[2025:RJ-JP:29739] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17033/2010 Smt. Shakuntla Bansal Wife Of Shri Suresh Chand Bansal, Hindlodge, Hardev Nagar, Dholpur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Sthayee Lok Adalat, Dholpur Through Its Chairman. 2. Municipal Board, Dholpur Through Its Executive Officer. 3. Bhagwati Prasad Bansal Son Of Shri Girraj Kishore, By- Caste Vaishy, Durga Colony, Dholpur Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr.J. P. Goyal, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Jyoti Swami Mr.Rahul Sharma for Mr.Rajneesh Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/08/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred before this Court with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and call for the entire record pertaining to the present matter, set-aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2010 and 10.11.2010 passed by the non-petitioner No. 1 in Case No. 3/2010 & 55/2010 titled as Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Municipal Board and others and dismiss the application dated 11.01.2010 filed by the non-petitioner No. 3. [2025:RJ-JP:29739] (2 of 4) [CW-17033/2010] Such other order which your Lordships may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of petitioner alongwith costs.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dated 21.04.2010 and 10.11.2010 passed by the respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar identical orders were passed by the respondents in identical cases and the aforesaid orders were assailed by the similar situated person namely, Sanjay Bansal, who is the son of the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6710/2010 (titled as ‘Sanjay Bansal Vs. The Sthayee Lok Adalat & Ors.’). Counsel submits that the said writ petition submitted by the co-petitioner, i.e., the son of the petitioner, was disposed of by this Court by holding that the directions issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat may not be acted upon and a liberty was granted to the Nagar Nigam, Dholpur to take action as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. Counsel submits that a liberty was also granted to the Municipal Corporation, Dholpur that in case, the constructions are not found to be in conformity with the permission granted or contrary to the permission, then appropriate action can be taken. Counsel submits that the instant writ petition be disposed of in the light of the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the matter of Sanjay Bansal (supra). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner, but they are not in [2025:RJ-JP:29739] (3 of 4) [CW-17033/2010] position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for petitioner and looking to the fact that the identical writ petition arising out of the identical order has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the case of Sanjay Bansal (supra) with the following observation and direction:- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that even independent to the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the Nagar Nigam is fully competent under the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act to take steps and ensure that no illegal constructions are allowed to come up or illegal constructions are removed for which of course it has to follow the due process of law and undertake such action after serving notice to the affected party. In the circumstances, the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat that compliance of the order shall be reported, may not be acted upon, however, Nagar Nigam, Dholpur will be free to take action as per the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act in accordance with law if it finds that the constructions that are raised are not in conformity with the permission granted or are contrary to such permission. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” [2025:RJ-JP:29739] (4 of 4) [CW-17033/2010] 7. Since the issue involved in this writ petition is identical and the same has already been set at rest in the case of Sanjay Bansal (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in the light of the similar directions issued in the case of Sanjay Bansal (supra). (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /70