IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2009 (MS) Pt. Vishwanath Sharma Hindu Charitable Trust ……..Petitioner. Versus Nainital Lake Region Special Area Development Authority and others. ………..Respondents. Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. U.K.Uniyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondents. 1st December, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondent no. 1 and 3 and Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure – 13 to the writ petition) passed by the Secretary, Nainital Lake Region Special Area Development Authority, by which the construction, which has been made by the petitioner at Naukuchiyatal, Nainital has been sealed. The contention of the petitioner is that he is making construction under a sanctioned map by respondent no. 1, yet his construction has been sealed. All the same, a perusal of the documents available on the record clearly shows that the petitioner has made a construction on the first floor, which is larger than what was sanctioned. The counsel for the petitioner Sri Siddharth Sah fairly admits that the construction which has been made on the first-floor is beyond what was sanctioned. However, he says that in any case the unauthorised part 2 of the construction would only be on the first-floor, yet the entire building has been sealed. Learned senior counsel Sri Uniyal representing respondent no. 1 and 3 states that it is true that entire building has been sealed as there was no option but to seal the entire building under the circumstances. Moreover, a preliminary objection, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 3 is that against the order dated 18.9.2008, which is presently impugned, the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of moving an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Nainital under Section 25 (3) of the Special Area Development Authorities Act, 1986. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Statute, this Court hereby directs that in case the appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law by the Divisional Commissioner, Nainital within a period of one month from the date he receives a certified copy of this order along with the appeal. The Divisional Commissioner shall consider all the issues raised by him, including as to whether the Development Authority has power to pass the sealing orders under the circumstances and will also consider as to whether the construction which has been made by the petitioner is compoundable under the law. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 01.12.2009 Rathour