[2025:RJ-JP:26475] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10636/2025 Smt. Sanjana Devi W/o Shivkaran Janu, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Hamiri Khurd, Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Through Its Director And Special Secretary. 2. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/07/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned letter dated 01-07-2025 (Annexure-7) and Notice dated 04-07-2025 (Annexure-8) issued by the Respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively, may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii) Any other relief, order or direction, which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper, be also passed in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notices/orders dated 01.07.2025 and 04.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application before the authority concerned along- with maps for carrying out the constructions over the subject land. Learned counsel submits that the approval was granted and accordingly the petitioner started construction activities. Learned counsel submits that, in the meantime, a notice was sent by the Municipal Corporation, Jhunjhunu to the petitioner on 14.02.2024 [2025:RJ-JP:26475] (2 of 3) [CW-10636/2025] stating that the constructions have been done in an unauthorised and in illegal manner and in violation of Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2009”), hence, he was called upon to remove the same within a period of three days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Municipal Corporation, the petitioner submitted a revision petition under Section 327 of the Act of 2009 before the Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur and the same is lying pending for its adjudication on its merits, but in the meantime, the Director, Local Bodies has sent a letter to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jhunjhunu on 01.07.2025 for taking action against the petitioner as there is no stay on the proceedings. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid notice dated 01.07.2025, again the respondents have issued one more notice to the petitioner under Section 194 & 245 of the Act of 2009 for removal of constructions. Learned counsel submits that once similar notice with regard to the similar allegation has been issued to the petitioner on 14.02.2024 and the same notice is under challenge before the Director, Local Bodies in a revision petition submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that there was no reason or occasion available with the respondents to issue the subsequent notices dated 01.07.2025 and 04.07.2025, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that a notice was issued and served upon the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation, [2025:RJ-JP:26475] (3 of 3) [CW-10636/2025] Jhunjhunu on 14.02.2024 under Section 194 of the Act of 2009. This fact is also not in dispute that the aforesaid notice has been assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition under Section 327 of the Act of 2009 before the Director, Local Bodies. This fact is also not in dispute that the revision petition is still pending before the Director, Local Bodies for its adjudication on its merits. 7. There was no reason or occasion available with the Director, Local Bodies to issue a letter on 01.07.2025 asking the Commissioner to take action against the respondents until the revision petition was decided by him. The whole purpose of filing revision petition would be frustrated, if action is taken against the petitioner. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Director, Local Bodies has exceeded in its jurisdiction by issuing a notice to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation on 14.02.2024. Instead of issuing such notice/order, he could have decided the revision petition on its merits in accordance with law. 9. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the Director, Local Bodies to decide the pending revision petition on its merits, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 11. For a period of five weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/55