WPMS 437/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. Ms. Puja Banga, the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2. Since a revision has been preferred by the petitioner before the State Government under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should file a stay application before the revisional authority for stay of the demolition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, it is provided that if such an application is made, the revisional authority will consider the matter and pass the order after hearing all the concerned parties. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 16.3.2011 Prabodh