IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1427 of 2008 (M/S) Shri Swami Balakanand Giri Ji Maharaj, Haridham, Pitheshwar Mahamandleshwar Anant Shri Vibhusit Shri Shri 1008 Chela Harinand Giri through its Director Ravi Prakash Garg, Haridham, Rani Gali, Bhupat Wala, Haridwar. …… Petitioner. Versus Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar and another. … Respondents. Sri Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.Dhulia, Senior Advocate, with Sri Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the respondents. Date August 19, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 5279 of 2008) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- a. Issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order (Annexure No.11 to the writ petition). b. Issue a writ, order or mandamus directing the respondents not interfere in the working of the petitioner except by adopting the procedure of law. c. Any other relief, which Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper while deciding the present writ petition. d. Cost of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a registered trust in the name and style “Hari Dham Sanatam Seva Trust” having its office at Rani Gali, Peepal Wali Gali, Bhupat Wala, Haridwar and the chairman of the trust is Shri Balkanand Giri Ji Maharaj Chela of Hari Nand Giri Ji Maharaj. Sri Ravi Prakash Sharma is the director of the said trust. A house-building map was presented by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 on 2 3-3-2008 for sanction thereof as per norms of the Haridwar Development Authority. Objection was raised by the respondents by letter Annexure No. 2. In response thereof, the petitioner made a request for one month’s time to file reply vide Annexure No.3 and the petitioner filed his reply on 26-3-2008 before the respondent no.2 and requested the respondent authority to sanction the map. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent authority has sealed the alleged illegal construction on 25-7-2008 and informed the petitioner not to raise further construction vide Annexure No. 11. It is also obvious that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division Pauri Garhwal against the sealing order dated 23-7-2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the stay order dated 25-7-2008 passed by the Commissioner while admitting the appeal of the petitioner for hearing, the premises in dispute has been sealed by the respondent-authority. Admittedly, the stay order dated 25-7-2008 (copy Annexure No. 10) has been passed by the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Division in appeal and the appeal is still pending for hearing before him. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may make an application before the Commissioner, who had granted stay order in favour of the petitioner. However, it is provided that the appeal preferred by the petitioner be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4 5