K.N.Goyal, J. - (1.) Admit.
(2.) As only a short question is involved, proceed to dispose of the petition finally.
(3.) The petitioner allegedly made some unauthorised constructions. In respect of the same, the V ice Chairman of the Development Authority levied penalty compounding fee of Rs. 9996.68 P. vide notice dated 21-11-81, annexure-2. The petitioner made representation against the same, cent ending that the amount of penalty had been wrongly calculated and that it should have been much less. This was rejected by the Vice Chairman on 24-3-1983, vide intimation annexure - 4. hereafter the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 41 (3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 19/3, with the State Government. The State Government has rejected the revision on the ground that Section 41 (3) did not give it the power to entertain a revision against a mere letter of intimation, namely annexure-4.;