Allahabad High Court
ZEESHAN AHMAD FAREEDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is disposed of as the show‑cause notice was withdrawn and a fresh notice will be issued, rendering the reliefs sought unavailable.
Summary
Petitioner Zeeshan Ahmad Fareed filed a writ petition seeking to quash a show‑cause notice issued under Section 27(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and to restrain the demolition of Mustafa Masjid, invoking Supreme Court directions in In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures (2024). The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh and the municipal authority, argued that the notice was vague and subsequently withdrew it, promising to issue a fresh notice in compliance with law. The Court noted the withdrawal and the respondent’s assurance of a new notice, and consequently held that the petition could not proceed. The petition was therefore disposed of without granting any of the reliefs sought. The decision underscores that a withdrawn or defective notice renders a certiorari petition moot and that mandamus cannot be issued where the underlying administrative action has been withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice dated 21.08.2026 issued under Section 27(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is valid and liable to be quashed.
- Whether the demolition of Mustafa Masjid can be restrained by mandamus in view of the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, 2024.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing the production of inspection reports, site plans and other documents, and a personal hearing before any further action.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 — s. 27(1), 3
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- demolition
- mosque
- urban planning act
- show cause notice
- jurisdiction
- compoundability
- Supreme Court directions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38539 of 2026
Zeeshan Ahmad Fareed
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Singh Parihar, Saumitra Anand
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Mohan Asthana
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the show cause
notice dated 21.08.2026 bearing MUDA/1/ANI/2026/0003627 Case and Dispatch No.
No. MUDA/DSP/0004920 issued by the respondent no.3 under Section 27(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, together with all
proceedings taken pursuant to it; (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to demolish or seal Mustafa Masjid at Mohalla Idgah, Delhi Road,
near T.M.U., Pakbara, Police Station Pakbara, District Moradabad, and not to
disconnect its electricity or water supply, or to take any other coercive step in respect
of it, otherwise than in accordance with law and with the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, 2024
INSC 866;
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.3, before taking any further step in respect of the Masjid, to supply to
the petitioner the inspection report, the measurement records, the site plan, the
photographs, the complaint or source information, the file notings and the extracts of
the master plan and the zonal plan relied upon, to disclose the date on which the site
came within a development area declared under Section 3 of the said Act, to issue a
fresh notice, if at all, in strict compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, to allow not less than 15 days from the receipt of such notice and of the said
documents for filing a reply, to afford a personal hearing of which minutes are
WRIC No. 38539 of 2026
2
recorded, and to decide the questions of jurisdiction and of compoundability by a
reasoned order;"
2. Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3,
had on the last occasion stated that he would take instructions in the matter.
Today, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav Krishna
Srivastava, states that since the notice itself was vague, the same had been
withdrawn and a fresh notice would now be issued in accordance with law.
3. In view of the statement made by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for
the respondent no. 3, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 28, 2026
M.S. Ansari
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD SAQIB ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…