SITARAM Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD SAMBHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Sitaram against the Municipal Board, Sambhar the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, the Commissioner, Ajmer and Shri Kirpa Shanker praying that by a writ of certiorari the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 28th December, 1959 be quashed.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he had vacant piece of land close to his house in Jopat Mohalla in Sambhar town. On 1st February, 1958 he applied to the Municipal Board, Sambhar town, for permission to make certain constructions referred to in paragraph 2 of the petition and the Executive Officer of the said Municipal Board granted permission to the said constructions on 9th April, 1958. THEreupon the Municipal Board submitted an application under sec. 195 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) to the Collector, Jaipur for cancelling that permission but this application was rejected by the Additional Collector on 31st October, 1958. THEreafter, the petitioner started making constructions on his land and had almost completed the same. One Ramniwas who is no party to this application appealed against the order of the Executive Officer, dated 9th April, 1958, to the Additional Collector, Jaipur and in that appeal Kirpa Shanker respondent was also made a party. In this appeal, the prayer was for cancelling the permission. THE Additional Collector, Jaipur by his order dated 31st December, 1958, rejected the appeal. THEreafter Kirpa Shankar submitted an application to the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur under sec. 210 of the Act against the order of the Executive Officer dated 9th April, 1958 granting permission to the petitioner. THE Additional Commissioner, Jaipur by his order dated 28th December, 1959, set aside the permission given by the Executive Officer and cancelled the order dated 9th April, 1958. This order of the Additional Commissioner is challenged by this writ petition mainly on the ground that the Additional Commissioner had no power to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner acting under sec. 210 of the Act.