The court emphasized the importance of expeditious consideration of Stay Application and Revision, and the maintenance of status quo on the construction pending the decision.

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for directing the respondent no.2 to expeditiously dispose of the Stay Application filed by the petitioner along with the Revision No. 82 of 2012 filed by him.

It appears that an order dated 14.9.2009 was passed by the concerned Officer of Varanasi Development Authority exercising power under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, inter-alia, directing for demolition of the construction in question raised by the petitioner.

Thereupon, the petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 27 (2) of the said Act.

The said Appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner/Chairman, Varanasi Development Authority by the order dated 26.7.2012.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Revision before the State Government under Section 41 (3) of the said Act. The said Revision was numbered as Revision No. 82 of 2012.

The said Revision is stated to be pending before the respondent no.2.

It further transpires that Stay Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner alongwith the said Revision. Copy of the said Stay Application appears at page no. 67 of the Paper -Book of the said Writ Petition.

It is further averred in the Writ Petition that despite the pendency of the said Revision, a notice dated 7.11.2012 has been issued by Varanasi Development Authority directing the petitioner to remove the construction in question.

We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and perused the record.

In paragraph no. 18 of the Writ Petition, it has been stated that the post of Principal Secretary, Housing nd Urban Planning, Government of U.P., is vacant, therefore, the Revision preferred by the petitioner is not being proceeded with.

In view of the above avernment made in paragraph no.18 of the Writ Petition, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 was directed to be obtain instructions in the matter.

Sri K.R.Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, on the basis of instructions received by him, states that Sri Praveer Kumar is looking after the work of the Principal Secretary. Department of Housing and Urban Planing, Government of U.P., Lucknow, and he will deal with the Revision filed by the petitioner.

In view of the above, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be subserved by disposing of the Writ Petition with the following directions:

1. Within six weeks from today, the petitioner will file an Application before the respondent no.2 alongwith certified copy of this order as well as copy of the aforesaid Revision filed by the petitioner.

2. On receipt of the aforesaid Application alongwith the documents mentioned above, the respondent no.2 will proceed to consider the Stay Application filed with the Revision preferred by the petitioner and will pass suitable orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously,preferably within a period of two months of the receipt of the aforesaid Application, after hearing the petitioner and by passing speaking order..

3. Till 18,.3.2013 or till the disposal of the Stay Application, filed by the petitioner with the Revision, by the respondent no.2, as directed above, whichever is earlier, Status -quo, as of date, in regard to the construction in question, will be maintained by the parties hereto.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions.

_____________