JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition was admitted only on the question as to whether construction of the shop could be considered as for religious purpose since the rent proceeds thereof are utilised for the said object in so far as the lease granted in favour of the petitioner institution has been only for the purpose of educational, religious and social activities. The stay application was, however, rejected on the date of admission i.e. on 4.1.1994. 2. The case was listed for hearing on 23.3.2001 but none was present on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. M. Rafiq, Additional Advocate General was directed to seek instructions in the present matter. The case was again listed on 25.4.2001. On that date also, none was present on behalf of the petitioner. After hearing Mr. M. Rafiq, appearing on behalf of the State, the order was reserved in the present matter. 3. The petitioner trust association is running a school in the name of Husbandry Memorial Higher Secondary School, Ajmer, situated at Jaipur road. Somewhere in the year 1989, the petitioner sought permission to construct some more class rooms in the premises of the school, which was duly given by the Municipal Council, Ajmer. However, since the petitioner, instead of constructing class rooms, constructed 12 shops abating to the road and a further platform of 3" x 6" wide was also constructed along with the main road in front of the shops, which was in violation of the sanction i given by the Municipal Council and also as per the master plan of the Amer City, the petitioner was directed to remove unauthorised construction by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Ajmer, vide letter dated 6.5.1989. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Ajmer 5 against the action of the Municipal Council. The District Collector, after perusing the entire material on record and also the inspection report, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 30.4.1993. A further revision to the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer was also dismissed vide order dated 29.6.1993. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Ajmer 5 against the action of the Municipal Council. The District Collector, after perusing the entire material on record and also the inspection report, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 30.4.1993. A further revision to the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer was also dismissed vide order dated 29.6.1993. Thus aggrieved, the present writ petition has to been filed challenging the action of the Municipal Council, Ajmer as also the orders of the District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner impugned in the present writ petition, with a further prayer for direction to the respondents not to demolish the construction already raised and in dispute in the present writ petition. 5. A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which, it has been submitted that in the guise of constructing class rooms, the petitioner trust constructed 12 shops towards the main road. It has been submitted in the reply that according to the sanctioned plan, gates of the rooms were to be opened towards school and the windows were to be opened towards road. However, instead of constructing class rooms shops were constructed on which shutters had also been put towards road and some of the shops had also been let out to sub-tenants. It has also been submitted in the reply that school premises as leased out to the petitioner trust, was shown in the plan of the Ajmer city for educational purpose, as such neither any shops could be constructed on the school premises nor the same could be used for any other commercial purpose. Since the constructions were made unauthorised and the sanction was also obtained by misrepresentation of facts, the notices for demolition of the unauthorised construction were issued accordingly. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 5 that the petitioner had already filed a suit along with an application for granting temporary injunction in a civil court at Ajmer, in the year 1993 and the said it still pending. 6. After having carefully gone through the entire material on record, I have considered the facts of the present case. 7. There is no dispute that by way of misrepresentation, the petitioner Trust obtained sanction for construction of the class rooms of the Municipal Council, Ajmer. 6. After having carefully gone through the entire material on record, I have considered the facts of the present case. 7. There is no dispute that by way of misrepresentation, the petitioner Trust obtained sanction for construction of the class rooms of the Municipal Council, Ajmer. However, thereafter, the shops were constructed without any prior permission or approval of the concerned authorities. The petitioner has also concealed the fact in regard to filing of a civil suit in the same matter before the civil court at Ajmer. 8. Be that as it may, the lease granted to the petitioner Trust is only for the purpose of running a school and in the master plan also the place is ear-marked for educational and religious purpose. The plan could not be changed without proper sanction of the State Government. Even otherwise, the commercial activities should not have been encouraged in the premises of the school, which may otherwise hamper the healthy educational atmosphere of the school. There has been a growing tendency amongst the people by making unauthorised construction and then seeking protection of the court. Such practice should always be deprecated and should not be encouraged in any manner, moreso, by the courts. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court under its writ jurisdiction in the present matter. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. 9. The State Government should also taken action against the officers who abate and encourage such unauthorised constructions. If there has been any interim orders passed by any other civil courts or otherwise, the authorities should take proper steps in getting the matters decided at the earliest in the interest of public at large.Writ Petition dismissed. *******