( 1 ) THE grievance of the appellant is that the respondent No. 2 who is his tenant in a shop which is a part of his residence is not observing the rules of Shop Establishment Act as he does not follow the directions of opening and closing time of the shop. So much so the respondent No. 2 has been challaned by the Inspector, Shop and Establishment almost every year and more than 6-7 times.

( 2 ) THE suit for injunction was dismissed vide impugned order merely on the ground that efficacious remedy under the Specific Reliefs Act is available to the landlord and wherever such a remedy is available, Section 41 (h) of the Specific Reliefs Act dis-entitles the person to seek injunction.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional District Judge has, thus observed that the only remedy available to the petitioner is by way of approaching the Inspector, Shop and Establishment and getting the respondent No. 2 challaned. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that nobody can be allowed to violate the law or the rules made by the authorities and merely because the Inspector, Shop and Establishment has the power to challan the respondent No. 2 for not observing the opening and closing hours does not mean that the petitioner should be left at the mercy of Inspector, Shop and Establishment and create nuisance for the landlord who lives in the same house on the backside of the shop. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the Government authorities do not fulfill their obligations and do not perform their duties well, which in this case is to see that everyday the opening and closing hours are observed by the respondent No. 2, the court should not be reluctant in interfering by way of granting injunction against the non-observance of the rules or law by a delinquent person.

( 4 ) THERE is no gain saying the fact that the court should not pass such an order which it cannot enforce or monitor. If the injunction is granted in the form which the petitioner is seeking then it will be the court who will everyday will be supposed to monitor and see that the respondent observes the prescribed opening and closing hours. But it does not mean that respondent should be allowed to hold the field by manoeuvring the inspecting authorities and create nuisance for peaceful living of the landlord. Thus direction can be given to the Inspector, Shop and Establishment that he shall see the opening and closing hours are observed regularly and if the respondent No. 2 fails to do so, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a complaint against the Inspector before his superiors whose duty shall be to see that the rules are faithfully observed as such a laxity or delinquency on the part of the authorities sometimes gives impression to the public at large that they are indulging in corruption.

( 5 ) THE petition is dismissed with the aforesaid direction and the copy of the order be sent to the Inspector of the area as well as to the Chief Inspector of Shop and Establishment who shall monitor the observance of the opening and closing hours of the shop in question. Since it is pointed out by the Shop and Establishment Department that under the law they can only challan the respondent for not observing the hours. S. H. O. of the area is hereby directed to see that respondent closes his shop at the prescribed hours.