The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice require a fair hearing and reasoned decisions, which were violated in this case.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Karunanidhi Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Badrish Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 19.01.2024 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 has been rejected.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, it will be relevant to note certain brief facts giving rise to the instant petition.

4. The Lucknow Development Authority had put certain commercial plots for auction. The first round of auction was held on 04.10.2023 wherein the petitioner had submitted his bid which was the highest, however, the respondents No.3 and 4 did not accept the said bid and as such the said plot was put to re-auction. Since, the bid of the petitioner was not accepted for commercial Plot No.3, Commercial Sector Scheme, Sector-6, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow, hence, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No.1.

5. With the said revision, the petitioner had also preferred an application for interim relief which was not heard or considered and in the meantime, it is stated, that the respondents No.3 and 4 had re-scheduled the auction on 24.01.2024. Hence, at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court by means of a petition filed under Article 227 bearing No.41/2024 which was disposed of on 09.01.2024 with a direction that the revision of the petitioner may be heard and decided and at least the application for interim relief be decided on the next date and if that was not possible then at least prior to the date fixed for re-auction.

6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the respondent No.1 considered and decided the revision of the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 19.01.2024.

7. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said order dated 19.01.2024 has filed the instant petition wherein it has been urged by the learned Senior Counsel that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Certain document was received behind the back of the petitioner which has been considered in the impugned order.

8. It is also urged that the impugned order is absolutely non-speaking so much so that the entire revision with its grounds have been reproduced by the respondent No.1 and it is referred to certain report furnished by the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority upon which the revision has been dismissed without even determining the issue raised by the petitioner.

9. It is further urged that apparently no hearing had taken place and the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 appears to be ante-dated. Thus, since the principles of natural justice have been violated, accordingly the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

10. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, this Court on 30.01.2024 had directed the learned standing counsel to produce the original record of the aforesaid revision before this Court.

11. Today, the original record has been placed before this Court. From the perusal thereof, it indicates that the revision filed by the petitioner is available on record along with an application seeking disposal of the application for interim relief. However, there is no order-sheet nor there is any minutes of meeting or record of proceedings by which it may be discerned as to when and how the proceedings were held and conducted.

12. The record further indicates that on 02.01.2024 letter was issued to the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority informing regarding the revision and to furnish the reply. There is an attendant sheet on record, which indicates that the parties had appeared for hearing on 17.01.2024, but there is nothing on record to indicate as to how the date of 17