IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHNAD AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2076 of 2008 (M/S) Parvatiya Lok Sanskriti Sansthan Society Registered under the Societies Registration Act, Office at Village Pipola, Post Ghonti, District Tehri Garhwal Through its President, Ram Naresh Badoni. ………… Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Aqua Infra Project Ltd. Registered office at 5th Floor The Milestone Gandhi Nagar Morh, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. State Industrial Development Authority (S.I.D.A.) 2, New Cantt. Road, Dehradun. Through its authorized officer ………… Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing part of the order dated 23.10.2008 (copy Annexure –8 to the writ petition), passed by the revisional authority (State Government). 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed a revision before the State Government against sanctioning of the map by respondent No. 2, submitted by respondent No. 1 under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. Section 12 of said Act makes Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 applicable to proceeding under the Act of 1976 empowering the State Government to entertain the revision. 4) The grievance of the petitioner is that while admitted the revision the State Government has not passed any interim order staying the plan / constructions being raised by the respondent No. 1. On behalf of respondent No. 2 various preliminary objections are raised, particularly, relating to the locus of the petitioner. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the annexures filed with the writ petition, this Court is of the view the petitioner can make his submissions before the revisional authority (State Government) where the revision is admitted by said authority under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. From the perusal of the impugned order (Annexure –8 to the writ petition) it appears that while directing to registrar the revision, the State Government has not rejected the prayer for any interim order. Rather, it has issued notices before hearing the parties. Proviso to sub Section (3) of Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, requires that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6) In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error of law in the order passed by the revisional authority. Therefore, the writ petition is summarily dismissed with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to make his submissions relating to the points raised in the writ petition before the revisional authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that 8th of January 2009 is date fixed before the revisional authority (State Government). The parties to the writ petition may make their submissions before said authority on said date. (Stay Application No. 8017 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. December 05, 2008. H.Negi