1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2192/2008 (Satya Narain Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 12.12.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Nikhil Chundawat, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwant Mehta, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner is challenging condition No.7 enumerated in Annexure-3. In my opinion, when the aforesaid condition No.7 as enumerated in Annexure-3 is erroneous then remedy is provided under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. There petitioner was required to avail the said remedy but he has directly approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition, which is obviously not maintainable. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that before approaching this Court 2 a representation was filed by the petitioner, which is placed on record as Annexure-4, which is still pending and the respondents are not decided the same. In this view of the matter, although this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is remedy available to the petitioner by way of filing revision under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, I deem it just and proper to direct the respondent – Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur to decide the representation Annexure-4 filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun