IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2603 of 2011 Smt. Kamlesh Sharma and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. H. M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Pankaj Purohi, Advocate for respondent no.2 and Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the Vice Chairman, Haridwar Development Authority under Section 15(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), by which the land sanctioned in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. The petitioners contend that they have not availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Chairman, Haridwar Development Authority, as against the order passed under Section 15(9) of the Act an appeal is not provided. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioners have already an alternative remedy to move revision before the State Government under Section 41 of the Act, which reads as follows:- “41. Control by State Government.- (1) The [Authority, the Chairman or the Vice- Chairman] shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this Act. (2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions by the [Authority, the Chairman or 2 the Vice Chairman] under this Act any dispute arises between the [Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman] and the State Government the decision of the State on such dispute shall be final. (3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the [Authority or the Chairman] for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or property of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit: Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. [(4) Every order of the State Government made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.]” 4. The petitioners contend that the revision can only be filed against the authority, as being an authority the Vice Chairman has passed the order. The argument of the petitioner is totally misconceived, as the order impugned is of the authority. 5. In view of the admitted position of law, as the petitioners have an alternative remedy to file a revision before the State Government, the writ petition is being dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, it is directed that in case such a revision is moved, the concerned authority will decide the matter, as expeditiously as possible. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.12.2011 Kuldeep