JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Radhey Shyam Saini is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8579/2012- Raghunandan Bilochi v. JDA & Ors. 2. This case has rather a chequered history,but we need not go into all the details. Suffice it to say that petitioner/respondent No.3, Raghunandan Bilochi had filed a Reference before the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, wherein he had claimed that on 07.06.2008, he was threatened by the Officers of the JDA that they are likely to demolish Shop No.11, Laxmi Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, which belonged to him. According to him, originally the said shop was alloted to Mr. Rama Shankar Maurya by 'Jai Chamunda Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti' on 05.03.1981. Subsequently, Mr. Bilochi had bought the said shop from Mr. Maurya, through his general Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Banshi Lal Sharma on 15.09.1998. However, according to JDA, on 16.06.2008 they had issued a notice to him under Section 72 of the JDA Act, whereby they had claimed that he was an encroacher, therefore, he was asked to remove his encroachments. 3. Meanwhile, Mr. Radhey Shyam Saini, the appellant before this Court, had also filed a Reference before the JDA Tribunal, wherein he had claimed that he is the owner of Plot No.35. On the southern side of the said plot, Mr. Bilochi had tried to illegally encroach upon the land and had tried to construct a shop. Since Mr. Saini was aggrieved by the illegal action of Mr. Bilochi, he had filed certain representations and complaints, both before the JDA and before the Urban Development Minister. It was the case of Mr. Saini that although the road is supposed to be 160 feet wide, but Mr. Bilochi had encroached upon the said road. Both these References were heard and decided by the JDA Appellate Tribunal by a common order dated 09.01.2012, whereby the Tribunal had given certain directions to the JDA to hear Mr. Bilochi before passing any adverse order against him, and before removing his alleged illegal construction. 4. Twice again appeals were filed by Mr. Bilochi before the JDA Appellate Tribunal. However, by order dated 23.05.2012, the appeal filed by Mr. Bilochi was dismissed. Since Mr. Bilochi, was aggrieved by order dated 23.05.2012, he filed a writ petition before this Court. Bilochi before passing any adverse order against him, and before removing his alleged illegal construction. 4. Twice again appeals were filed by Mr. Bilochi before the JDA Appellate Tribunal. However, by order dated 23.05.2012, the appeal filed by Mr. Bilochi was dismissed. Since Mr. Bilochi, was aggrieved by order dated 23.05.2012, he filed a writ petition before this Court. By judgment dated 30.11.2012, the learned Single Judge directed as under:- "The petition is disposed of with liberty to JDA to uniformly widen the road on both sides to the extent of 160 feet. While the JDA proceeds to demolish all such shops, which have been constructed within the width of 160 feet of the complete road and without due permission from JDA and Municipal Corporation, the shop of the petitioner shall also be liable to be demolished, however, shop of petitioner alone shall not be singled out for being demolished. With that liberty, the writ petition is disposed of." 5. Hence, this special appeal before this Court. 6. Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, the learned counsel for appellant, has vehemently contended that since the writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge was limited only to the extent of seeing the validity or legality of the impugned order dated 23.05.2012. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could not go beyond his jurisdiction, and could not issue a direction to the JDA. Hence, the learned Single Judge has passed an order, which is patently ultravires his jurisdiction. 7. Secondly, in case the learned Single Judge did not find any illegality or perversity with the order dated 23.05.2012, he ought to have dismissed the writ petition. But, instead he has given certain directions to the JDA. 8. Thirdly, the concept of equality is not a negative one. 9. Lastly, the encroachers cannot be given protection of law. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Inderjeet Singh, the learned counsel for respondent No.3, has strenuously contended that all encroachers upon the road form a homogeneous class. Since the JDA was threatening to demolish only the shop belonging to Mr. Bilochi, the JDA was following the policy of pick and choose. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Inderjeet Singh, the learned counsel for respondent No.3, has strenuously contended that all encroachers upon the road form a homogeneous class. Since the JDA was threatening to demolish only the shop belonging to Mr. Bilochi, the JDA was following the policy of pick and choose. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in directing the JDA to treat all encroachers as a homogeneous class and not to be selective in its anti-encroachment drive. Therefore, the learned Judge had validly directed the JDA to uniformly widen the road on both sides and to demolish all such shops, which have been constructed within the width of 160 feet. Thus, in fact, according to the learned counsel the learned Single Judge had applied the concept of equality across the board. Therefore, the question of protecting a single encroacher does not even arise in the present case. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as other documents, submitted along with the appeal. 12. Admittedly, the writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Although, the respondent/petitioner, Mr. Bilochi was challenging the order dated 23.05.2012 under Article 227, but simultaneously he was also invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the learned Judge was exercising, both the power of writ jurisdiction as well as the power of superintendence over the Tribunal. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that the jurisdiction was limited only to power of superintendence, is a fallacious argument. The argument overlooks the fact that the writ petition itself was filed under the twin Articles of 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the writ petition had been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court "if injustice is being done, the sky is the limit." Therefore, the learned Single Judge was equally required to consider if any injustice is being done to the petitioner. Moreover, under Article 226 of the Constitution, he would have sufficient power to mold the relief in order to do justice to the petitioner. Hence, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the limited jurisdiction is unacceptable. 13. The case of respondent/petitioner Mr. Moreover, under Article 226 of the Constitution, he would have sufficient power to mold the relief in order to do justice to the petitioner. Hence, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the limited jurisdiction is unacceptable. 13. The case of respondent/petitioner Mr. Bilochi before the learned Single Judge was that although he may be considered to be an encroacher, but the fact remains that there were other encroachers on the same road. According to him, there are about 200 shops, which were existing in and around the area, on the same building line, which have encroached upon the road. These encroachments were preventing JDA from widening the width of the road to 160 feet, as shown in the sector plan. Mr. Bilochi's plea before the Court was that instead of demolishing and removing all the encroachments upon the said road, the JDA was discriminating against him by selecting his shop for demolition. Therefore, his submission before the Court was that the law has to be applied equally across the board against all the encroachers. The JDA could not be permitted to pick and choose and be selective in its action. Thus, according to Mr. Bilochi, there was hostile discrimination being practiced against him. 14. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2012 also reveals that the learned counsel for the JDA also submitted before the Court that JDA is not planning to just demolish Mr. Bilochi's shop, but instead is planning to demolish all the encroachments falling on the said road. It is under these circumstances that the learned Judge had issued certain directions to the JDA to remove all encroachments, instead of just removing the selective encroachments. 15. It is, indeed, true that Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied in a negative sense. But, in the present case, all the encroachers form a homogeneous class. The direction of the learned Single Judge was to apply law to remove all encroachments across the board and in fact of every single member of the said homogeneous category. Thus, the learned Single Judge has not applied Article 14 in a negative sense. But instead, the learned Single Judge has applied the concept of equality, clearly, in a positive sense. Thus, the learned Single Judge has not applied Article 14 in a negative sense. But instead, the learned Single Judge has applied the concept of equality, clearly, in a positive sense. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has applied Article 14 of the Constitution of India in a negative sense is clearly untenable. 16. The third argument raised by the learned counsel for appellant that encroachers cannot be given protection of law, cannot be doubted. However, while dealing with the homogeneous category of all the encroachers, the law cannot be applied only on selective ones. Instead it has to be applied across the entire class. Therefore, this Court does not see any illegality or perversity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. 17. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******