1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2305/02 Mrs. Usha Joya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 07.02.2007 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr. H.C. Ganeshia for petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Dy. Government Advocate. When this case was listed on 5.2.07 no one appeared for the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 7.2.2007. Today when the case was taken up, Shri H.C. Ganeshia, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and submitted that he has no instruction to plead in the matter. I have examined the matter on merits with the help of the learned Dy. Government Advocate. In this matter, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the action of the respondent no.5 to 12 in demolishing the office premises of the petitioner situated at Geeta Bajaj Bal 2 Vidhya Mandir, Govind Marg, Moti Doongri Circle, Jaipur be declared as illegal and respondents be directed to restore the office premises of the petitioner as it was existing prior to its demolition on 5.4.2002 and be directed to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. It was prayed that respondent no.3 to 5 are directed to enquire into the matter of FIR No.60/02 fairly and impartially. It was further prayed that the State Government be directed to appoint a State Level Committee to enquire into the matter and the respondents be directed to return the documents of the petitioner such as brief deed etc. which the JDA official and non petitioners Dalveer Singh and his associates took away with them while entering the office. The official 3 respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and have denied that there was any illegality in demolishing illegal construction raised by the petitioner. It has been stated that when the information was received by the police about the demolition in question at about 11.00 PM on 23.3.02, the police reached on the spot and found that the petitioner there and other party and they were persuaded to come to the police station on the following date i.e. 24.3.2002. A report of Rawangi was entered by the police in the rojnamcha at Rapat No.1905. The FIR was registered for offences u/s. 354, 451, 509, 323 and 389 which when investigated was found to be false and accordingly a final report was given on 31.5.2002. No substance was found in another FIR No.67/02 lodged for offences 4 u/s. 380 and 427 IPC as the investigation revealed that the action of officials of JDA in demolishing the office was taken by them after due process of law and the articles which they recovered were sent to malkhana after making a seizure memo. The police after making thorough enquiry in this FIR also gave F.R. on 31.5.05. Having heard the learned Dy. Government Advocate and perused the material on record especially the fact that F.R. was given by the police in both the FIRs. I find that if the petitioner had any further grievance, he should have approached the Court having competent jurisdiction before which the Final Reports were filed and filed protest petition thereagainst. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot possibly grant 5 any relief. Even otherwise, the matter involves the several disputed questions of fact. It appears to be an interse dispute between the petitioner and the other private respondents for which the petitioner is free to take any other remedy that may be available to her in law, but writ petition certainly cannot be said to be an appropriate remedy for the dispute like the present one. I, therefore, do not find any substance in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Mohammad Rafiq),J. Rs/-