By the Court.—Heard Sri Upendra Nath Misra, learned Counsel assisted by Sri Kshemendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jaideep Narayan Mathur, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. This writ petition was filed at a stage when regular suit No. 1257 of 2001 filed by the petitioner seeking mandatory injunction against the respondents had allegedly been rendered infructuous due to the reason that the respondents went on raising the disputed construction and the application filed by them under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A also could not be disposed of by the Civil Court. The present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for redressal of petitioner’s grievance prays for the following relief:

“(i) By a writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus the Respondent No. 1 may be directed to dispose off the representations, dated 14.7.2014, annexed as Annexure III and IV to this writ petition within a time framed, as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Court, considering the circumstances and in the meanwhile the Respondent No. 2 may be restrained from raising any further constructions over the property during pendency of the suit, morefully described in the schedule of property contained in paragraph No. 8 of this Writ Petition.

(ii) That the costs of the present proceedings may also be allowed in favour of the petitioner against the opposite parties.

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present writ petition may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case confined his arguments within the statutory provisions envisaged under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership And maintenance) Act, 2010 and the bye-laws framed thereunder and it was urged that the Lucknow Development Authority in terms of Section 15 (9) is under an obligation to take cognizance of any violation indulged into by any developer or promoter of a project which is sanctioned by the Development Authority.

4. This Court was also taken through the provisions of the Apartment Act, 2010 wherein rights of the owners of apartments in multi storyed buildings have been recognised and the association of residents residing in multi storyed buildings is conferred a status under law, therefore, a grievance raised by any such association before the Development Authority was projected to be within the ambit of law and also liable to be entertained and considered by the Development Authority. This relief not being in conflict with the relief sought by the petitioner before the Civil Court was therefore pressed by the petitioner vehemently and violations committed by the developer as demonstrated on the basis of material placed on record was attempted to be established to be a serious violation of the original lay out plain in respect of two plots of land i.e. plot Nos. TC/G-2/2 and TC/G-5/5 situated in Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow upon which the residential apartment belonging to the petitioner and other alleged illegal constructions are stated to have been raised by the respondent No. 2 whereby the common facilities protected by law under the Apartment Act, 2010 are unlawfully taken away.

5. The grievance in detail has thus been raised by the petitioner in its representations contained in annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to this writ petition which inter alia projects the violation of FAR in contravention of the original sanctioned plan.

6. Refuting the submissions made by the petitioner on the alleged violation of the sanctioned plan, the Lucknow Development Authority in its counter-affidavit has largely maintained a silence on vital aspects of the matter but at the same time it is stated that the plans