IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1437 of 2008 (M/S) Sunil Gupta, son of Sri D.D.Gupta, Resident of 369 Nari Shilp Marg, 16 Chakrata Road, Dehradun. …… Petitioner. Versus Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) through its Secretary and four others. … Respondents. Sri H.M.Bhatia holding brief of Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Puja Banga, holding brief of Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents-MDDA. Date August 18, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.5.2008 passed by Vice Chairman Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and consequential illegal sealing proceedings conducted by the respondents against the petitioner in respect of the petitioner’s property situated near the residence of petitioner at 369 Nari Shilp Marg, Dehradun. (ii) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to decide the Case No. 626/S-7 regarding sanction of revised map pending before respondent no.1 and further direct the respondent to release the property of the petitioner removing the seal. (iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner wanted to construct a house at 26/25 Nari Shilp Mandir Marg, Dehradun and he submitted map for sanction by the M.D.D.A. The M.D.D.A. raised certain defects, hence the petitioner submitted a revised map which was sanctioned vide letter dated 13-4-2007. The petitioner started construction work, but due to political influence of local leaders, the respondent authorities started harassing the petitioner on one pretext or the other and ultimately, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 28A of the Urban Planning and Development Act vide Annexure No. 8. The petitioner filed his reply (copy Annexure No.9) before the Vice Chairman of the MDDA. Thereafter the petitioner moved several applications to the Secretary of the M.D.D.A. for deciding the proceeding of Case No. 626 of 2007 pending before him. According to the petitioner, he has stopped the construction work but the respondents have initiated the proceedings of sealing of the constructed. By the impugned order dated 13-5-2008, the respondent authority (Vice Chairman, M.D.D.A.) has passed the order that the construction was made by the petitioner against the sanctioned map and has affected the front set back and rear set back and held that the illegal construction would be sealed by the M.D.D.A. on 13-5-2008. In the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already filed an appeal on 9-6-2008, which is still pending before the Chairman of the M.D.D.A. Learned counsel has urged that a direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the appeal within a time frame and the writ petition may be disposed of finally today, Prayer is innocuous. 2 The Chairman, M.D.D.A. Dehradun is directed to decide the appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13-5-2008 passed by the Vice Chairman, M.D.D.A. (copy Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition), expeditiously as far as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 3