Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of public interest litigation, the petitioners, inter alia, have sought relief to the effect that the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as the JDA) and this Court may depute some Commissioner to inspect the site and to verify the situation, and to direct the respondents to immediately take action including demolition against such persons who have made commercial construction over residential plots and who are using the residential plots/houses for commercial purposes in 10-B residential scheme. The petitioners have further prayed for strict action against the Officers of the State, the JDA and the enforcement wing of the JDA who have not only failed in discharge of their duties but also helped in such illegal constructions. 2. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of any such circular, order, notification or actions of the respondents by which they have regularised the illegalities and permitted the construction of commercial building and commercial activities in the residential plots in residential schemes. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a Vikash Samiti registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and has approached this Court through its Secretary, while Petitioner No. 2 is one of the legal practitioner, practicising in this Court. It appears to us that the grievance of both the petitioners is confined only to a particular residential colony/scheme, namely, 10-B Scheme, of Jaipur, consisting of about 700 residential plots, which was approved by the JDA in February, 1995. 4. In the petition, the petitioners while giving few illustrations and exhibiting some photographs as to the commercial activities being carried out on residential plots after getting constructed show-rooms, shops etc. in the said residential scheme, have tried to show that the plots exclusively allotted for residential purposes have been changed to that of commercial purposes and this change of user has resulted not only in causing hardships and inconveniences to the residents of the said scheme but also in creating nuisance. According to the petitioners, the functionaries of the JDA have utterly failed to discharge their statutory duties in preventing the change of user of residential plots to that of commercial establishments. 5. In some matters, the office bearers of Petitioner No.1 made numerous complaints with the JDA control room, but of no avail. According to the petitioners, the functionaries of the JDA have utterly failed to discharge their statutory duties in preventing the change of user of residential plots to that of commercial establishments. 5. In some matters, the office bearers of Petitioner No.1 made numerous complaints with the JDA control room, but of no avail. The petitioners not only made complaints and representations in writing to the JDA but also approached in persons the various functionaries of the respondents including Commissioner, JDA and Chief Controller of Enforcement against the illegal construction of commercial show-rooms/shops etc. being carried out on certain residential plots in the residential scheme as also against the commercial activities being carried on therein. According to the petitioner Samiti, all the complaints and sincere efforts made by them proved futile. On the contrary, the officers of the JDA showed reluctance on their part, which encouraged the persons to continue with construction of commercial buildings etc. and to carry on commercial activities in the residential scheme. 6. Having failed from all corners in getting their grievances redressed, the petitioners have resorted to the remedy by filing the present petition in the nature of public interest litigation. 7. In response to the show cause notice the Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed joint reply to the writ petition, while Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have filed their counter affidavits separately. The State and the functionaries (Respondents No. 1 to 4) have denied the allegation of the petitioners that they are supporting the commercial constructions and commercial activities in the residential scheme. They stated that the authorities of the respondents are well aware of the illegal construction of commercial nature being raised in the area and they have taken all possible steps from time to time to check and prevent such illegal constructions. They have further denied the allegations against the authorities of acting as being silent separators and giving impetus to law violators and encroachers. It is submitted that whenever it came to the notice of the concerned authorities that commercial constructions are being raised over the residential plots, they immediately issued notices to the such plot holders, directing them to stop commercial activities in the residential area. They have quoted certain examples of the plot holders who are taking commercial use of residential plots and to whom they issued notices. They have quoted certain examples of the plot holders who are taking commercial use of residential plots and to whom they issued notices. To substantiate the plea, the respondents have filed such notices as Annexure R/i to R/vi alongwith their reply. 8. In their counter, the respondents have further denied the allegation of extending favours to some highly influential persons who are involved in carrying on commercial activities and/or raising illegal commercial constructions in residential area. It is submitted that on receipt of any complainant against commercial construction over residential plots, the concerned authorities have been taking immediate action against such persons, irrespective of their status or influence. 9. As regards some plots, numbers and reference of which have been given in Para 7 of the writ petition, the respondents have come with a plea that applications for conversion of use of the land have been submitted by the owners of such plots and the same are under consideration of the JDA. 10. In reply to Para 8 of the writ petition, the respondents have averred that all checks are exercised and steps are being taken by them in accordance with law. They have reiterated that notices to the persons who were found running commercial activities in the residential area have been issued in the light of the Judgment of this Court in Amit Jain vs. Rinesh Gupta, 2000 (1) WLC 689. 11. Respondent No. 5, in his reply has taken preliminary objection as to the maintainability of writ petition against him on the ground of mis-joinder of party, inasmuch as the plot No. B-288 in the area in question is of the ownership of his wife. However, according to the answering respondent, the entire construction work of building on the plot in question has come to an stand still. In Para 4 of reply, the Respondent No. 5 has frankly conceded that it is a fact that till such permission is granted, a plot allotted for residential purposes cannot be utilized for commercial purposes. It is stated that the answering respondent is not going to utilise the plot for any commercial purposes unless the JDA permits him to do so at any point of time. The allegation of raising construction of a commercial show room on the plot in question has also been denied. It is stated that the answering respondent is not going to utilise the plot for any commercial purposes unless the JDA permits him to do so at any point of time. The allegation of raising construction of a commercial show room on the plot in question has also been denied. It has been contended that present one is not a public interest litigation, but it is motivated by the interested people. 12. Likewise, the Respondent No. 6 has admitted that it has been carrying out its business of sale and purchase of marbles on the plots meant for residential purposes. It has also been submitted that an application dated 16.01.2003 was also filed by Ramawater Agarwal and Smt. Kiran Devi, owners of the land covered by Shubham Marbles before the JDA for regularization of four plots measuring 1190 square yards in accordance with Land-use Rules, 2000. The JDA, in turn, raised a demand for Rs. 38,464/-for furthering with the process of consideration over the said application for change in land use. Pursuant to the demand, the answering respondent deposited the said amount. .13. The undisputed position, which has emerged out from the contents of the writ petition and the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondents may be enumerated below:- .(i) The Respondents No. 5 and 6 and like others have constructed commercial shops/show-rooms/offices over the residential plots in the 10-B residential scheme and have been carrying out commercial activities therein. .(ii) The petitioner Samiti, lodged several complaints in the month of July, 2003 before the authorities of JDA including its Commissioner against raising of construction of commercial building etc. on the residential plots in the residential colony, but no action whatsoever was taken by authorities of JDA. .(iii) After the Division Bench Judgment dated 111.1999, referred to above, the JDA authorities have issued notices to some of the persons who have constructed commercial building and are carrying on commercial activities in the scheme in question and that too for the first time in 2004. .(iv) Some of the persons carrying on their commercial activities over the residential plots in the residential scheme in question have approached the JDA by filing applications for change of user in accordance with the rules. .(v) None of such person over took any permission from the JDA for raising construction of shops/offices/commercial show-rooms etc. .(iv) Some of the persons carrying on their commercial activities over the residential plots in the residential scheme in question have approached the JDA by filing applications for change of user in accordance with the rules. .(v) None of such person over took any permission from the JDA for raising construction of shops/offices/commercial show-rooms etc. on the residential plots in the residential colony and to carry out commercial activities. 14. Before proceeding further, it needs to be observed that none-appeared on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 4, namely, the Secretary Commissioner and the Chief Controller of Enforcement of the JDA at the time of final arguments. This shows lack of concern on the part of such responsible officers of the JDA who are solely concerned with the Master Development Plan. 15. As already stated above, the present writ petition is confined only to a particular residential scheme, where some of the persons are involved in raising construction of commercial shops/show-rooms etc. on the residential plots and have been carrying on commercial activities therein. In year 1996-97, one Rinesh Gupta, a practicing Advocate of this Court represented similar cause of entire public of Jaipur by filing a public interest litigation before the learned Single Judge of this Court, with the averments that in most of the localities of Jaipur City, residential buildings were being used for commercial purposes, namely, shops, cinemas, hotels, marriages, fast food centres etc. and this change of user is causing hardship and inconvenience to the residents of the localities. The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 27.06.1997 directed the JDA to stop user of 24 commercial establishments forthwith which were running essentially in residential houses contrary to the provisions of the JDA Act. The learned Single Judge further directed the respondents in the writ petition to initiate action against such establishments as provided under Section 17(5) of the Act which empowers the JDA to pull down, demolish or remove such establishments. The JDA was also held entitled to recover cost of such demolitions from the owners of such establishments. As per the order of the learned Single Judge it was open to the JDA to launch prosecution against owners of the said establishments as per the provisions of Section 33 of the JDA Act, 1982. The JDA was also held entitled to recover cost of such demolitions from the owners of such establishments. As per the order of the learned Single Judge it was open to the JDA to launch prosecution against owners of the said establishments as per the provisions of Section 33 of the JDA Act, 1982. The change of use of residential premises to that of commercial premises was also ordered to be stopped unless modification in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur Region is made and all such permissions granted after the commencement of Act No. 25 of the Act of 1982 were held to be null and void. The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to ensure strict compliance of the order and in case of failure in discharge of their duties, disciplinary action was also proposed. 16. On appeals by Anil Jain and 101 others, titled Amit Jain and 101 Others vs. Rinesh Gupta & Ors., reported in 2000 (1) WLC 689, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the directions given by the learned Single Judge are very wide and they will certainly pose difficulties, if they are implemented. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that some of the directions of the learned Single Judge would amount to restraining the concerned authorities from exercising their powers conferred on them under the statutory provisions. The Division Bench was of the view that such directions, viz., the demolition and pulling down of the buildings could not have been issued having regard to the provisions contained in the Act of 1982, in particular Section 17 and that too without issuing notice to the persons concerned, specifying the violations. The Division Bench held that the actions, which result into serious civil consequences affecting the rights of the parties, that too relating to immovable properties, the principles of natural justice are required to be followed. The Division Bench held that the actions, which result into serious civil consequences affecting the rights of the parties, that too relating to immovable properties, the principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In these circumstances the Division Bench while disposing of the appeals, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and issued certain directions, which may be quoted below:- .(1) The Jaipur Development Authority shall issue notice to 24 parties contained in the directions given by the learned Single Judge, or taking action in the light of the observations made above; .(2) A Monitoring Committee is constituted consisting of Commissioner, JDA, Director, Town Planning, Secretary, JDA, Senior Town Planner, Collector Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and Municipal Commissioner. The said Committee shall get survey of Jaipur City relating to contravention in regard to change of land use, construction of carrying on commercial activities in the residential areas against the provisions of the Act of 1982, within a period of four months ; .(3) On the basis of survey report, the Jaipur Development Authority shall take further action in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1982 within a period of six months from the date of availability of survey report and shall submit the report to the Monitoring Committee once in two months about the progress made; .(4) TheJDA is further directed to take necessary steps to prevent further violations either in the matter of land use or construction of buildings or carrying on the commercial activities in violation for the provisions of the Act of 1982. If need be, a Special Cell may be created or this specific work may be entrusted to specified officer if such arrangement is not already existing in the JDA; .(5) It isopen to the public also to point out any violations in regard to change of land use, construction or carrying on commercial activities in the residential areas against the provisions of the Act of 1982, to the Monitoring Committee within a period of four months. This may be made known by the JDA to general public by publication in one Hindi daily newspaper and one English Daily newspaper having wide circulation in Jaipur region; .(6) If there is any difficulty in carrying out these directions, it is open to the parties to approach this Court for necessary clarification or direction. 17. This may be made known by the JDA to general public by publication in one Hindi daily newspaper and one English Daily newspaper having wide circulation in Jaipur region; .(6) If there is any difficulty in carrying out these directions, it is open to the parties to approach this Court for necessary clarification or direction. 17. At this juncture, we are at pains to observe that a period of more than 4 years has elapsed, but none of the State functionaries, in particular, the JDA, has proceeded an inch ahead to give effect to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Jain (Supra) decided on 111.1999, so as to prevent further violations either in the matter of land use or construction of buildings or carrying on of the commercial activities in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1982. It appears to us, that the concerned authorities remained silent separators, to the illegal user of land building activity and carrying on of commercial activities in the residential areas against the provisions of the JDA Act. The inaction on the part of Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, who are directly concerned with the Master Development Plan of Jaipur is apparent from the abominable violations thereof . 18. The present litigation is an out come of the inaction on the part of respondent authorities, where a registered Vikas Samiti of a particular residential colony, through its Secretary and Mr. Virendra Agrawal, one of the practicing lawyer of this Court, having felt aggrieved of the inactions on the part of the respondents authorities in perpetuating the violation in respect of change of land use, construction or carrying on of commercial activities in the residential area, has again approached this Court through this public interest litigation. Had there been strict compliance of the directions contained in the case of Amit Jain (Supra), there would not have any occasion for the present litigation. 19. In the case at hand, we are not prepared to accept the stand taken by Respondents No. 1 to 4 in their counter affidavit that they are aware of the illegal construction of commercial nature and they have taken all possible steps from time to time to check and prevent such illegal construction and that they immediately stopped such construction the moment it came to their notice. We do not find anything on record to substantiate the plea of the State functionaries (Respondents No. 1 to 4), except the notices (Annexures-R/1 to R/6) having been issued to some of the violators in the begining of February, 2004 only and that too months after the notices issued by this Court were served on the respondents. 20. Respondents No. 5 and 6 have frankly conceded that they have constructed commercial buildings on residential plots and have been carrying out commercial activities in the residential area. They have also conceded and in our considered view rightly so, that till permission is accorded by the JDA, a plot allotted for residential purposes cannot be utilized for commercial purposes. Undisputedly, the petitioner Samiti lodged numerous complaints before the JDA against illegal raising of construction of commercial building etc. on the residential plots as also the commercial activities continuing in residential area, but the concerned authorities of the JDA failed to take any steps to check and prevent such constructions and the commercial activities being carried on in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is equally true that Respondents No. 5 and 6 and like others never took any permission from the JDA authorities either for raising construction of shops/offices/show-rooms etc. on the residential plots or for running commercial activities in the residential scheme. The mere fact that some of such encroachers have applied for change of use of residential plots into commercial plot before the JDA does not legally entitle them to avail of any benefit. That apart, the respondent authorities have not taken any action for regularization of such plots. 21. Since, the various provisions of the JDA Act and the rules made thereunder, concerning the issue involved in the instant public interest litigation have already been taken note of and considered at considerable length by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case, we do not feel it necessary to again take note of such provisions. It cannot be a question of debate that there should be no orderly development of the Jaipur region. It cannot be a question of debate that there should be no orderly development of the Jaipur region. The paramount purpose of the JDA Act is to have the planned, co-ordinated and orderly development of Jaipur region and no one can be permitted to defeat the very object and purpose of the Act and the authorities concerned are under obligation to take action and proceed in accordance with the mandate contained in the Act. 22. In the case at hand, from what has been discussed above, it is evident that the Respondents No. 1 to 4 and its functionaries have utterly failed to protect the residential area from commercial activities. The State of Rajasthan and the JDA, for the reasons best known to them, instead checking the illegalities, violation of the JDA Act and protecting the master development plan which is statutory in nature, are making efforts to legalise the illegalities and encroachments and that too in utter disregard of the directions contained in the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as have been stated in the earlier part of the Judgment . It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the respondent authorities are proceeding towards regularizing the illegal construction of commercial nature on the residential plots as also the commercial activities being carried out in the residential area contrary to the Master Development Plan. The action of the respondents, if permitted, would amount to substantial change in the master development plan which was prepared after prolonged discussions and due deliberations. 23. In Amit Jain’s case (Supra), the Division Bench also took note of the fact that there may be some disputed questions of fact and, therefore, the Division Bench considered it proper that instead issuing directions straight way to pull down or demolish such commercial constructions on residential plots or to stop the misuse of land, the concerned authorities may be directed to examine the factual position and to record its finding. The Court further observed that if actions are to be taken against the persons or authorities for violation of the provisions of the Act either in the matter of land use of construction of buildings or carrying on commercial activities, the action should be taken consistent with and in accordance with the requirements of the various provisions of the Act of 1982. 24. 24. As regards permission to be granted for change of use of residential premises into commercial premises, the Division Bench concluded that such permissions granted could neither be declared null and void nor cancelled without giving opportunity to the persons/authorities who are likely to be affected by such order. Here in the instant case, it is note the case of the either party that permissions have been granted by the JDA for change of use of residential premises into commercial premises. What has come on record is that few persons have applied to the JDA for regularization of their commercial constructions raised on residential plots in the residential scheme in question, without seeking prior permission of the JDA. It would be for the JDA to consider the question with regard to grant of permission for conversion of land use in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and in terms of the master development plan of Jaipur. 25. Be that as it may, it is felt appropriate that some action must necessarily be taken against the persons or authorities, who made violations in respect of change of land use, construction or carrying on commercial activities on residential plots in a residential area against the provisions of the Act. 26. Jaipur City is popularly known as Pink City and it is famous for its culture and heritage and as such it occupies a prominent place in the country. But large number of residents of this beautiful city, including the residents of 10-B scheme have made violations in regard to change of land use, construction or carrying on commercial activities in the residential areas and for such violation the respondent authorities are held to be solely responsible, inasmuch as, despite there being clear directions by the Division Bench of this Court in November, 1999 in the case referred to above, the respondent authorities completely failed in discharge of their statutory duties and instead restricting or preventing the violations in regard to change of land use, construction or carrying on commercial activities in the residential areas, further allowed violations at grass root level in all most all residential areas of Jaipur including 10-B scheme. The in-actions and lack of concern on the part of the State and its functionaries (Respondents No. 1 to 4) must be deprecated and viewed strictly. .27. The in-actions and lack of concern on the part of the State and its functionaries (Respondents No. 1 to 4) must be deprecated and viewed strictly. .27. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this writ petition stands disposed of in the following terms:- .(i) the Respondents No. 5 and 6 who have filed counter affidavits and have contested the writ petition through their counsel and have raised commercial buildings on the residential plots in residential scheme without getting the maps approved and without seeking permission/approval for such construction from the JDA and have been carrying on commercial activities therein, are here by restrained from carrying on any commercial activity till the matters are finally decided by the JDA. The JDA is directed to take action against Respondents No. 5 and 6 including such other violators whom it has issued notices (Annexures R/1 to R/6), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the JDA Act within a period of two months from the date of this Judgment . .(ii) The Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority is directed to get survey of 10-B residential scheme of Jaipur relating to contravention in regard to change of land use, construction of commercial shops/show rooms/garrages/hotels/ restaurants/cinemas etc. on residential plots and carrying on commercial activities in the residential scheme against the provisions of the JDA Act and after getting conducted survey, the Commissioner, JDA shall take further action in accordance with the provisions of the JDA Act of 1982 against the violators, within a further period of two months from the date of availability of survey report. .(iii) The Commissioner, JDA is further directed to initiate strict disciplinary actions against the concerned officers/officials for their inactions and failure in discharge of their statutory duties, thereby allowing violations in regard to change of land use, of commercial buildings on the residential plots and carrying on a commercial activities in 10-b scheme of Jaipur. 28. Before parting with the Judgment , it need be observed that present litigation is an out come of the inactions on the part of Respondents No. 1 to 4 and its functionaries and failure in discharge of thei