IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 231 of 2010. Mohan Ashram Managing Trustee/Mukhya Adhisthata Mr. Virendra Kumar Shastri Shishya Swami Sachidanand Saraswati R/O Vedic Mohan Ashram, Bhopatwala, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Haridwar Development Authority, through its Secretary, District Haridwar. 2. Yashveer Singh Arya, alleged Manager, Vedic Mohan Ashram, Bhopatwala, District Haridwar. 3. State of Uttarakhand, through its Additional Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 4. Vedic Mohan Ashram through its Manager Yashveer Singh Arya. …Respondents. Date March 08, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 1023 of 2010) Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, with Mrs. Indu Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. U.K.Uniyal, learned Senior Advocate, with Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate, for the respondent no.1. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocatre, holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, for the respondent no.2. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to array Vedic Mohan Ashram Bhopatwala, in whose favour the permission has been granted, as respondent no.4. Permitted. The necessary amendments be incorporated by the petitioner in the memo of parties during the course of the day. Notice on behalf of newly impleaded respondent no.4 has been accepted by Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned sanction dated 28-8- 2 2008 as well as the order dated 28-1-2010 and 16-2-2010 issued by respondent nos. 1 and 3, annexed as Annexure Nos. 7, 12 and 1 respectively to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents have agreed that this petition may be disposed of at admission stage without inviting counter affidavits, since the question involved is legal in nature. Heard. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner filed a recall application pertaining to the sanction made by respondent no.1-authority in favour of respondent no.4, which was rejected by the Vice Chairman, Haridwar Development Authority by his order dated 28-1-2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision before the respondent no.3. The revisional authority-respondent no.3 by its order dated 16-2- 2010 dismissed the revision on the ground that alternate remedy to file an appeal under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 (for short the Act) is available to the petitioner. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2009 (MS) was filed by respondent no.4-Vedic Mohan Ashram and not by the petitioner and in the said writ petition a direction was given to respondent no.4 to prefer a revision but the respondent no. 4 did not choose to prefer a revision before the State Government. I have perused the order impugned passed by respondent no.3. While passing the impugned order, the respondent no. 3 has placed reliance on the order dated 8-7-2009 of this Court, which was passed in Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2009(MS). It has been held by the respondent no.3 in the order impugned that the petitioner had an alternate remedy to file an appeal under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973. By a perusal of the order dated 8-7-2009 passed by this Court it is amply clear that it was held that a revision is maintainable under Section 41 of the Act. 3 An appeal does lie under Section 27(2) of the Act against an order of demolition passed under sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the impugned order dated 16-2-2010 has been passed by the respondent no.3 considering wrong facts and that too by placing reliance on the order dated 8-7-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2009(MS) Vedic Mohan Ashram Vs. Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar, therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent no.3 is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16-2- 2010 (Annexure-1 to the petition) is set aside. The matter is remanded to the revisional authority, which shall decide the revision of the petitioner after hearing all the parties. The revisional authority shall also decide all the questions, which have been raised by the revisionist or by the opposite party-H.D.A., at the time of hearing of arguments including the question of maintainability of revision, without being influenced by the order of this Court. The petitioner shall also array respondent no. 4 in the revision since the permission was granted in favour of the respondent no.4. Since the notices have been accepted by all the parties before this Court, they shall appear before the revisional authority and shall also co-operate in the speedy disposal of the revision. The revisional authority shall decide the revision expeditiously as far as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4