This order does not decide the merits of the unauthorised-construction dispute, the validity of the Section 27 notice, or the Allahabad High Court's 1 October 2026 judgment, which the Court expressly left unexamined. It decides only that the complainant must be heard before the Authority decides.
- Case
- City Montessori School v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- J. B. Pardiwala; K. Vinod Chandran
- Case numbers
- SLP(C) No. 37043/2026
- Outcome
- SLP(C) No. 37043/2026 disposed of: the Authority's order dated 21 October 2026 is set aside only to facilitate fresh consideration, with notice to both sides and a hearing date within one month. The underlying dispute remains undecided.
What the Court decided
On 27 October 2026, the Supreme Court set aside an order dated 21 October 2026 passed by the Lucknow Development Authority, holding that it was passed without affording a hearing to City Montessori School, the petitioner. The Court interfered only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and expressly stated that it had not looked into the merits of the Allahabad High Court's order dated 1 October 2026.
The Authority must now issue notice both to the school and to the fifth respondent, supply the school with a copy of the fifth respondent's reply and annexures, and serve any inspection report on record on the parties. The notice must indicate a date within one month from 27 October 2026, and on that date, or any date to which the hearing is adjourned, the matter must be concluded, with acknowledgment personally taken from the parties or their authorised representatives who appear on the first day.
The special leave petition stands disposed of with those directions. The Authority must consider the matter on its own merits, in accordance with law.
The dispute and the High Court's directions
The proceedings before the Authority were initiated under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, on a notice issued against the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent challenged those proceedings before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in Writ-C No. 9839 of 2026.
The High Court's order of 1 October 2026 directed the fifth respondent, as writ petitioner there, to file a detailed response to the notice with all relevant documents and any report in its favour. It gave the Authority liberty to carry out an inspection by an officer of the rank not less than that of Chief Engineer or Additional Secretary within four weeks thereafter, and directed consideration independently and impartially, without being influenced by any further action at the behest of the school.
The background recorded in the order is that a total area of 23,000 square feet was owned by Urmila Bhalla and Sheela Kapoor, of which 6,000 square feet was leased out by the fifth respondent's predecessor and 17,000 square feet by the school. Multiple proceedings for eviction of the school culminated in an acquisition carried out for the school's purposes, and the dispute over unauthorised construction went through various rounds before ending with the present Section 27 notice.
What each side argued
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, for the school, submitted that the petitioner cannot be kept away from the hearing, and that it had no objection to the other portions of the judgment, including inspection and consideration that is independent and impartial.
Senior counsel Malvik Trivedi, for the respondent, submitted that there is a history of dispute between the parties and that the petitioner has constantly tried to take over the property in the possession of the fifth respondent. She also submitted that, as of now, an order dated 21 October 2026 had been passed by the Authority in Suit No. 2092 of 2025.
The Court recorded those submissions and then decided the case on the narrow hearing point, without touching the merits of the dispute or the allegation of unauthorised construction.
Why exclusion of the complainant violated natural justice
The Court reasoned that the High Court's direction was only that the issue be considered independently and impartially, without being influenced by any action carried out at the behest of the school. That direction, the Court said, is not to say that the school should not be heard, especially when it was on the school's initiative that the complaint was filed.
Whether the allegation of unauthorised construction is valid or not is definitely left to the independent and impartial consideration of the Authority, the Court added. But it could never have been intended that the complainant be kept away from the proceedings, and the order passed on 21 October 2026 was obviously not passed after affording a hearing to the school.
That reasoning explains the limited remedy: the 21 October 2026 order is set aside only to facilitate fresh consideration, not because the Court found the Authority's view on the construction wrong.
The fresh hearing the Authority must now hold
The Authority must issue notice to both the school and the fifth respondent, supply the reply and annexures of the fifth respondent to the school, and serve any inspection report on record, as indicated by the impugned judgment, on the parties. The notice must fix a date within one month from 27 October 2026, and the matter must be concluded on that date or on adjourned dates, with personal acknowledgment from those appearing on the first day.
Nothing in the order prejudges that fresh consideration. The Authority decides on its own merits, in accordance with law, and the school's status as complainant guarantees it a hearing, not a particular outcome.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This order is a clean illustration of audi alteram partem applied to a complainant rather than to the person proceeded against. The usual natural-justice question is whether the noticee was heard; here the Court asks the mirror question, whether the person whose complaint started the proceedings can be shut out of them, and answers no.
It is also a lesson in appellate restraint: the Court set aside only the order passed without a hearing, preserved the High Court's inspection and impartial-consideration directions, and refused to enter the merits. When you summarise this case, the holding is procedural, and any summary that treats it as a win on the construction dispute overstates it.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court hold that the High Court's direction for independent consideration did not justify excluding the complainant?
- What specific steps must the Authority take before deciding afresh?
- Why does setting aside the 21 October 2026 order not amount to a finding on the merits of the construction dispute?
