IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 505 of 2010. Videocon Telecommunication Ltd. (Earlier known as Datacom Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) A company incorporated and Registered under the Companies Act, Registered Office at 3055, Sector 70, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-160071, through its Authorised Representative. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Dehradun. 2. Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Dehradun. 3. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun, through its Vice Chairman. 4. Secretary, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun. …Respondents. Mr. Kesari Nath Tripathi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajeev Bhatt and Mr. Ashish Mishra & Narendra Bali, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Date April 09, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 2377 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 9-3-2010 passed by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure-6 to the petition) whereby the alleged construction on the premises of tower on the roof has been sealed. According to the petitioner, an application was moved by the petitioner for permission to install the tower on the roof and the roof was taken on lease from the landlady and all the formalities have been completed by the petitioner. The copy of the application has been annexed along with the writ petition. 2 The application of the petitioner is pending for disposal before the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Without taking a decision on the application, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informed the Court that an appeal along with interim relief application was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner Garhwal Division. But in the appeal, decision was not taken by the Commissioner on the interim relief application. Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has contended that that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner as provided under the Proviso appended to Section 27(1) of the Act. Proviso appended to Section 27(1) of the Act provides that “provided no such order shall be made unless the owner or the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the order should not be made.” The appeal is pending, which has to be decided by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division and the application of the petitioner is also pending. It reveals from a perusal of the impugned order that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall take a decision on the application of the petitioner, wherein permission was sought to install the tower in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The learned Commissioner is also directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 3 Till the disposal of appeal, the impugned order dated 9-3- 2010(Annexure-6 to the petition) shall be kept in abeyance. With the said observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties today on payment of usual charges. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4