IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1269 of 2008 (M/S) Smt. Alka Jain and another …….. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……..Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. It is a very unfortunate case where the petitioners, despite their clamour for obtaining the sanction for a building plan have been fighting battle after battle and yet without any success and/or tangible positive result. It is undisputed case of the parties before me that the first round of litigation started in the year 1996 itself. The impugned order no. 06/pari/05-06 dated 15th July, 2005 on the very face of it apparently was passed behind the back of petitioners, without affording any opportunity of hearing to them and without the petitioners being permitted to present their side of the case. The learned counsel for the parties submit and agree that this petition be disposed of today finally at the motion hearing stage, without it being formally admitted to hearing and the following agreed order, based on the consent of the parties, be passed. The impugned order no. 06/pari/05-06 dated 15th July, 2005 is hereby set aside with all the consequences. Respondent no. 2 is directed to pass a fresh, speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. It is upto the petitioners to appear either personally or through their counsel The fresh order shall be passed un-influencely by any previous order having been passed on the subject by any authority. Mr. Srivastava submits that the petitioners have already obtained the ‘No objection Certificate’ from the competent authority of the Forest Department which, in a manner speaking should enable the competent authority to sanction the building plan. The petitioners are at liberty to refer to and rely upon the said “No Objection Certificate” before respondent no. 2 while arguing the case personally. The respondent no. 2 undoubtedly shall be under an obligation to take into consideration the aforesaid “No Objection Certificate” as also other relevant factors and documents in deciding whether the petitioners should be granted permission to raise the construction or not. If there is really no impediment in law, this Court sees no reason as to why the sanction should not be granted. Because the matter has been lingering on for more than a decade now, I direct that the petitioners shall appear personally or through their counsel before respondent no.2 on 19th August, 2008 in his office chamber at Dehradun at 11 A.M. Respondent no.2 shall hold the first hearing on that date itself. The hearings shall be concluded positively before 15th September, 2008 and in any event final order shall be passed before 30th September. Petition disposed of finally. No order as to costs. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 11.8.2008 Avneet 2