The Allahabad High Court has issued a critical interim directive preserving the status quo of a construction under threat of demolition, while ensuring that the appellant’s right to appeal is not rendered otiose by administrative inaction. The Court’s intervention underscores the principle that procedural delays by authorities cannot defeat substantive rights, particularly when an appeal is pending and the remedy sought is time-sensitive.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, D.S.Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., is the developer of a construction project that is the subject of an order dated 21.12.2022 issued by the respondent authority, the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). This order impugns the legality of the construction and directs its demolition. The petitioner has filed an appeal against this order, which is currently pending before the Appellate Authority.
Key Facts
- The impugned demolition order was passed on 21.12.2022
- The petitioner filed an appeal against the order on 28.01.2023
- The appeal includes an application for condonation of delay in filing, submitted on 28.01.2023
- The appeal also includes a separate application for interim relief seeking stay of demolition
- On 28.04.2026, the LDA issued a notice fixing 06.05.2026 as the date for demolition of the construction
- The first hearing of the appeal was scheduled for 29.04.2026, but the Appellate Authority could not hear it due to administrative reasons and fixed the next date as 15.05.2026
- The petitioner had not received any hearing on either the condonation application or the interim relief application prior to the demolition notice
Procedural History
- 21.12.2022: LDA issues demolition order against petitioner’s construction
- 28.01.2023: Petitioner files appeal against demolition order, along with applications for condonation of delay and interim relief
- 29.04.2026: First hearing of appeal before Appellate Authority; matter adjourned due to administrative reasons
- 28.04.2026: LDA issues notice fixing 06.05.2026 as date of demolition
- 04.05.2026: Petitioner files writ petition under Article 227 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, seeking urgent stay of demolition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought an immediate stay of the demolition scheduled for 06.05.2026, and directed the Appellate Authority to hear the pending applications for condonation of delay and interim relief at the earliest, without unnecessary adjournments.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Appellate Authority’s failure to hear an application for interim relief pending adjudication of condonation of delay, while simultaneously fixing a date for demolition, violates the principle of natural justice and renders the appellate remedy ineffective.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Shri Prem Chandra Rai and Shri Amrendra Nath Tripati, argued that the fixation of a demolition date on 06.05.2026, while the appeal and its ancillary applications remain unheard, amounts to a denial of effective remedy. They emphasized that the right to appeal is meaningless if the subject matter of the appeal is destroyed before the appellate forum can consider the merits or grant interim protection. They relied on the doctrine of audi alteram partem and the principle that no party should be prejudiced by the delay of the authority.
For the Respondent
The counsel for the LDA, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, did not dispute the factual position that the appeal was pending, that the condonation and interim relief applications were unheared, or that the demolition notice had been issued. He conceded the procedural posture but did not oppose the Court’s intervention, effectively conceding the lack of justification for proceeding with demolition before the appellate process could unfold.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner’s appeal, including the applications for condonation of delay and interim relief, had been pending since January 2023, yet no hearing had been granted on the urgent applications. The fixation of a demolition date on 06.05.2026, just days after the appeal’s first listing, created an irretrievable situation where the very subject of the appeal would be destroyed before the appellate authority could even consider whether the delay in filing should be condoned.
"No gainful purpose will be served in keeping the petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit rather is of the opinion that the ends of justice can be met by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the application for condonation of delay and the application for interim relief expeditiously..."
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal or the legality of the demolition order. Its sole concern was procedural fairness and the preservation of the appellate process. The Court held that the Appellate Authority must prioritize the application for condonation of delay, as its acceptance is a precondition to hearing the substantive appeal and the interim relief. Only if condonation is granted should the interim relief application be considered.
The Court further emphasized that adjournments must be avoided and the matter must be heard on a day-to-day basis until disposal. The stay of demolition was granted for a fixed period of four weeks or until disposal of the interim relief application, whichever is earlier, to provide a reasonable window for the appellate authority to act without unduly prejudicing the respondent’s administrative interests.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with the following directions: (1) The Appellate Authority shall hear the application for condonation of delay at the earliest, without unnecessary adjournments; (2) Only if condonation is granted, the application for interim relief shall be heard promptly; (3) The demolition of the construction subject to the order dated 21.12.2022 is stayed for a period of four weeks from 04.05.2026, or until disposal of the interim relief application, whichever is earlier; (4) The Appellate Authority shall decide the matter strictly on merits in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Relief Cannot Be Delayed Beyond Reasonable Time
- Practitioners must immediately move for interim relief when demolition or irreversible action is threatened, even if the main appeal is delayed
- Courts will intervene if the appellate forum’s inaction renders the remedy illusory
- A stay may be granted even without a full hearing on merits, if the subject matter is at imminent risk
Condonation of Delay Must Be Heard First
- Applications for condonation of delay are not procedural formalities - they are gateways to substantive appellate rights
- Appellate authorities must prioritize condonation applications before considering interim relief or merits
- Failure to do so may attract judicial intervention under Article 227
Fixed Demolition Dates Require Judicial Scrutiny
- Authorities cannot unilaterally fix demolition dates while appeals are pending
- The burden shifts to the authority to justify why demolition cannot be stayed pending appellate hearing
- Courts will treat such actions as prima facie violative of natural justice
