1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14614/2010 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Versus Jaipur Development Authority & Ors. Date of Order : 02nd November, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.M.M.Ranjan, for the petitioners. Mr.Bharat Vyas, for the respondent No.3. By the Court: By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order date 20.10.2010 passed by the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”). By the aforesaid, stay application in pending reference case, was dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that a reference under Section 83 of J.D.A. Act was preferred before the Tribunal along with stay application alleging construction by the respondents in violation of bye-laws. The Tribunal instead of deciding the aforesaid issue, dismissed the injunction application after considering other aspects. In the light of aforesaid, the order of Tribunal deserves to be set aside with the direction to restrain the respondent No.3 to raise further construction. Learned counsel for respondent NO.3, on the other hand submits that construction of the house has already been completed other than internal work. It is also submitted that construction has been made 2 strictly in accordance to bye-laws. Petitioner had earlier also preferred writ petition. This Court disposed off the same with liberty to petitioner to make representation before the Jaipur Development Authority (for short “the J.D.A.”). Petitioner made a representation and in follow up action, the J.D.A. called the petitioner to come along with documents. Petitioner did not appeared before the officers of the J.D.A. In the meanwhile, respondents made an application before this Court seeking modification of the order. This was precisely to show that allegations against respondent are incorrect and in the light aforesaid, they may also be provided hearing by the J.D.A. The aforesaid application was allowed and accordingly, the respondent NO.3 also submitted representation. Both the representations are pending consideration before the J.D.A. where the petitioner is not appearing. In the light of aforesaid and pursuant to direction of this Court on earlier occasion, it is the J.D.A., which has to decide the issue. The Tribunal has thus, rightly dismissed the stay application moved by the petitioner moreso when petitioner has no locus to challenge construction raised by the respondents. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. At this stage, learned counsel for both the parties admitted that main matter is pending consideration before the Tribunal, which is yet to be decided and further agreed for a direction for its 3 expeditious disposal. In the light of aforesaid and the fact that the writ petition has been filed against the interim order and main reference petition is still pending consideration before the Tribunal, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal. This is moreso when on earlier occasion, this Court directed the J.D.A. for deciding the controversy, however, representations were made by the parties but thereafter petitioner did not appear. The only excuse taken by the petitioner is that notice for hearing was received after date fixed. If that was so, it was incumbent on the part of petitioner to approach the office of the J.D.A. to seek an opportunity of hearing pursuant to the earlier order of this Court by narrating the fact that notice was not served in time. In any case, main matter is pending before the Tribunal, thus I dispose off this writ petition with the direction to the Tribunal to hear and decide the main matter after considering all grounds raised by petitioner and of respondent NO.3 so as the J.D.A. The Tribunal is requested to decide the matter on the next date fixed. If for any good reason, matter is not decided on the next date, then as expeditiously as possible. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety/Jr.P.A. Item NO.S/23