IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1407 of 2010 (M/S) Irdis Malik ………..Petitioner Versus Secretary Nainital Lake Region & others …….Respondents Shri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 3. Shri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.2. Dated: 09th August, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at present he is not pressing prayer no.2 and same may not be considered at this stage. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.08.2010 passed by the respondent no.1. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is managing a hotel situated near Mohan Co. Chouraha, Mallital, Nainital in the name of Gulmarg Hotel which is also known as A-Von. Same is owned by the mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Husn Bano. The building construction permission of the hotel was duly sanctioned by the Lake Development Authority, Nainital vide letter dated 24.06.1985 and the map was also duly sanctioned on the same date. For two years i.e. from 1991 to 1993 the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had operated a hotel in the name of Gulmarg Hotel in the aforesaid 2 building. Hotel Gulmarg is duly registered under Sarai Act by the District Magistrate, Nainital since 26.03.1991. On 24.10.2002, the State of Uttarakhand has notified compounding byelaws which has been titled as “Nainital Jheel Parikshetra Vishesh Kshetra Vikas Pradhikaran Aphradon Ka Shaman (Sanshodhit) Upvidhi, 2002”. The petitioner has earlier leased out his building to LIC and in the year 2006 the LIC has shifted its office to another premises. The Lake Development Authority, Nainital illegally tried to encroach upon the property of the petitioner and tried to set-up a bill board in the premises in question, hence on behalf of the petitioner his wife sent a notice/ representation to remove the angles. The notice/ representation was duly served upon the Secretary of the Lake Development Authority on 10.07.2007 and acknowledgment of seal was duly taken on the copy of the said notice. On 02.08.2010, an impugned notice was issued by the Secretary of the respondent no.1 authority in which sealing orders was passed with regards to alleged construction on the basement of the Hotel Gulmarg building (A-Von). The sealing order dated 02.08.2010 has been issued by the Secretary, Lake Development Authority, Nainital without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As per the impugned notice dated 02.08.2010 a notice was earlier issued to the petitioner on 18.05.2010 and as per said notice 26.05.2010 was fixed and the petitioner was asked to submit his clarification and entire evidence. The petitioner has been peacefully running the hotel and was earning his livelihood since year 2006 and now in 2010 the Secretary, Lake Development Authority, Nainital has issued a notice of sealing of the premises without any descriptions, measurements or details of the premises to be sealed. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the copy of the notice dated 18.05.2010 was never served upon the petitioner and due to this reason the order impugned was passed. He further claims that he has certain documentary evidence in his possession by which permission was granted to the petitioner. He submitted that in case an opportunity is given to him, he would place those documentary evidence before the respondent authorities. On the other hand, Shri U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner, in pursuance of notice dated 18.05.2010, has not submitted any reply and therefore, the sealing order dated 02.08.2010 was passed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in the interest of justice, this Court thinks it proper that opportunity of hearing should be provided to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is permitted to file reply to the notice dated 18.05.2010 before the respondent no.1 within one week from today. In case, such reply is filed within a period of one week from today, the respondent no.1 shall pass a fresh reasoned order within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 4 With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim relief application no.6576 of 2010 also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 09.08.2010