- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs : (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to demolish the commercial building of the petitioner situated at plot No. 22/d, Civil Lines, Allahabad without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without taking any decision by the State Government on the letter dated 26-12-2006 of the Board; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to take decision on the letter dated 26-12-2006 of the Board with further direction to the respondents to decide the application dated 25- 11-2006 of the petitioner for compounding and regularizing the construction made by the petitioner on plot No. 22/d, Civil Lines, Allahabad.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner purchased the plot No. 22/d Civil Lines, Allahabad on 21st March, 2005 and submitted map/plan for constructing the commercial building over the said plot on 7-12-2005. THE map was sanctioned. Some construction has been raised by the petitioner in contravention of the sanctioned plan as admitted by the petitioner himself in paras 12 and 17 of the petition. THE map had been sanctioned for basement, lower ground, upper ground plus two floors but construction has also been raised for the third floor of the building. It has further been admitted in para 17 that construction has been raised in addition to the sanctioned plan to the extent of additional area measuring 172. 85 sq. m. and the maximum permissible height of the building could be, as per the prescribed limitation of 10 meters, has been raised to 12. 06 meters. After completing the construction, petitioner submitted the application for compounding the construction raised by him in contravention of the sanctioned plan in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1973 ). THE application of the kind, referred to above, is decided by the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority and person aggrieved, by the order passed by the Vice-Chairman under Section 32 of the Act or any order passed under the 1973 Act, can file an appeal before the Chairman of the Authority who is Divisional Commissioner under Section 27 (2) of the Act, 1973 and further remedy of revision is provided under Section 41 (3) of the Act before the State Government. In the instant case, the matter has been referred to the "board" to decide the application submitted by the petitioner for compounding the construction raised in contravention of the sanctioned plan but the Board has not yet decided the case. Hence this petition. We have heard Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Zafar Nayyar, learned Additional Advocate General with Shri Vivek Verma for the respondents.
(3.) SRI Sharma has submitted that "board" be directed to decide the application for compounding the construction as referred to hereinabove within a stipulated period as the matter is pending before the Board for a long time. The term "board" has not been defined anywhere in the Act 1973 nor the Constitution of the Board is provided. Direction to any authority to decide the application cannot be issued by the writ Court unless it is an authority under the Statute. More so, before issuing such a direction, the Court has to address to itself to the controversy involved therein and examine the statutory provisions.;