IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.241 of 2007 (M/S) Madhav Mohan Ghildiyal ……Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Dated: November 18, 2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gopal Dutt Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 3, Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent no.2 and Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following relief:- “ i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to proceed and decide the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to restrain the respondent no.4 from changing the use of residential premises in question for running the school therein. iii) Pass any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case. iv) Award and cost of writ petition to the petitioner.” According to the petitioner the respondent no.4 Smt. Vineeta Kala has committed an offence by changing old residential user of the premises in question by opening a school therein. In this regard, a complaint was made to respondent no.2 on 29.3.2006 which is still pending. 2 In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent no.4, it is stated that an enquiry was also conducted and direction was given to respondent no.4. It is further stated that the respondent no.4 has not committed any act which shows the violation of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Further, the respondent no.4 is running a School of Play Group and Nursery only which relates to small kids for prior admission in the upper K.G. classes. The said user is within the permitted zone as per laws of M.D.D.A. which is in conformity of the by-laws and master plan of the said authority and is not in contravention of the same. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it is stated that the M.D.D.A. had sanctioned plan in favour of the respondent no.4 with regard to the premises in question for residential purpose only but the respondent no.4 without any prior permission started using the residential premises in question for running a school. Since the complaint filed by the petitioner is pending for disposal before respondent no.2, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, it is directed that Vice Chairman, M.D.D.A., Dehradun (respondent no.2) shall decide the complaint of the petitioner, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no.4, in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma, J.) 18.11.2010 RG