IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 580 OF 2009 (MS) Sri Harbansh Lal Virmani ..................Petitioner Versus Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun and another .................Respondents Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 2. 22nd April, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The grievance of the petitioner is that his map has not been sanctioned by the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority. The petitioner further says that against the order of refusal for sanction of the map, the petitioner had approached the Chairman Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Chairman, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority vide order dated 21st October, 2008 cancelled the order dated 23rd April 2008 and had remanded the matter back to the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority with direction that decision be taken by the Development Authority as per the byelaws and the law applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. However, the petitioner now states that in spite of the said order dated 21st October 2008 passed by the Chairman of the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, the Development Authority has once again refused to sanction the map of the petitioner which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12th January 2009. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed present writ petition with the following prayers:- “(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order/letter dated 12-1-09 passed/ issued by the respondent No.1 (Annexure No.8). (2) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of commanding the respondent No.1 to consider the approval of map of the petitioner in the light of order of Commissioner/ Chairman Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun dated 21-10-08. (3) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” However, such a contingency is taken care of under Section 41 of the Act, which reads as follows:- “41. Control by State Government.- (1) The [Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman] shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this Act. (2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions by the [Authority, the Chairman or the Vice Chairman] under this Act any dispute arises between the [Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman] and the State Government the decision of the State Government on such dispute shall be final. (3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the [Authority or the Chairman] for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or property of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit: Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. [(4) Every order of the State Government made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.]” In this case therefore, the matter must go before the State Government under Section 41 of the Act, which has final say in resolving disputes of such nature. In view of the above discussion, this petition is disposed of with direction that in case the petitioner moves an application for review before the State Government under Section 41 of the Act, the same shall be disposed of by the State Government in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22-4-2009 Rathour