IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 920 OF 2009 (MS) Smt. Savita Babbar …………Petitioner. Versus Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar, through its Secretary. ……..Respondent. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent. 24th June, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Haridwar Development Authority by which her premises has been seized. Admittedly, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was making the construction without seeking sanction from the Haridwar Development Authority, which is required under the law. However, according to the petitioner, she has filed a representation before the Haridwar Development Authority dated 25th May, 2009, wherein she has explained his case and has also given an undertaking as well. Be that as it may, the petitioner has also an alternative remedy to move a representation before the State Government under Section 41 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states to which the learned counsel for the Development Authority Mr. U.K. Uniyal agrees that in case, the representation of the petitioner is pending, the same may be decided in accordance with law. It is, therefore, directed that in case such a representation of the petitioner (contained as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) is pending with the respondent, the same shall be decided by the respondent as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 24.6.2009 Rathour