Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties the case is heard afresh for disposal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

2. It is not in dispute that against the order of demolition dated 13.10.2006 and demolition seizure dated 28.11.2006 prepared by the Vice Chairman of Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘Development Authority’) under Section 27 (1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1973) the petitioner has instituted suit for permanent injunction and also moved application therein for temporary injunction. The temporary injunction application has been rejected by the Trial Court after hearing the parties on merit and appeal preferred against which by the petitioner has also been dismissed, hence this petition.

3. While raising preliminary objection against the maintainability of writ petition learned counsel for Development Authority has submitted that against the order of demolition passed by Vice Chairman of Development Authority under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 27 (2) of the said Act before the Chairman of Development Authority and under Section 27 (3) of the Act the Chairman of the Development Authority is empowered to stay the execution of an order against which an appeal is preferred before him under Section 27 (2) of the said Act. It is also contended that the decision of Chairman on appeal and subject only to such decision an order under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court in view of provisions of sub­section-(4) of Section-27 of the said Act. He further submits that not only this but Section-37 of the Act,1973 also postulates that except as provided in Section-41 of the said Act every decision of Chairman on appeal and subject to any decision on an appeal (if it lies and is preferred), the order of Vice Chairman or other Officer under Section 15 or Section 27 of the Act shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court.

4. On the basis of indisputable facts on record, learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority has submitted that so long as the orders passed by Vice Chairman of Development Authority dated 13.10.2006 and 28.11.2006 which have been passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as transpires from the record, are not set-aside by any competent authority or Court of law, the Civil Court would not be capable of granting temporary injunction or permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner as the aforesaid orders could not be challenged before the Civil Court on account of express bar created by Section-27(4) and Section-37 of the Act,1973 and would ultimately come in the way of Civil Court. Therefore, this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against refusal of temporary injunction should not grant any relief in favour of the petitioner as in given facts and circumstances of the case both the Courts below cannot be held to have committed any illegality in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. In my opinion the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent appears to have some substance.

5. Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the repair work undertaken by the petitioner was not required any prior permission or approval or sanction by the officer of Development Authority, therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1973 would not be attracted in view of saving clause provided under Section-52 of the Act,1973 thus impugned order passed by Vice Chairman referred above is nullity and non-est, as such can be ignored by Civil Court while granting temporary injunction in favour of petitioner. In my opini