A revision under Section 41(3) of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is maintainable against an order of the Vice-Chairman granting permission for construction, even at the instance of a third party who is a person aggrieved.

( 1 ) THE question which requires consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the constitution is whether a revision under sub-section (3) of Section 41 of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order of vice-Chairman granting permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act is maintainable at the Instance of a third party.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is owner of a commercial building known as Bhalotia Market in Mohalla Chak jalal in the city of Gorakhpur. Smt. Ganga Devi respondent No. 4 is owner of a plot of land which is Immediately adjoining to Bhalotia Market on the northern side. She intended to make a commercial building over the aforesaid plot and submitted a plan of the same to the Gorakhpur development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) for grant of permission In accordance with Section 14 of the Act. The Vice-Chalrman of the Authority by his order dated 5. 6. 1999 sanctioned the plan and granted permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the act to make construction. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order before the state Government under sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Act which was dismissed by the state Government by the impugned order dated 22. 9. 1999 on the ground that no revision lay under the aforesaid provision against an order passed by Vice-Chairman of a Development authority or against an order granting permission to make construction or carry out development of land. This order is impugned in the present petition.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner, respondent No. 4 submitted a map in the year 1995 for making construction over an area 78 x 40 and the remaining area 84 x 40 was shown as parking place. Though no basement was sanctioned but a basement was constructed. Thereafter, a fresh map was submitted for sanction in 1996 for making construction over the vacant piece of land 70 x 40 which had been earlier left for the purposes of parking and loading/unloading of vehicles. The petitioner filed an objection against the said map on which the Chief Town Planner directed respondent No. 4 to submit a fresh map in accordance with the bye-laws and in the meantime stopped the construction work. The respondent No. 4 preferred Writ Petition No. 16656 of 1998 against the aforesaid order of the Chief Town Planner but subsequently the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 submitted another map being map No. 468 of 1998 which according to the petitioner was against the bye-laws as vacant land had not been left on the front and back side which is mandatory for a commercial building. This map bearing No. 468 of 1998 was sanctioned and permission was granted to respondent No. 4 for carrying out the development work under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order before the State Government under Section 41 (3) of the Act, which was dismissed on 22. 9. 1999.

( 4 ) THE contention of learned counsel for the parties turn on interpretation of sub-section (3) of section 41 of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act. 1973 which reads as follows :

" (3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the Authority or the Chairman for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction Issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit. "

( 5 ) THE language used in this sub-section is similar to the language used in sub-section (1) of section 397. Cr. P. C. which confers revisional power upon the Court of Sessions and High court. A plain reading of the provision shows that the State Government has the power to call for the records of any case disposed of either on its own motion or on a