JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. The petitioners are the contractors, who are doing contract work in Muzaffarnagar Development Authority Muzaffarnagar. 3. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after creation of the development authority the powers for framing the Rules and Regulations and bye-laws under Sections 55 to 57 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 the approval of the State Government is required. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-2, which are Rules for registration of the contractors and renewal of their licences in Muzaffarnagar Development Authority Muzaffarnagar. 4. A perusal of these rules show that they require personal details and financial capacity etc. to be specified for being registered as contract and renewal of the licences. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier the registration amount was low i.e. Rs. 5,000/- but vide Annexure-2 it has been provided that contractors, who not get registration with the authority after producing the certificate of their financial capacity i.e. for registering as contractor in super ‘A’ category financial capacity of Rs. 1.50 crores to 3 crores is required and for ‘A’ category contractor’s financial capacity between Rs. 50 lacs to 150 lacs is required and so on for other categories as given in the appendix to the aforesaid rules. 6. It is stated that prior to 2008 there was no such requirement for registration of the contractors with the authority, and that petitioners have already applied for renewal of their licences. They have also approached the respondents and filed an application under Right to Information Act as to how the rule appended as Annexure-2 has been brought about and under provisions of which Act but the information is alleged not to have been given by the authorities. Hence, the petitioners have come before this Court. 7. From the record it appears that the petitioners are no longer registered as contractors nor their licences have been renewed after 31st March, 2008. They, therefore, have no locus-standi at present to file this writ petition. 8. Moreover, a reading of provisions of Section 55 to 57 of the Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 shows that the rules may provide for all or any other matters enumerated under Rules 55 and 56. They, therefore, have no locus-standi at present to file this writ petition. 8. Moreover, a reading of provisions of Section 55 to 57 of the Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 shows that the rules may provide for all or any other matters enumerated under Rules 55 and 56. Since the rules under challenge are not prescribed by any rules framed under Section 55. 9. In my opinion, they are not covered by the aforesaid provisions or Regulations or bye-laws. No nexus could be established between the rules framed under challenge as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the Rules, Regulations and bye-laws described under the provisions under Section 55 to 57 of the aforesaid Act. 10. In the circumstances, in my opinion this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. However, since the respondent development authority is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act 2005 and the application of the petitioner under the Act is pending before the authorities, it is to be decided by the authorities in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed. ————