Ran Vijai Singh and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, JJ.

These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioner with the prayer for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the proceedings related to sanction of map and granting permission for construction on the site 48/1, 48/2, 48/3 and 48/5, Civil Station, Allahabad, admeasuring 4523.47 sq. meters. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the orders dated 04.07.2013 and 05.06.2013, whereby the plan for construction has been sanctioned and permission to raise construction has been accorded by the authorities of Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'ADA’) as required under Section 15 of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Further prayer made by the petitioner is for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent nos.6 and 7 from making any further construction upon the aforesaid site.

3. The petitioner has also prayed, in the alternative, to summon the records of the Revision Petition No.13/2014, pending before the State Government under Section 41 (3) of the Act and quash the entire proceedings relating to sanction of map and granting permission for construction in favour of respondent nos.6 and 7.

4. Heard Shri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri C. B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents, Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for ADA and Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.6 & 7 and perused the record including the record concerning the file produced by Allahabad Development Authority from where the order dated 04.07.2013 permitting the respondent nos.6 and 7 to raise construction under Section 15 of the Act has emanated.

BACKGROUND FACTS AS PLEADED BY THE PETITIONER:

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings drawn by ADA for sanction of building plan, which has resulted in order dated 04.07.2013, are vitiated for the reason that the said permission has been obtained by the respondent nos.6 and 7 by concealing material facts and by misrepresentation, as such, the order dated 04.07.2013 is liable to be quashed in terms of the provision contained in sub-section (9) of Section 15 of the Act which provides that if the Vice-Chairman of Development Authority is satisfied that permission under Section 15 of the Act was granted in consequence of any misrepresentation made or is based on any fraudulent statement or information furnished, such permission may be cancelled.

6. In para 34 of the writ petition, it has been averred that since authorities of the ADA have neither passed any order under section 15 (9) of the Act on the petitioner’s objection nor have they taken any steps for cancelling the permission obtained by misrepresentation and by furnishing incorrect information, therefore, the petitioner has filed a revision petition under section 41(3) of the Act before the State Government. Thus, the primary grievance of the petitioner appears to be non-disposal of the objection made by him against sanction/permission of the building plan on the ground that same was obtained by misrepresentation of facts by the respondent nos.6 and 7. Similarly in para 24 of the writ petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner came to know that ADA, in collusion with respondent nos.6 and 7 and in a very deceitful manner, has sanctioned the map and that the petitioner vide his representation/application dated 21.4.2012 requested the Vice-Chairman of ADA by narrating the correct facts to the effect that he is the owner and valid title-holder of the plot in question and further that the dispute in respect of ownership and title of the land is pending before the courts where the respondent nos.6 and 7 are making constructions and as such in view of the pende