The actions of local authorities under statutory provisions must be clearly within jurisdiction; mere allegations of unauthorized use do not suffice for enforcement actions without supporting evidence.

ORDER :

SUNIL BENIWAL, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ of mandamus, order or direction:-

(i) the impugned notice dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure-7) and the impugned notice-cum-order dated 13.09.2025 (Annexure-9) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) the respondent Municipal Board, Nathdwara may kindly be restrained from taking any coercive action in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 11.09.2025 and 13.09.2025.

(iii) the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to operate its museum on the ground floor and office on the first floor of its building.

(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The facts, in nutshell, as narrated in the present writ petition, are that the petitioner constructed a four-storied building after obtaining permission from the respondent - Municipal Board, Nathdwara, which was granted on 20.12.2019. As per the said permission, the premises was to be used for residential purposes. After completion of construction, the building was put to residential use, however, the ground floor was used for running a museum. The museum is not operated on a commercial basis and is run on non-profit basis. In the museum, the petitioner has displayed various portraits of Lord Krishna along with other materials depicting the history of Lord Shrinathji. The museum is accessible to all tourists visiting the Nathdwara Temple.

2.1 On 15.05.2025 a notice was issued to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was asked to submit documents relating the ownership as well as with regard to the permission granted by the Municipal Board, Nathdwara and was also asked to use the building for residential purpose and if the building is found to be used for commercial and other purposes, appropriate legal action would be taken. However, the same was not served upon it and the same came to the knowledge of the petitioner when it was produced in the suit proceedings. Subsequently, a notice dated 12.06.2025 came to be issued by the respondent – Municipal Board, for the same purpose. In response to the said communication, all the documents as desired by the respondent – Board were made available along with communication dated 19.06.2025. The petitioner’s premises were inspected and based on the inspection report, a communication was submitted on 29.08.2025 addressing the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Nathdwara. As per the said communication, one of the allegation as levelled in a complaint was that the construction has been raised on 15 ft wide road.

2.2 Thereafter, another notice came to be issued on 11.09.2025, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is undertaking commercial activity on the ground floor and on account of such unauthorized use, the respondent – Municipal Board is proposing to take action against the petitioner under Section 194(10)(i) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (‘the Act of 2009’).

2.3 A reply to the said notice was submitted on 12.09.2025, wherein the allegation that the museum premises was being used for commercial activity was denied. Despite submitting the said reply, the respondent – Municipal Board has passed seizure order on 13.09.2025, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The seizure proceedings have been undertaken by the Municipal Board, Nathdwara while exercising power under Section 194(7)(f) of the Act of 2009. Thereafter, the suit was filed before the Civil Judge, Nathdwara, however, the same was withdrawn.

3. While arguing the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions :-

(i)- The respondent–Municipal Board has ex