JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-Rinesh Gupta who is a practicing Advocate of the Rajasthan High Court has approached this Court through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of public interest litigation, inter-alia with the prayer to direct the State Government and its functionaries including the Jaipur Development Authority. Rajasthan Housing Board and Municipal Corporation to take strict and firm action thereby stopping, closing/removing, the commercial establishments and commercial centres viz;. fast food centres, hotels, hospitals, marriage lawn/homes, restaurants, small scale industries which are actively going on in the residential areas, inasmuch as, they are being run illegally and without seeking proper permission under the Urban Improvement (Change of use, of residential land or premises for commercial purpose) Rules, 1974. (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules, 1974'); to direct the Secretary PHED and Rajasthan State Electricity Board not to give water and electricity connections in the existing commercial establishments in the residential areas; to direct the Finance Secretary that he should direct the Commercial Taxes Department to get the survey conducted by the independent authority or a team of higher officers in the matter of tax evasion; to direct the Home Secretary and the Excise Commissioner to take proper and firm action under the Excise Act and Rules against persons who are running wine shops/beer bars in the residential areas; to direct the secretary Medical and Health Department to initiate action against the runners of hospitals, nursing homes etc. which are being run in the residential areas without proper sanction and to close the same. 2. The writ petition was filed on 27.11.96 and it came to be listed before this Court for admission for the first time,on 29.11.96 and this Court issued show cause notices to the 'respondents. Notices of stay application were also issued end by an interim older the respondents were restrained from granting permission to any person or group of persons for changing use of residential purpose to that of commercial purpose till the disposal of the writ petition. The notices have ;been served and the replies have been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. On 7.5.97, it was brought to the notice of the Court that most of the localities of Jaipur City which were allotted for residential purpose have been converted into commercial purpose in the form of shops, hotels,etc. The notices have ;been served and the replies have been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. On 7.5.97, it was brought to the notice of the Court that most of the localities of Jaipur City which were allotted for residential purpose have been converted into commercial purpose in the form of shops, hotels,etc. which is causing much hardships and inconvenience to the residents of the localities and that the Rajasthan Housing Board and Jaipur Development Authority have failed in performing their statutory duties in preventing the conversion oP residential building into commercial buildings, in these circumstances, it was considered proper that a public notice be issued to the general public intimating them about the hearing of the case in order to void multiplicity of litigation. The Court directed the JDA to get a public notice published to this effect in daily newspapers; Rajasthan Patrika, Danik Navoyoti, Danik Bhaskar, Statesmen, Rashtradoot, Indian Express and Hindustan Times within three days. It was also ordered that the persons interested may file objections before this Court by 16.5.97 and the case was ordered to be listed for final disposal on 21.5.97. Since-the notice could not be published in English newspapers therefore, on the request of Mr.A.K. Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the Jaipur Development Authority was further directed to get the notice published in some English newspaper which is circulated in Rajasthan stating therein that any person interested may appeal before the Court and present their presences by 27.5.97. On 28.5.97 arguments were heard at length but could not be concluded. Meanwhile, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankad. Sr. Counsel filed an undertaking on behalf of the applicant Udaikant Mishra, Director Abhishek Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur to the effect that the applicant would use the construction which shall be raised on Plot No. D-120, Kabir Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur only in conformity with the final direction of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and would take steps himself to bring about the conformity. On the undertaking given by the applicant Udaikant Mishra by an order dated 29.11.96 was modified to the following effect, only in relation to the above named applicant: "That in case the petition filed by the petitioner Ultimately succeeds and it is- held that there is no power vested in the Jaipur Development Authority and the Government to grant permission for conversion of residential premises into a commercial premises then, the applicant if constructs the hotel on the said premises in pursuance of direction granted to him, he will not use the said premises for commercial purpose and in case the permission ultimately has been granted in contravention of the rules, the applicant undertakes to abide by the order of this Court and he will use the premises in the manner as directed by the Court. The Government is directed to consider the application of the applicant and grant permission in accordance with law ignoring the interim order dated 29.11.96. passed by this Court, expeditiously in, so far it relates to the applicant." 4. The arguments were completed on 29.5.97 and the order was reserved and the parties were directed to file their written submissions. Which they have filed and the same have been taken on record. 5. Looking to the controversy involved in the present petition. It would be worthwhile to give few facts, which are summarised, as under: 6. In most of the localities of Jaipur City, user or residential buildings have been changed from residential purpose to the commercial purpose in the form of shops, cinemas, hotels, marriage lawns/homes, fast foot centres etc. The change of user is causing much hardships and inconvenience to the residents of the locality. It has been alleged that the respondents, particularly Jaipur Development Authority and Rajasthan Housing Board have failed to discharge their statutory duties in' preventing the change of user of residential buildings to that of commercial establishments. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-State i.e. respondents No. 1 to 5, 11 and 12 which has been sworned by Mr. I.RC. Dhamania presently working as Dy. legal Remembrancer, UDH Department. Rajasthan, Jaipur. In their counter affidavit, the answering respondents have not taken any positive stand on the issue; (i) whether a residential colony can be converted into a commercial colony? I.RC. Dhamania presently working as Dy. legal Remembrancer, UDH Department. Rajasthan, Jaipur. In their counter affidavit, the answering respondents have not taken any positive stand on the issue; (i) whether a residential colony can be converted into a commercial colony? and (ii) Whether the Jaipur Development Authority is competent to grant permission under the provisions of the Act for allowing the change of use from residential to commercial. 8. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No.9, the Jaipur Development Authority. From the perusal of the said counter affidavit, it is crystal clear that the Jaipur Development Authority itself does not dispute the allegations of the petitioner that the residential colonies and houses in Jaipur City are being converted into commercial/business establishments in large number and it has also been admitted by the JDA that in the cases which are brought to the notice of the Authority, actions are not being taken against such persons. However, no specific plea has been raised even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Jaipur Development Authority that the JDA has power to allow the conversion of residential locality into the commercial locality. In fact, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the JDA strengthens the allegation levelled by the petitioner about the illegal activities being carried out in the residential localities without permission of the competent authorities and such activities are being carried out in flagrant violation of law and the authorities have failed to.check this growing menace which is ,,proving hazardous for public safety, environment, pollution, law & order problems in the city of Jaipur. In this connection, I would' like to quote the contents of para 5 of the counter affidavit, which runs as under: "That the contents of para 6 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated and it is emphatically denied that the Jaipur Development Authority has totally failed to restrain commercial activities in residential premises and it is humbly submitted that as and when it is observed by the officers of the Jaipur Development Authority that any commercial activity is being run against the rules, notices are served to the occupier/defaulter of that property and warranted action is also taken against him. It is also pertinent to mention here that recently on 10.4.97 the Jaipur Development Authority has published one general notice warning the Citizens of Jaipur for not using the residential premises for commercial activities and they are advised to stop such commercial activities in residential premises with immediate effect other wise the appropriate legal action shall be taken against -them for which the entire liability shall be their own". 9. Along with this, the JDA has also filed a copy of general notice dated 9.4.97 issued by the Secretary JDA which is marked as A.R/9/1 to the petition. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.8, Rajasthan Housing Board, the Housing -Board has only taken a stand that the Board is responsible for the allotment of the housing sites to the persons and it has been specifically stated that the Housing Board does not provide any sanction for the establishment of any commercial establishment. However, even the Housing Board in its counter affidavit stated that the large number of residential colonies are being converted into commercial colonies and in many residential areas of the Jaipur City the commercial activities are going on and commercial establishments are being established day and night in flagrant violation of law. 11. The Rajasthan Electricity Board in its counter affidavit has taken the plea that the Board_ has to supply the electricity in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and also provided under Section 78 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which is not very much relevant for deciding the real controversy involved in the instant case. 12. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Nagar Nigam Jaipur, the allegations raised by the petitioner in this public interest litigation which are of paramount importance for the entire city of Jaipur, have not been denied rather, the .allegations contained in the counter affidavit have been entirely admitted but the Nagar Nigam has taken a stand that it does not lie even in the domain of Nagar Nigam to control such activities. 13. From the facts stated above, the, allegation of the petitioner. has been established beyond doubt that the use of' residential colonies is being changed to the commercial purposes like; hotels, restaurants, fast food centres, wine shops, small scale industries and other similar activities. 14. In. 13. From the facts stated above, the, allegation of the petitioner. has been established beyond doubt that the use of' residential colonies is being changed to the commercial purposes like; hotels, restaurants, fast food centres, wine shops, small scale industries and other similar activities. 14. In. response to the notice published in the newspapers as many as 27 applicants filed their applications/objections which were ordered to be taken on record and Advocates appearing on behalf of these applicants were also heard at the time of final arguments. 15. Having considered the allegations in the writ petition, the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondents and number of advocates who appeared and represented the case of the applicants in pursuance of the general notice published in the various newspapers, it is found that apparently the controversy involved in the present case is very limited but it of course heavily concerns the public at large viz, the general public of Jaipur city. The question to be determined by the Court is: (i) Whether commercial activities are going on in the various residential localities of Jaipur City?, and if so; (ii) Whether in such localities the user . has been changed from residential to that of commercial purposes under the proper approval/permission of the concerned authorities under the provisions of the relevant act, rules and regulations ? 16. Since the counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case, with the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 17. Before I proceed to decide the controversy involved in the present case, I would like to mention the names of hotels, restaurants and other commercial establishments which are being run in residential colonies as per applications filed by the citizens of Jaipur City, which runs as under : 1. Applicant Sohanlal Agarwal, E-37, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur. In plot No. E-38 Mr. Lehrilal Jasoria is running a showroom rather, the Mayor Municipal Corporation. Jaipur has inaugurated the showroom. A xerox copy of the invitation card is annexed herewith and marked as Document-2. 2. Applicant-R.K. Agarwal, R/o 13, Awadhpuri, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur. Plot No. E-805 one Shrawanlal Sharma and in plot No. 20 One Girraj Prasad Agarwal are running Motor Garage. I 3. Applicant-Dr. Jai Singh, House No. 43/30/11 & 12.MIG A, Chanakya Lane, Swarm Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. A xerox copy of the invitation card is annexed herewith and marked as Document-2. 2. Applicant-R.K. Agarwal, R/o 13, Awadhpuri, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur. Plot No. E-805 one Shrawanlal Sharma and in plot No. 20 One Girraj Prasad Agarwal are running Motor Garage. I 3. Applicant-Dr. Jai Singh, House No. 43/30/11 & 12.MIG A, Chanakya Lane, Swarm Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. In Chanakya Lane in Flats No. 43/26/1, 43/26/4, 43/29/4, 43/32/4, 43/35/1, 43/36/1, and 43/36/4 commercial activities are going on by the owners of the flats. Coloured photographs to this effect has been annexed with the application. 4. Applicant-8.M. Sharma, President Citizens Action Forum office situated ad 74, Dak Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Flat No. 1003. Baba Harishchandra Marg, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur, Mr. Lokchandra Sharma in the name and style of M/S. Ram Kishore Lokchandra is involved in the business of Silver Utensils and there is a big workshop for preparing the Utensils. 5. Applicant-Hariram Raheja, S 15 C, Mahaveer Marg,. C- Scheme, Jaipur. The applicant's grievance. is that from Amar Jain Hospital running in Chaura Rasta, Jaipur there is every likelihood of water and air pollution as well as there are every chances of developing disease in the area concerned. 6. Applicant-Trilok Singh Rathore, C-72, Ramnagar Colony, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur. That, in the adjacent residential land of the applicant's house the illegal constructions are being made for the purpose of commercial activities i.e. plot No. A-28, Nahari Ka Naka (East), Vidhyadhar Nagar Road, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur by Smt. Sunita wife of Shri Krishna Kumar Parwal (Maheshwari). 7. Applicant-Wg. Cdr. R.N. Luther (Retd.) C-36, Jamuna Nagar (Sodala), Jaipur. The following residential buildings are being used for commercial purposes: C-17 Printer Items C-23 Electric Items C-27 Facility Area C-2930-6 Shops C-44 Kirana & general store C-50 Fridge Shop 8. Applicant-Kumari Vibha Baluni A-16, Sanjay Colony, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. In residential Plot No. A-84, Smt. Urmila Choudhary wife of Ashok Choudhary is running a Industry of manufacturing cartoons from the card-board. 9. Applicant-Suman Kumar Wig, House No. 76, Awadhpuri, Nea; Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. In Plot No. 82, Awadhpuri, Smt. Santosh Sharma wife of B.L. Sharma is involved in the business of Dairy.In Plot No. 87, Awadhpuri, Mahesh Nagar, one Mr. Nemi Chand is running a school. 10. Applicant-Loknath Sharma. 45-A. Sen Colony, Power House Road, Jaipur. in Plot No 46/A Mr. Vijendra Singh Rathore is constructing a hotel. 11. Applicant-Dr. In Plot No. 82, Awadhpuri, Smt. Santosh Sharma wife of B.L. Sharma is involved in the business of Dairy.In Plot No. 87, Awadhpuri, Mahesh Nagar, one Mr. Nemi Chand is running a school. 10. Applicant-Loknath Sharma. 45-A. Sen Colony, Power House Road, Jaipur. in Plot No 46/A Mr. Vijendra Singh Rathore is constructing a hotel. 11. Applicant-Dr. R.K. Gupta, C-233, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. In Plot No. C-233A Mr. Ravindra Rana is involved in the business of manufacturing Synthetic Pillow. 12. Applicant-Gopal Swami, Sitaramji Ka Mandir, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. The residential Plot No. 1803, Phatehpurion Ka Darwaja, Chaura Rasta Jaipur has been converted into a 'Commercial Complex ignoring the rules and regulations. 13. Applicant-B.S. Choudhary, A-23, Krishna Nagar-11, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. In the adjacent plot, number of which is not shown in the application, a school is running. 14. Applicant-(i) Students of University-and (ii) Tilak Geetai, E-5, Gokhale Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. In Plot No. E-3, Gokhale Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur "Shubham Fast Food Centre" is running. 15. Applicant-On behalf of residents of colony, Mr. Vishwanathan, 10/40, Mansarovar Jaipur In Plot No. 1.0/75, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur a workshop is running. 16. Applicant-Sayyed Tahirul Hassan, House No. 4830, Mohalla Teliyaan, Ghoda Nikas Road, Choukdi Ramchandra Ji, Jaipur-2. In Plot No. 4819, Mohalla Ziauddin Shib Ki Gali, Ghoda Nikas Road, Mohalla Teliyaan, Choukdi Ramchandra Ji, Jaipur-2, one Abdul Sattar is involved in the preparation of Utensils and its Polishing, Carpentry and Gems. 17. Applicant-Nehnuranr Meena, III, Vijay Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur. In Plot No. 68, 69 and 81 there are shops in front of the residential house. 18. Applicant-Bhupendra Singh, C-55, Saket Colony, Adarsh Nagar. Jaipur. In Plot No. B-27 and B-28 there is a Barfkhana and the premides of both the plots are being used for the purposes of marriage and these plots are known as Ashirwaad Lawn". 19. Applicant-Raghuveer Singh, C-54, Saket Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. In Plot No. B-30-B, Govind Marg, Saket Colony One Mr. P.S. Kapur has a three storied building in which Printing Press is being run and other commercial activities are also going on. It is pertinent to mention here that despite the specific details and names of the hotels, restaurants, fast food centres etc. In Plot No. B-30-B, Govind Marg, Saket Colony One Mr. P.S. Kapur has a three storied building in which Printing Press is being run and other commercial activities are also going on. It is pertinent to mention here that despite the specific details and names of the hotels, restaurants, fast food centres etc. Which have been mentioned in that applications filed by 27 persons, none of the owners of such commercial premises has filed any objection or has produced any material to rebut the allegation that such commercial activities are not being carried out be them or if they arc being carried out the same are in accordance with law. 18. I would also like further to mention the relevant laws which are applicable in the city of Jaipur. It is admitted to the parties that prior to the passing of Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act 1982") which received the assent of the President on the 12th day of October, 1982, came into force in 1982. There is also no dispute between the parties that prior to the passing of Act 1982, Rajasthan Urban Development Act, 1959 (Rajasthan Act 38 of 1959) was applicable in city of Jaipur. Section 101 of the Act No. 35 of 1959 was dissolved and all such powers exercisable by the Urban Improvement Trust. Jaipur ceased on the enforcement of the Act 1982 and the powers exercised by the Trust vested under the Jaipur Development Authority. By Section 102 of the Act 1982, the JDA Ordinance. 1982 (Ordinance N.o. 4 of 1982) was repealed. Clause (2) of Section 11)2 of the Act 1982 further lays down, as under: "(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Jaipur Development Authority Ordinance, 1982 shall he deemed to have been done or taken under this Act as if this Act had come into force on 14th day of July, 1982." 19. Since the controversy relates to the development of historic. Since the controversy relates to the development of historic. fink City known as Jaipur, I would like to incorporate the preamble/object of the Act 1952 enacted by the State Legislature, as under: "Preamble/object:- For forming Jaipur City and certain contiguous areas into it Jaipur Region, to provide for the establishment of an Authority for the purpose of planning co-ordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and repaid development of the Jaipur Region and of executing plans, projects and schemes for such development and to provide for matters connected therewith. Whereas Jaipur City and areas contiguous to it are being progressively developed and populated, and the necessity is being increasingly felt for forming these areas into Jaipur Region and for setting up of an Authority for the purpose of planning, coordinating, and supervising the proper, orderly and repaid development of these areas, in which several Government departments. local authorities and other organisations are at present engaged within their own jurisdiction; to provide also that such Authority be enabled either itself or through other authority to formulate and execute plans, projects and schemes for the development of Jaipur Region so that housing, community facilities, civic amenities and other infrastructure are properly created for the population of Jaipur Region in the perspective of 2001 A.D. or thereafter including the intermediate stages, and to provide for matters connected with the purpose aforesaid. Be it enacted by the Rajasthan State Legislature in the Thirty third year of the Republic of India, as follows." 20. Section 17(1) and (5) of the Act 1982, provides, as under : "17. No other authority or person to under take certain development without permission of the Authority. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, except with the previous permission of the Authority, no authority or person shall undertake any development within the Jaipur Region of the type as the Authority may from time to time specify, by notification published in the official Gazette, and which is likely to adversely affect the overall development of the Jaipur Region. (5) In case any person or authority does anything contrary to the decision given under this section, the Authority shall have power to pull down, demolish or remove any development undertaken contrary to such decision and recover the cost of such pulling down, demolition or removal from the person or authority concerned." 21. (5) In case any person or authority does anything contrary to the decision given under this section, the Authority shall have power to pull down, demolish or remove any development undertaken contrary to such decision and recover the cost of such pulling down, demolition or removal from the person or authority concerned." 21. Section 92 of the Act 1982 provides, as under under : "92. Act to override other laws The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force." 22. From a perusal of Section 92 as mentioned above, there is no manner of doubt that 'so on today the provisions contained in the Act 1982 have overriding effect and the Jaipur Development Authority is the "Supreme Authority" as far as the development activities of the Jaipur City is concerned. Chapter-V of the Act 1982 deals with the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans for the Jaipur Region. There is no dispute between the parties that Master Development Plan has been prepared for the Jaipur Region. 23. Section 25 (1) and (3) of the Act 1982 provides, as under : "(1) At any time after a Plan has come into operation according to provisions of section 24, the Authority may take any modification to the Plan as it thinks fit, the modifications. Which in its opinion, do not affect material alterations in the character of the Plan and which do not relate to the extent of land uses or the standards of population density. (3) Before making any modification to the Plan, Authority shall publish a notice, in such form and manner as may be determined by regulation inviting objections before such date as may be specified in the notice and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the Authority." 24. Mr.A.K. Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Jaipur City is popularly known and famous in the whole as "Pink City". It is also known for its planned and architectural development. City has got its own historical importance as well. Tourists from every corner of the world come to visit the city every year. At the same time the city also has its own importance of being prominent business centre. It is also known for its planned and architectural development. City has got its own historical importance as well. Tourists from every corner of the world come to visit the city every year. At the same time the city also has its own importance of being prominent business centre. He submitted that city of Jaipur was planned by Sir Mirza Ismial having all sorts of amenities like shops, bazars, wide and straight roads. like Mirza Ismila Road, Station Road having Chopads (crossings) like Badi Chopad, Chhoti Chopad. At the main roads, Bazars like Chandpole Bazar, Kishanpole Bazar, Tripolia Bazar, Ramganj Bazar, Johari Bazar. In the Streets i.e. behind and between the Bazars, land has been used for residential purposes. He further submitted that old city of Jaipur is well planned city but because of inaction on the part of the Jaipur Development Authority, public servants and elected members, the look of the whole city is being changed and the city is loosing its glamour rapidly which will ultimately ruin the importance of the city. However, the activities carried on by the people of the Jaipur City in flagrant violation of relevant laws and rules are not prevented. Mr. Gupta in order to substantiate his argument has taken the Court through various provisions of Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 for short "JDA Act 1982" and the Rules made thereunder as well as the Jaipur Development Authority (Building) Rules, 1989. He contended that presently there are three type of constructions in Jaipur City, (a) construction after obtaining prior permission but the construction is not in accordance with the permission granted; (b) construction without seeking any permission (illegal construction); and (c) permission taken for residential purposes but the premises is being used for commercial purposes. Mr. He contended that presently there are three type of constructions in Jaipur City, (a) construction after obtaining prior permission but the construction is not in accordance with the permission granted; (b) construction without seeking any permission (illegal construction); and (c) permission taken for residential purposes but the premises is being used for commercial purposes. Mr. Gupta has invited the attention of the Court to the Scheme of JDA and has referred to the relevant Sections namely; Section 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23 and 25 of the JDA Act 1982 and on the basis of the aforesaid provisions, he contended that the Jaipur Development Authority has been constituted for planned integrated development of Jaipur Region and the Master Plan and Zonal Plans have been prepared under a statute and the same can be changed only after following due process of law and the authority has no power to change or modify any plan without following due process of law as laid down under the Act 1982. 25. The other submission made by Mr. Gupta is that apart from the duties caste upon the Jaipur Development Authority powers have been given to it for protection of the planned and integrated development of Jaipur Region and it has been urged that under the Act of 1982 there is a Provision for punishing the law breakers and the authority is also empowered even to recover the expenses from such person who have contravened the provisions of the Act 1982. In support of said contention, he has specifically invited the attention of the Court to Section 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 37 of the JDA Act 1982. Mr. Gupta further contended that right to live peacefully is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the every citizen of the country. In this connection, he contended that a citizen purchases plot for peaceful living in residential colonies but, when he starts living there, he finds mushroom growth of commercial activities which disturb the peace of mind and not only this but, makes the living of a citizen wholly hazardous and give rise to disease because of pollution and insenitation by such illegal commercial establishments being converted by such persons from residential premises to that of commercial premises. He also contended that as per the Master Plan of Jaipur Region, the area which has been earmarked as residential, the user of residential area cannot change the residential use to that of commercial use but, inspite of the said fact, in every residential colony the commercial establishments are being set-up day by day in the form of marriage lawns/homes, restaurants, hotels, nursing homes, schools, small scale industries, fast food centres, ice cream parlors, wine/beer bars etc. as a result of which, the residential colonies like; C-Scheme, Bajaj Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Bapu Nagar as well as all the major roads like; Delhi Road, Agra Road, Tonk Road, Ajmer Road, Sikar Road etc. are being flooded with shops. Similarly, at Tonk Road, from Lal Kothi to Bambala shops on both sides have been constructed. On New Sanganer Road from Sodala to Gurjar Ki Thadi on both the sides shops, hospitals, restaurants, marriage lawns/homes are being run. Similarly, in Bajaj Nagar on the 'main road and on connecting roads, each and every residential plot has been altered into shops. Similarly, in Shyam Nagar, residential plots are being used for running super stores, Ice-cream Parlors and Hospital and he contends that this fact is not controverted by the Jaipur Development Authority. Mr.Gupta contended that the Jaipur Development Authority has not taken positive stand however, he contended that the allegation of change of user from residential purposes to that of commercial purposes having been accepted by the JDA has failed to satisfy this court about the action taken by it to prevent this menace. Thus, on the basis of the said argument, he vehemently urged that the JDA has utterly failed to discharge its statutory duties in stopping the conversion of residential locality into a commercial activity and the user of such commercial activity has created problem in the whole city of Jaipur. Mr. Gupta has also contended that Small Scale Industry, Rajasthan Electricity Board, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, PHED Department, Medical and Health Department and Excise Department have also failed to discharge their statutory duties in preventing the illegal commercial activities being run by such persons who are ruining the elegance and the beauty of the city and residents living in the residential colonies are facing great hardships due to inaction of the aforesaid respondents. However, in my opinion, the said argument is not relevant as it is true that the respondents are duty bound to discharge their duties provided under the statutes but, since the said argument being ancillary. I do not think it proper to go into the details of the provisions of the Act by means the present Authorities are governed. 26. Mr. Gupta further urged that hotels are being constructed in total violation of mandatory provisions of Rules 1974. As per Rule 4 of Rules of 1974, for establishing an hotel five requirements are necessary but none of the hotels fulfil all the five requirements. According to him as per clause (2) of Rule 4, for establishing an hotel the size of hotel should not be less than 4000 Sq. Yards and the front portion of the hotel should have a road atleast 80' wide. He contended that hotels being run in Shyam Nagar, Vanasthali Marg, Polovictory area, Station Road and in Kanti Chandra Nagar in total violation of the aforesaid rules. He further contended that it is surprising that permission/licenses have been given by the Authorities ignoring the rules. He also contended that in a multi-storeyed hotels there are no safety measures regarding extinguish/preventing fire and at any time any casualty may occur. He also cites examples of marriage lawns/homes which are being run in thickly populated areas without using safety measures regarding fire etc. and such user is causing much inconvenience to the residents of the locality. The marriage party come in the late night by loudly noise of band, loudspeakers, music systems and after using Pattals, Disposable Plates and Glasses, they are being thrown on the open road causing inconvenience to the residents of the locality. He further contended that inspite of the interim-order passed by this Court the Authorities are encouraging the illegal establishments and even the Mayor Municipal Corporation, Jaipur has inaugurated such establishments in residential areas changing the user in utter violation of the provisions of the Act 1982. On the basis of the said submission, he also contended that contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for flagrantly violating the interim order dated 29.11.96 passed by this Court without any fear and respect of law. 27. On the basis of the said submission, he also contended that contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for flagrantly violating the interim order dated 29.11.96 passed by this Court without any fear and respect of law. 27. In order to rebut the allegation made by the respondents that no particulars have been given by the petitioner, the details of many illegal commercial establishments have been mentioned hereinabove as per 27 applications received from the general public of the city of Jaipur. In the written submission, Mr. A.K. Gupta has also specifically named the commercial establishments, which are as under: On Madhyam Marg of Mansarovar: Aakriti Traders, Kathuriyas and Khandelwal Electronics. In Sector 9 of Mansarovar, the firms namely; Mansi Dry Cleaners, Barisal Building Material Suppliers, Gudu Restaurant and Mansarovar Clinic In Plot No. D-21, Moti Doongri Circle an Ice-Cream Parlour named as "Girnar Ice-Cream Parlour" is ruining In Plot No. D/43-A, Subhash Marg, Bhagat Singh Marg, C-Scheme a Canfin Home is running. In C-Scheme, Jaipur one "Milky Way" Ice-Cream Parlour is running. In Shyam Nagar, Dwarka Restaurant, Poorti Departmental Store. Lazeez Hotel etc. are running. 28. Mr. Gupta contended that the objection raised by the respondents that the allegations contained in the writ petition are vague is also unfounded inasmuch as, 27 persons have filed applications giving the details of unauthorized and illegal establishments but none of the user of such commercial establishments have dared to come to this Court to prove that the change of use of the residential building into a commercial building is valid and is not in contravention of any provisions of law. Thus, the respondents should be directed to not only to stop the user of such premises but to demolish the same also and the action provided under the Act 1982 should also be taken against them. 29. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the Jaipur Development Authority has vehemently urged that under Section 73-B of the Urban Improvement Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust Act") the State Government has been empowered to allow change of use of laws. 29. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the Jaipur Development Authority has vehemently urged that under Section 73-B of the Urban Improvement Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust Act") the State Government has been empowered to allow change of use of laws. In order to appreciate the said argument, I think it proper to refer the same in extension as under: "73-B Power of State Government to allow in use of land- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 72 or 73-A, the State Government or any authority authorised by the State Government may, in public interest allow any person to use the land for purposes other than for which it was originally allotted or sold to him by any local authority or State Government or for purposes restricted in a scheme framed under Section 29, on payment of such conversion charged as may be prescribed : Provided that the rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas. (2) The conversion charges so realised shall be credited to the consolidated Fund of the State or the fund to the Trust as may be determined by the.State Government. (3) Such charges shall be the first charge on the interest of the person liable in the land the use of which has been changed and shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue." 30. He contended that Section 101 (1) of the JDA Act 1982. Rules, bye-law, scheme, order or regulation made or notification issued or permission granted by the Urban Improvement Trust so far as the same is not in consonance with the provisions of the JDA Act 1982 shall continue in force and shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of the JDA Act 1982 and, therefore, the Jaipur Development Authority is fully competent under Section 73-B of the Trust Act to allow any person in public interest to use the land for purposes other than for which it was allotted to him by any local authority or State Government. Mr. Rastogi has very candidly submitted that commercial premises can be categorized in two parts namely; (a) where such commercial activity is being run with permission of the Jaipur Development authority: and (b) where it is being run without permission of the Jaipur Development Authority. Mr. Rastogi has very candidly submitted that commercial premises can be categorized in two parts namely; (a) where such commercial activity is being run with permission of the Jaipur Development authority: and (b) where it is being run without permission of the Jaipur Development Authority. He frankly admitted that there are large number of premises which are being used as commercial premises without prior permission of the Jaipur Development Authority and he also frankly conceded that the Jaipur Development Authority is not supporting the case of such persons who have changed the user of land and he frankly stated that this Court should issue the directions to the Authorities for taking action against such persons as provided under the Act 1982. He very frankly and rightly submitted that as per the object of JDA Act 1982. the Jaipur Development Authority is duty bound to undertake planned development of Jaipur City and, therefore, it is necessary that every citizen of Jaipur shall comply with the provisions of the JDA Act 1982 and other rules and regulation which are in force. Mr. Rastogi in response to some particular instances having been given by the petitioner and other interveners in this respect, submits that if directions are given by this Court the Jaipur Development Authority is duty bound to investigate into the matter and if those allegations are found to be true, necessary action shall be taken by the Jaipur Development Authority. He also contended that sufficient opportunity has been given by the Jaipur Development Authority to all such persons/users who have changed the use of residential premises to that of commercial premises by publishing notice in four Hindi and one English newspapers, copy of which has been annexed the by the JDA along with its additional affidavit.Mr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Municipal Corporation Jaipur. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. P.C. Jain is that there are four Acts applicable in the city of Jaipur namely; (1) Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, (2) Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, (3) Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 and (4) Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1976. Thus, he contended that because of application of these four Acts the position of law is very confusing and therefore, this Court should direct the State of Rajasthan to frame the uniform Regulations or Bye-laws in order to solve the Problem raised in this petition. However, Mr. Thus, he contended that because of application of these four Acts the position of law is very confusing and therefore, this Court should direct the State of Rajasthan to frame the uniform Regulations or Bye-laws in order to solve the Problem raised in this petition. However, Mr. Jain candidly admitted that it is true that large number of residential premises have been converted into commercial premises as well as the residential colonies have been converted into commercial colonies. 31. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of various provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations, Scheme, Order and Bye-laws which has been cited by the counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the only crucial, factual and legal questions which require adjudication by this Court, are as under: (1) Whether the Jaipur Development Authority has got power to allow conversion of residential colony into a commercial colony under Section 73-B of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 after coming into force of JDA Act, 1982 ? : and (2) If a user of residential building change the use of residential to that of commercial use, what action can be taken against such establishment? 32. Mr. R.D. Rastogi has strenuously urged that the. Jaipur Development Authority has power to grant permission for converting the residential building into a commercial building under Section 73-B of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959. In support of the contention, Mr. Rastogi has placed reliance on Section 101 (1) of the Act of 1982 which is a saving clause which saves the action taken by the Authorities under the Rajasthan Urban Development Trust Act, 1959 but, once the Act No. 35 of the Act of 1959 was repealed specifically by Ordinance No. 4 of 1982, which was also repealed from 14th day of July, 1982 when Act No. 35 of the Act of 1982 came into force, the Jaipur Development Authority could not and cannot invoke the power under Section 73-B of the Urban Improvement Trust Act 1959 and as such, in my opinion, the argument advanced by the counsel for the JDA is wholly unsustainable in the eye of law. 33. 33. I have already referred to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1982 which empowers the Jaipur Development Authority to make subsequent modification of plans therefore, it is abundantly clear that it is only the JDA and JDA alone which has power to make modification in the Master Plan and that too after inviting objections from the public at large as contemplated under Section 25 (3) of the Act of 1982. There is no dispute that Master Development Plan has been prepared for Jaipur Region and the same has come into operation. The only Authority which is competent to make any modification, is the Jaipur Development Authority but, the power under Section 25 (3) of the Act of 1982 does not confer any power on the JDA to grant permission for conversion of residential premises into a commercial premises therefore. I am of the considered view that under the JDA Act of 1982, there is no such provision which empowers the JDA to grant permission for conversion of a residential locality into a commercial locality and any permission or sanction granted in this regard by the JDA after coming into force of Act No. 35 of 1982. are wholly illegal, void, ab-initio and without jurisdiction. During the pendency of writ petition, the interim order dated 29.11.96 was modified in regard to the applicant-Udaikant Mishra. Director Abhishek Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur on giving his undertaking to abide by the ultimate decision given by this court. 34. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire material on record, replies filed on behalf of the respondents, arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and intervenors as well as written submission filed by the parties and I am of the definite view that the JDA cannot invoke its power under Section 73-B of the Urban Improvement Trust Act; 1959 in granting permission for changing use of residential colonies into commercial colonies unless the Master Development Plan itself is modified under Section 25 of the Act of 1982 that too, after inviting :objections from the public at large. It is admitted to the counsel for the JDA himself that there is no power under the iD Act 1982 to grant such permission. In view of the said fact. I also hold that the. It is admitted to the counsel for the JDA himself that there is no power under the iD Act 1982 to grant such permission. In view of the said fact. I also hold that the. permission granted by the JDA for change of user from residential colonies to commercial colonies by invoking power under Section 73-B of the Urban Improvement' Trust Act. 1959 is illegal and without Jurisdiction and the use of such establishment is liable to be closed and the user is liable to face consequences ^s provided under the Act of 1982. One of the redeeming feature of the present cast is that under chapter charges have beer given to the Authority under Section iS (c), which lays down in extenso, under: "65 The Authority shall levy at such rate and from such date as the State Government may direct by notification in the Official Gazette, and in such manner as may be _ prescribed by the State Government in this behalf, the following charges, namely (c) conversion charges for conversion of the use of land from residential purpose to commercial or any other purpose." 35. The respondents have failed to produce any Notification under Section 65 (c) of the Act 1982 and in the absent, of any notification having been issued by the State Government in this behalf as contemplated under Section 65 (c). The JDA cannot allow the conversion of the us, land from residential to commercial purpose, which fact is also admitted to used counsel for the JDA. 36. For the reasons stated above of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 37. In the result, petition succeeds and is allowed. The Jaipur Development Authority is directed to stop the user of following commercial establishments forthwith which are essentially residential houses but the commercial activities are going on contrary to the provisions of Section, 17(5) of the Act 1982: (1) In PLOT No. E-38, Shashtri Nagai. Jaipur Mr. Lehrilal Jasoria is running a SHOWROOM. (2) In PLOT No. E-805. Shrawanlal Sharma and in PLOT No. 20, Girraj prasad Agarwal, Awadhpuri, Lal Kolhi Scheme, Jaipur are running Motor Garage (3) In FLATS No. 43/26/l,46/26/4,43/29/4,43/32/4,43/35/1,43/36/1 and 43/36/4, Chanakya Lane, Swarm Path Manart,var. Jaipur, the commercial activities are going on by the owners of the flats. (4) IN FLAT No. 1003, Baba Harishchandra Marg, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, Mr. Shrawanlal Sharma and in PLOT No. 20, Girraj prasad Agarwal, Awadhpuri, Lal Kolhi Scheme, Jaipur are running Motor Garage (3) In FLATS No. 43/26/l,46/26/4,43/29/4,43/32/4,43/35/1,43/36/1 and 43/36/4, Chanakya Lane, Swarm Path Manart,var. Jaipur, the commercial activities are going on by the owners of the flats. (4) IN FLAT No. 1003, Baba Harishchandra Marg, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, Mr. Lokchandra Sharma in the name and style of M/S. Ran Kishore Lokchandra Is running the business of preparing Silver Utensils And there is a big Workshop for preparing the Utensils. (5) In PLOT No. A-28, Nahari Ka Naka (East), Vidhyadhar Nagar Road, Shashtri Nagar, Smt. Sunita Wife Of Shri Krishna Kumar Parwal (Maheshwari), the illegal constructions are being made for the purpose of commercial activities. (6) He following residential buildings are being used for commercial purposes: C-27 Printer items) C-23 Electric Items) Injamunanagar C-27 Facility Area) (SODALA), JAIPUR. C-29 30-6 Shops) C-44 Kirana &. general store) C-50 Fridge Shop) (7) In PLOT NO. A-84, Sanjay Colony, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur, Smt. Urmila Choudhari wife of Ashok Choudhary is running a Small Scale Industry of manufacturing Carioons from the card-board. (8) In PLOT No. 82, Awadhpuri, Near Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Smt. Santosh Sharma wife of B.L. Sharma is involved in the business of Dairy. (9) In PLOT No. 87, Awadhpuri, Near Mahesh Nagar, one Mr. Nemi Chand is running A School. (10) In PLOT No. 46/A, Sen Colony, Power House Road, Jaipur, Mr. Vijendra Singh Rathore is constructing a Hotel. (11) In PLOT No. C-233A, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Mr. Ravindra Rana is involved in the business of manufacturing Synthetic Pillow. (12) The RESIDENTIAL PLOT No. 1803,Phatehpurion Ka Darwaja, Chaura Rasta Jaipur has been converted into a Commercial Complex. (13) In the adjacent PLOT NO. A-23, Krishna Nagar-11. Lal Kothi, Jaipur, in a plot a School is running. (14) In PLOT No. E-3, Gokhale Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Shubham Fast Food Centre is running. (15) In PLOT No.10/75,.Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur a Workshop is running. (16) In PLOT No. 4819, Mohalla Ziauddin Sahib Ki Gali, Ghoda Nikas Road, Mohalla Teliyaan, Choukdi Ramchandra Ji, Jaipur-2, one Abdul Sattar is involved in the preparation of Utensils and its Polishing, Carpentry And Gems. (17) In PLOT No. 68, 69 and 81, III, Vijay Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur, there are Shops in front of the residential house. (16) In PLOT No. 4819, Mohalla Ziauddin Sahib Ki Gali, Ghoda Nikas Road, Mohalla Teliyaan, Choukdi Ramchandra Ji, Jaipur-2, one Abdul Sattar is involved in the preparation of Utensils and its Polishing, Carpentry And Gems. (17) In PLOT No. 68, 69 and 81, III, Vijay Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur, there are Shops in front of the residential house. (18) In PLOT No. B-27 and B-28 there is a Barfkhana and the premises of which are also used for the purposes of marriage and these plots are known as "Ashirwaad Lawn." (19) In PLOT No. B-30-B, Govind Marg, Saket Colony One Mr. P.S. Kapur in a three storied building is running a Printing Press and other commercial activities. (20) On Madhyam Marg of Mansarovar : Aakriti Traders, Kathuriyas And Khandelwal Electronics are being run in residential plots. (21) In SECTOR 9 of Mansarovar, the firms namely; Mansi Dry Cleaners. Bansal Building Material Suppliers. Guddu Restaurant and MANSAROVAR CLINIC are being run in residential plots. (21) In PLOT No. D-21, Moti Doongri Circle an Ice Cream Parlour names as "Girnar Ice-Cream Parlour" is running. (22) In PLOT No. D/43-A, Subhash Marg, Bhagat Singh Marg, C-Scheme a Coffee Home is running. (23) In C-Scheme, Jaipur One "Milky Way" ice-Cream Parlour is running. (24) In Shyam Nagar, Dwarka - Restaurant, Poorti Departmental Store, Lazeez Hotel are running. 38. The respondents are also directed to initiate action against such establishments as provided under Section 17 (5) of the Act 1982 which empowers the Jaipur Development Authority to pull down, demolish or remove such establishments and the JDA would also be entitled to recover the cost of such demolition or removal from the owners of above establishments. This order shall also apply in the case of Udaikant Mishra, Director Abhishek Estate Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. The JDA is also directed to stop the user of such other residential buildings which are being used for industrial purposes and also take action against them under Section 17 (5) of the Act 1982 forthwith. It is further ordered that in view of the fact that the general notice has been published in newspapers to enable the aggrieved persons against cancellation and stopping of user, no personal notice is required to be given in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 444 . It would also be open to the JDA to launch prosecution against owners of such establishments as provided under Section 33 of the JDA Act 1982. The JDA is restrained from granting any permission for change of use of a residential premises into a commercial premises without making modification in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur Region and all such permissions granted after the commencement of Act No. 25 of the Act 1982 shall be deemed to be null and void. The Municipal Corporation and Rajasthan Housing Board are also restrained from passing any such order in this behalf as the only competent Authority to grant such permission is the Jaipur Development Authority alone that too, after modification in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur Region. The State of Rajasthan through its Chief Secretary is directed to ensure strict compliance of the order passed by this Court. The Home Secretary of the State of Rajasthan is also directed to issue instructions to the General of Police Jaipur for providing adequate and necessary policy force if required for carrying out the directions of the Court to the Jaipur Development Authority. The Secretary Housing Board is also directed to ensure that the directions issued by this Court are followed by the JDA without any delay and in case, the Commissioner JDA or other Authorities competent to carry out the directions fail to discharge their duties, disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against them also. 39. Before parting with the case. I would also like also to mention that inspite of the interim-order passed by this Court dated 29.11.96 the Authorities have allowed mushroom growth of commercial establishments in the residential colonies which are causing inconvenience to the public at large. The attitude adopted by the Authorities of JDA amounts utter disrespect of the orders of the Court though. it has been urged by the petitioner specifically but. I refrain myself from initiating contempt proceedings, but flowerer attitude adopted by the Authorities, is highly deprecated. 40. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary State of,Rajasthan, Home Secretary State of Rajasthan, Secretary Housing Board, Chairman Rajasthan Housing Board and to the Administrator Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. 41. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as t9 costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******