1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4591/1996 Sampat Lal & Ors. Vs. Municipal Board, Merta Cirty Date of Order :: 2nd April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.C.S. Mandora, for the petitioners. Mr.D.S.Rajvi, for the respondents. .... BY THE COURT: Learned counsel for the petitioners having appeared, the matter has been heard further. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in this matter in writ jurisdiction. While challenging the notices served upon each of them for deposit of the overdue licence fees towards the shops allotted by the respondent Municipal Board, Merta City, the petitioners have chosen to file this joint writ petition essentially with the submissions that though the licences were given for a period of three years but they had been continuing in the shops in question for about eight years and only in order to remove them from the shops that the respondent refused to accept the licence fees though the amount was tendered several times. It has been pointed out that the fees was at the most liable to revision at 10% every year but the initial licence fees in relation to the shops in question at Rs.365/-, 250/- and 2 280/- per month respectively could not have swelled to such an extent that the dues for three months would be Rs.2,504/-, 2,795/- and 3,932/- respectively as claimed. It has been prayed that the demand notices may be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from evicting the petitioners from the shops in question. This petition was filed in the year 1996 with vague averments; and then, neither the present status of the shops in question nor the present status of payment by the petitioners has been stated. Moreover, if the petitioners were aggrieved of the notices dated 30.11.1996, nothing prevented them from at least making a representation on the respondents ventilating their grievances. Then, there appears no justification that the petitioners have chosen to file a joint writ petition in this matter. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not feel inclined to quash the impugned notices but is of opinion that if any representation is yet submitted by the petitioners, the same could be given due and adequate consideration by the respondent Municipal Board. Subject to the aforesaid, this writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. 3 s.soni