Honble YADAV, J.–The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, for quashing the impugned order dated 23.11.92, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, passed by the Committee constituted under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act No. 38 of 1959), with a direction to decide the issue of encroachments and demolition, afresh. It is further prayed that the notification dated 17.7.54, be declared void and inoperative. Alternatively, it is prayed that this Court may issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Court may deem proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to protect the rights and interests of the petitioners.

(2). The present writ petition is disposed of finally, at admission stage, without delineating the averments made in the writ petition on the basis of facts, which are not disputed before me.

(3). Indisputably the Civil Writ Petition (1), was filed before this Court, by one Prakash Chand Shukla against the State of Rajasthan and others, in which petition, the petitioner No.2 was arrayed as respondent No.6, whereas, respondent No.5 was arrayed as respondent No.5, in the array of respondents, in representative capacity, in which, subject-matter of dispute involved in the present writ petition was issued directly and substantially involved. In abundant caution, in the aforesaid writ petition, the Court directed the Office of Registry, to get the public notice published in `Rajasthan Patrika about the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, inviting participation by general public, if so interested. A photostat copy of the judgment, rendered by the learned Single Judge, on 23.7.86, in the aforesaid writ petition, is filed by the petitioners, which is marked as Annexure-4/A to the writ petition.

(4). It is borne out from the perusal of the aforesaid decision, Annexure-4/A to the writ petition, on which the petitioners are placing reliance in support of their claim that on 28.2.85, the following ad interim stay order was passed on the stay application, which is reproduced for ready-reference:-

``Heard learned counsel for the parties. None put appearance on behalf of the State. Mr. Tiwari Puts in appearance on behalf of the Municipal Council. It is obligatory duty of the Municipal Council to remove encroachments especially on the public thoroughfare. The Municipal Council is directed to remove the encroachments immediately in accordance with the provisions of law.

(5). A close scrutiny of the aforesaid judgment, Annexure-4/A reveals that since encroachments were not removed in pursuant to ad interim stay order dated 28.2.85, by the Municipal Council, the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition moved an application for contempt, upon which, notice was issued. On the contempt application, the learned Single Judge, Honble Mr. Justice D.L. Mehta, the then Judge of this Court, passed the following order:-

``The controversy is in respect of the encroachments, if any, made on the thoroughfare it is the duty of the concerned authority to determine whether there is any encroachments or not. At the same time if there is an encroachments the encroachments should be removed and the order of the court should be complied with. The Court while passing an order has specifically mentioned in accordance with the provisions of law and that order is very specific if the Municipal Authority cannot determine whether there is encroachments or not. If the authorities are silent spectators and they are not fulfilling their duty the court is bound to issue mandamus and take necessary action in the matter. The court cannot shut its eyes where there is public interest litigation.

(6). A perusal of the aforesaid judgment, Annexure-4/A, upon which the learned counsel for the petitioners is placing reliance, reveals that in three orders, passed by Honble D.L. Mehta, J., on 28.2.85, 9.10.1985 and 11.12.1985, the petitioner in that writ petition namely Prakash

Click Here to Read the rest of this document