WRIC/38539/2026 of ZEESHAN AHMAD FAREED Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 27 September 2026

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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Singh Parihar, Saumitra Anand Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Mohan Asthana Zeeshan Ahmad Fareed .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

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Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, states that since the notice itself was vague, the same had been withdrawn and a fresh notice would now be issued in accordance with law.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. September 28, 2026 M.S. Ansari WRIC No. 38539 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad