, there is more to it than what meets the eye as far as issuance of this notice is concerned but say no more. Suffice it to say that ingredients of Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973, not being satisfied, the L.D.A. already having sanctioned the compounding map, the NOC already having been granted by the A.S.I. and when it is read conjointly with the Page No.10 documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner i.e. the inspection report etc it is evident that the compounding map sanctioned by LDA has been taken into consideration, there is absolutely no reason mentioned in the impugned notice which may be germane for proceedings under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973 considering the ingredients referred therein. We, accordingly, quash the impugned notice. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law. (10) In the connected Writ-C No.6553 of 2022 [Rajesh Kumar Rastogi vs. State of U.P. & Ors.], the petitioner had filed the same alleging interference by the District Magistrate, Lucknow in construction of the building by the petitioner which was a subject matter of the other writ petition which has been decided by the judgment rendered hereinabove. Petitioner's counsel says that District Magistrate has filed an affidavit saying he is not interfering with the construction of the said building. In view of the aforesaid, as no relief has been sought against the Lucknow Development Authority and the District Magistrate has filed the affidavit averring as aforesaid in para no.25, petitioner's counsel, therefore, says that nothing is required to be adjudicated in this petition especially in view of the judgment passed in the other matter. (11) Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Shanu/-