Honble YADAV, J. – Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.3.91, order dated 15.12.89 and order dated 25.11.89, Annex. 7 to the writ petition. It is further prayed by the petitioner that construction in question over the land in dispute may be regularised in the terms and conditions stipulated in circular dated 21.1.82, Anx. 3 to the writ petition issued by the State Government.

(2). It is shocking to note that irrespective of due service upon sole respondent, Municipal Board, Mount Abu, no reply has been filed on the specious plea that the record relating to the land in question and constructions raised thereon are missing from the office of the Board. In the present case sole respondent Municipal Board, Mount Abu is being represented by learned counsel Shri Bheem Arora.

(3). The acts, omissions and commissions of the Municipal Board, Mount Abu in the instant case speak louder than the words. Suffice it to say that under Section 68 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as `the Act of 1959), the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mount Abu is accountable and res- ponsible for the custody of records of the Board including all papers and documents communicated with the proceedings of the Board and all the committees.

(4). The present writ petition is a classic example of travesty of justice and unique tacit support extended to the petitioner by the Municipal Board, Mount Abu. It is well to remember that in State of Rajasthan except Mount Abu there is no Hill Station. It is a matter of common knowledge that now-a-days moss-rose growth of unplanned and illegal constructions against the bye-laws of the Board are being raised and in process of raising unplanned and illegal constructions green trees are being indiscriminately cut away disturbing the ecological order at Mount Abu. A most inconvenient moot question in the present writ petition can be raised as to where the Municipal Board, Mount Abu and its officers remain busy when illegal and unplanned constructions against the bye-laws start coming into existence?

(5). Mr. Arthur Schafer, Director of Centre for Provisional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba (Canada), has given a correct answer to the aforesaid question posed by the Court which reads thus :–

``As a national all our focus is of government deficits but we are also running a very significant moral deficit and I think its much more threatening to our society than the financial one.

(6). It is to be remembered that in transitional period of our democratic polity this Court is expected to send necessary message to the effect that laissez faire me- thods being adopted by the Municipal Board, Mount Abu and its officers on rule of law flouting policy decisions taken by the State Government would be viewed seriously and would always be castigated as an assault on the rule of law. It is to be imbibed that this Court are not only guardians of rule of law but its trumpeter also and are ever ready to confront those who would make an attempt to under- mine the rule of law. It is made clear that this Court would always endeavour to see that Enactments, Statutory Rules and policy decisions taken by elected representatives of people i.e. legislative and political executive which are constitutional are complied with faithfully by all bureaucrats including local bodies. Protection of people is possible only when governance is impartial and law is not `held in abe- yance.

(7). The State Government in exercise of its power conferred under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 279 of the Act of 1959 read with Sections 80 and 90 thereof and Section 102-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as `Act No. 15 of 1956) has made Rules, which may be called `Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1974) regula- ting disposal of land belonging to Municipal Board within its municipal limits. Rule 3 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document