SUO MOTU Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Intervention of this Court is sought for by the instant application to restrain the Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'JMC/Corporation') from taking any penal action against the applicant pursuant to the notice dated 26.12.2012 issued by the former requiring it (applicant) to vacate the premises, Plot No. D -38 -A, Ashok Marg, Ahinsa Circle, C -Scheme, Jaipur, as mentioned therein, or to face action under Section 194 -7(F) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereafter referred to as 'Act 2009').

(2.) THE aforementioned writ petition registered as a public interest litigation was disposed of finally on 20.10.2004 by a coordinate Bench of this Court by issuing several directions to ensure the overall condition of the City of Jaipur which, it was felt, had degenerated to an alarming extent. Following direction is of relevance: -

(3.) A mandate for ensuring implementation of the directions was also issued. 4. THE pleaded version of the applicant, in short, is that it is a nationalized bank having its head office at Mandvi, Baroda and has been running its banking activities throughout the country. It has been in occupation of a building situated on the aforementioned plot, housing its International Business Branch, service branch and training centre spread over the ground floor, the first floor and the second floor thereof. It has averred that this premises had been taken on lease by the Bank of Baroda in the year 1979 from its erstwhile owner Shri Vijay Kumar Patni, who had eventually sold the same to one Shri Mukesh Jain in the year 2009 vide registered sale deed dated 9.12.2009. The applicant has claimed that the purchaser also extended the term of the lease for a period of five years from 19.12.2009 which is valid till January, 2014. It has been contended that it had been carrying on its business activities in the aforementioned premises without any demur from any quarter whatsoever. In the second week of December 2012, it received one notice dated 12.12.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Civil Lines Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur intimating that it had been running commercial activities in the ground floor of the premises which was residential, in contravention of the provisions of the Act 2009. Thereby the applicant was called upon to stop its commercial activities immediately, failing which penal action was to follow under Section 194 -7(F) of the Act 2009. That the notice had been issued in compliance of the aforementioned decision rendered on 20.10.2004 was clearly mentioned. This was followed by another notice dated 19.12.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation requiring it to discontinue the commercial activities within 24 hours and reiterating the penal action on its failure to do so. Though a reply thereto was submitted by the applicant on 20.12.2012, it was responded by a notice dated 26.12.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Civil Lines Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur asking it to stop its commercial activities within six months therefrom to avoid penal consequences under the provisions of the Act 2009. According to the applicant, on receipt of this notice, it took up the issue with the land owner for conversion of the land use of the aforesaid premises from residential to commercial before the deadline of time mentioned in the notice, but to no avail. It is thus, before this Court seeking the relief adverted to hereinabove.