1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 1996 of 2008 RAJ KUMAR & ORS V/S STATE & ANR Mr. GR GOYAL, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. BS SANDHU, for the respondent Date of Order : 5.11.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- The matter comes up on the application under Article 226(3). However, at the request of the learned counsel we have heard learned counsel on merits. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent Municipality has issued auction notice on 8.3.2008 proposing to auction the plots bearing Plot No. 10 to 14 while according to the information received by the petitioner from the Municipality under the Right to Information Act the width of road is 80ft. as per the master plan, and thus by the proposed action the respondent would be shortening the public road which cannot be done. A reply has been filed by the Municipality contending interalia that the road is not 80 ft. but 72 2 ft., and for that purpose even by referring to Annexure-1 produced by the petitioner it was pointed out that the matter relates to item no. 4 wherein it has been informed that the width of the road is 72 ft. though presently it is 80ft. Then, it is also contended that the 72ft. road as approved is being maintained. Likewise, it is also pleaded that in the said sanctioned scheme 9 shops have already been auctioned in the year 2005, and for rest of the 4 shops auction notice has been issued which is under challenge. The Municipality has also produced the site plan as part of Annexure R 2/1. In our view, a look at the site plan shows that the shops no. 1 to 14 are in line, and when shop no. 1 to 9 had already been sold in 2005 which fact is not disputed, then, no exception can be taken to the sale of the rest of the shops more so when the shops are as per the approved plan duly approved by the Senior Town Planner way back in the year 2004. We may also observe that for reasons best known to the petitioners, they have not chosen to disclose the fact that other nine shops had already been sold which were similarly situated. Thus, in our view, no ground is made out for interference in favour of the petitioner. 3 The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/