JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the temporary injunction application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 2. Brief facts of the case that the appellants filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, claiming that the Sarpanch of village Bhadliya in order to benefit the persons of his community has got the Gochar land of public pond recorded in the revenue record on lease of 99 years for construction of Rajeev Gandhi I.T. Centre without bringing the same to the notice of the Ward Panchas of Gram Panchayat and general public of the village Bhadliya. It was alleged that the land in question is outside the village and the general public particularly ladies, old aged persons and children would face problem in its approach. Rather, it would be misuse of Government money and an encroachment over the Gochar land. The appellants prayed for grant of temporary injunction for restraining the respondents from raising construction on the land in dispute. The learned Judge vide order dated 27.07.2012, has dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Roshanlal, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that according to the guidelines issued for the construction of Rajeev Gandhi Seva Kendra, it is essential that the building be constructed within the campus of the Gram Panchayat, or Panchayat Samiti office. However, in the present case, despite the guidelines so issued, the building is being constructed over a Gochar land. According to him, the Sarpanch is getting the building constructed in the Gochar land in order to benefit his own family members. Since the construction of the building is in violation of the guidelines, the learned Judge should have granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellants. Secondly, that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that the prima facie case was in favour of the appellants. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, and perused the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the guidelines issued by the Government clearly reveals that the guideline to construct a building within the Gram Panchayat or the Panchayat Samiti office is merely a directory guideline, and not a mandatory one. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, and perused the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the guidelines issued by the Government clearly reveals that the guideline to construct a building within the Gram Panchayat or the Panchayat Samiti office is merely a directory guideline, and not a mandatory one. Secondly, the learned Judge has clearly noticed and according to this Court, rightly so, that the plaintiffs cannot claim the violation of any legal rights. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that a strong prima facie case does not exist in favour of the appellants. 6. Moreover, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that ordinarily the Court should not interefre with public work. In case, the injunction is granted staying the construction of the infrastructure, it leads to a grave loss for the public at large, and it unnecessarily puts a burden on the State exchequer.For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******