1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. IIND STAY PETITION NO.1929/2008 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2444/2006 (Smt.Meeta Dhanani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of order :: 12.03.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.K.N. Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.Yashwant Mehta, for the respondents Nos.3 and 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has come up for order upon second stay application filed by the petitioner. In the main writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents not to interfere in the work of repair and renovation of the old house in accordance with the permission. Further it s prayed that the respondents may be restrained from interfering or demolishing already constructed rooms, which were already constructed with deemed permission. It is also prayed that if any order is passed or any action is taking against the petitioner prejudicial to his interest, the same may be quashed and set aside. 2 The main contention of the petitioner is that the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding so many petitions has passed an order in the case of petitioner which reads as under:- “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Till the notification is issued, we direct the State Government of Rajasthan to constitute a committee comprising of three members in consultation with CEC for the purpose of grant of permission for carrying out repairs or renovation of the existing structures within the municipal limit. The State Government may constitute such a committee within a period of one month.” Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards the above quoted order prayed that petitioner's application for grant of permission for carrying out repairs and renovation is to be decided by the committee so constituted by the State Government in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted permission vide Annexure-2 dated 14.06.2005 for repairs. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has filed an application for renovation but the permission has been granted for repairing on the existing structures only, which is arbitrary action of the respondents. Now by way of filing second stay petition, petitioner 3 has prayed for direction to the respondents to grant permission to start repairing and renovation work on the existing structure. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited attention of this Court towards Annexure-R/3/1 dated 10.05.2006 by which the application filed by the petitioner for permission of renovation and repairs was rejected and the said order is not under challenge before this Court. In this view of the matter, when the petitioner's second application for renovation is rejected by the committee so constituted by the State Government in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then the petitioner cannot raise any voice that he is entitled for any permission for renovation. However, petitioner is at liberty to repair his house in accordance with the permission granted vide Annexure-2 dated 14.06.2005. But he cannot be permitted to renovate the building unless he challenges the order dated 10.05.2006 which is passed by the Municipal Council, Mount Abu, District Sirohi, rejecting his application for permission of renewal. In these circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh writ petition challenging the order dated 10.05.2006 passed by the 4 Municipal Council, Mount Abu, District Sirohi. It is also made clear that Municipal Council, Mount Abu, District Sirohi shall ensure that petitioner shall not contravene the permission granted by the Municipal Council vide Annexure-2 dated 14.06.2005. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. A.K. Chouhan/-