Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order Annex.2 dated 20.4.99 passed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Mount Abu, wherein, it has been stated that as per the circular dated 7.4.99 issued by the State Govt. the Municipal area of Mount Abu is declared as prohibited area, therefore, Municipality is not in a position to grant any permission, therefore, maps alongwith the letter have been returned. (2). It appears that earlier also the petitioner submitted an application to the Municipal Board, Mount Abu under Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 for addition, alteration and renovation of the constructed house which was not considered on frivolous ground as stated by the petitioner in para no. 7 of the petition by pointing out certain defects in the application. Therefore, the petitioner submitted another application dated 9.2.99 which was also not accepted and returned back on the ground that certain alleged orders which in spite of demand were not given and accordingly the said application was also not accepted as stated in para no.8 of the petition. That time the petitioner filed writ petition no. 732/99 which was disposed of by my learned brother Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. on 12.3.1999 without issuing notice to the other side by passing the following order, which is reproduced by the petitioner in para 9 of the petition:- ``The grievance raised in this writ petition by the petitioner is that though he made an application for granting permission for making addition and alternation, such application after having been received by the respondents was returned back to the petitioner. The petitioner is desirous that his application be accepted and disposed of by the respondents. For such a relief, it is not necessary that any notice be issued to the respondents. Respondents are hereby directed that they may accept the application filed by the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law. In view of the directions, nothing more is required to be done in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage." (3). As per the order passed by this Court on 12.3.1999 in writ petition no. In view of the directions, nothing more is required to be done in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage." (3). As per the order passed by this Court on 12.3.1999 in writ petition no. 732/99, the petitioner moved another application dated 17.3.1999 alongwith site plan, which according to the petitioner, as stated in para 10 of the writ petition, was rejected on frivolous grounds as the non-petitioner was annoyed with the petitioner for approaching this Court and against the bye-laws and in a arbitrary manner his application was not accepted. At this stage, it may be stated that the said decision of the Municipal Board was not produced by the petitioner alongwith this writ petition, which is produced by the respondent Municipal Board at Annex.R/1 alongwith their reply. It is an order dated 1.4.99, whereby, the petitioners application dated 17.3.1999 was returned on as many as six grounds. In my opinion, this is a material suppression of fact which ought to have been brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner in his petition. (4). The petitioner has tried to make out a case in para no. 11 of this petition that once again he prepared the plans and submitted an application on 5.4.1999 (Annex.1) which was returned to the petitioner by letter dated 20.4.1999 (Annex.2). A bare reading of the application at Annex.1 dated 5.4.1999 shows that he was forwarding three sets of map alongwith the said application in connection with his earlier application dated 17.3.1999, which was made by him in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 12.3.1999. Thus, in sum and substance the petitioner has neither produced his original application dated 12.3.1999 nor the order passed by the Municipal Board on 1.4.1999 returning of that application on six grounds. (5). The attempt on the part of the petitioner is to challenge the subsequent decision dated 20.4.1999 (Annex.2) of the Municipal Board, whereby, petitioner was informed that the Municipality is now not in a position to grant any permission in view of the impugned notification dated 7.4.99 issued by the State Govt. Petitioner has, therefore, also challenged the notification at Annex.3. (6). Petitioner has, therefore, also challenged the notification at Annex.3. (6). The prayers made in this petition are :- (i) non-petitioners may be directed to accept the application of the petitioner for addition, alteration in his building and in accordance with the Rules of 1966 forward the same to non-petitioner no.4 with a further prayer that non-petitioners no.2, 3 and 4 may be directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner in prescribed time limit under Section 170 of the Act failing which it shall be deemed under the law that it has been sanctioned. (7). Apart from the fact that this petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts, this petition is also required to be dismissed because prayer (i) made in this petition cannot be granted. It shows that application of the petitioner was for addition and alteration in his building, whereas, the impugned order dated 1.4.1999 shows that the building is to be completely demolished and new building is to be constructed. It appears that the petitioner wants to construct a new building on the land in question. In view of the notification Annex. 3 there is no question of granting any permission, therefore, there is no question of directing the respondent Municipal Board to forward his application to respondent no. 4 Chief Town Planner for considering the same. The impugned notification (Annex.3) came to be passed by the State Govt. in view of the Supreme Court directions for protecting the places like Mount Abu etc. (8). In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the State Govt. was wrong in issuing the said notification. (9). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.