Babu Lal and Another vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

Amitava Roy, C.J.—Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, learned counsel for the petitioners. For the order proposed to be passed, no formal notice is considered necessary to be issued.

The grievance expressed by the petitioners, who claim to be the permanent residents of village Chirawa District Jhunjhunu, pertain to construction of a multistoried commercial building near the Court premises in the name of "Jai Ambey Tower". According to the petitioners, the construction works are in violation of the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 as well as Local Bodies (Urban Area, Building) Regulations, 2010. The petitioners have alleged that the construction incharge of the works is not a licence holder as contemplated in law. The materials on record reveal that the residents of the village Chidawa, in opposition of the construction works, have even availed the remedy of civil suit which, however, the petitioners'' contend are on a slightly different aspect. The petitioners have pleaded as well that inspite of several representations made before the concerned authority, remedial steps have not been taken.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on a consideration of the nature of the controversy raised, we consider that it would meet the ends of justice for the present, if this petition is closed leaving them (petitioners) at liberty to file an appropriate representation before the Chairman, Municipal Board Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu pointing out the illegalities perceived by them in the construction works pertaining to the building "Jai Ambey Tower". In case, such a representation is filed, the concerned authority would cause necessary enquiry to be made in accordance with law and take an appropriate decision. This would be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.