IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1572 of 2010 (M/S) Anil Kant Kaushik and others. ……Petitioners Versus State and another …….Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Dated:-29-09-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby an amount of Rs. 6,82,864/- has been demanded against the development charges to be deposited by the petitioners and in case of default in payment, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue through Collector. A further writ has been sought in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 06.04.2010 (annexure-4 to the writ petition). The facts, as narrated in the writ petition are that in compliance of High Court’s order dated 09.09.2003, the representation of the petitioners was decided and on the basis of the consent of both the parties, an approval was given to charge simple interest at the rate of Rs. 940 per square meter. According to the petitioners, the said amount along with simple interest has already been deposited with respondent No. 1. Thereafter, vide impugned letter dated 28.07.2009, which is annexed as annexure 2 to the writ petition, a separate demand of Rs. 6,82,864/- was raised as development charges. Hence this petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that representation dated 06.04.2010, which is annexed as annexure-4 to the writ petition is still lying 2 pending for disposal, and the same be decided by a speaking and reasoned order and has further prayed that till then no recovery of alleged development charges be made from the petitioners. The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is innocuous in nature. The petitioners have also challenged the competence of levying the development charges by respondent No. 1 since the area in question is under Haridwar Development Authority and development is being made by the authority concerned. It is further contended that no such order was served upon the petitioners for imposing the development charges and only the communication letters have been issued. The petitioners in their representation have prayed that issue of execution of sale deed is altogether different since they have deposited the amount along with interest to respondent No. 1. It is further prayed that the issue of development charges should be decided separately. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the matter requires factual scrutiny by respondent No. 1. This Court, in its writ jurisdiction cannot scrutinize the factual aspects of the case, therefore, it would be proper and in the interest of justice to direct respondent No. 1 to take decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on representation dated 06.04.2010 (annexure-4 to the writ petition), made by the petitioners before Commissioner, Avas Vikas Parishad, within a period of 8 weeks from the production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned by a speaking and reasoned order. It is further directed that till the decision is made by the Commissioner, Avas Vikas Parishad, no recovery of the alleged development charges be made from the petitioners. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma, J.) 29-09-2010 S 3