JUDGMENT 1. It's time where this Court may take cognizance that public interest litigation are invariably filed in this Court to settle their personal scores and it is not an exception where the public interest is being abused by filing such frivolous petition in this Court. Initially, three petitioners have jointly filed the writ petition giving colour of public interest litigation but during pendency oi writ petition, petitioner-3 died and no one is substituted on his behalf. 2. The limited prayer made by way of instant public interest litigation is to restrain from raising construction by the respondent-4 and it was claiming to be in rampant violation of the Municipal Act, 2009 (Act, 2009) and so also Building Bye Laws 2010/2013 (Bye Laws, 2010). Both the petitioners ate resident of Ward No. 23 & 24, Jhunjhunu respectively since their birth, as informed. 3. On a specific question put to the counsel for petitioners, as to whether the petitioners who have crossed the age of 50 years, have even raised their voice in regard to any alleged illegal construction or construction raised in violation of mandate of law Counsel is unable to inform and obviously there is no pleading or record but this Court can take notice of the fact that other than the present controversy which has been raised in isolation against one of the selected identified construction raised by respondent-4 over the subject property in question of which he is holding valid title as alleged is being questioned by public interest litigation and what is being prayed is that respondents 1-3, 5 & 6 be directed to discharge their legal and statutory duties which are provided under the Rajasthan Municipal Act, 2009 and to see that the Building Bye Laws 2010 are being implemented by the authority in its true spirit and respondent-4 be restrained from raising construction if any which is not in terms of Building Bye Laws 2010. At the same time, it has also been prayed that if any illegal construction if raised, the concerned statutory authority be directed to get such unauthorized construction removed obviously in accordance with law after adopting the procedure which the law permits. 4. At the same time, it has also been prayed that if any illegal construction if raised, the concerned statutory authority be directed to get such unauthorized construction removed obviously in accordance with law after adopting the procedure which the law permits. 4. This Court is not supposed to keep vigilance over the illegal construction raised which ordinarily is for the statutory authority to keep watch but if it is not properly carried out, it is always open for this Court to invoke mandate of law and no one should be permitted to raise construction illegally or in violation of norms laid down under the bye laws. 5. After notices of the present petition came to be served including respondent-4 in particular, detailed reply has been filed by respondent-2, Municipal Corporation Jhunjhunu and it was specifically averred that respondent-4 submitted their plans which were approved by the competent authority obviously in accordance with Building Bye Laws 2010, but during the course, when the construction being raised, it was brought to the notice of the authority that certain illegal construction has been raised, immediate steps were taken to restrain respondent- 4 from initiating illegal construction and action has been taken which the law contemplates against the violators including the respondent-4 in particular. 6. It has also been averred in the reply that revised plans were submitted by respondent-4 and that came to be approved with certain conditions on 14.12.2012 and whatever steps the law permits are always open and Municipal Council is keeping complete vigil and at any point of time if any illegal construction is raised in their jurisdiction, is always taken care of. 7. As regard respondent-4 is concerned, three separate applications are pending (A) in regard to construction raised as on today and that is to be considered if permissible under the mandate of Rajasthan Municipalities Compounding and Compromises of the Offences Rules, 1966 and at the same time two other applications have been filed; one is for change of land use from residential to commercial and second is for conversion from residential to commercial which at one stage was granted to respondent-4 but because of pending public interest litigation, the authority competent is restrained from taking further steps and awaiting decision of this Court in pending proceedings. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Saransh Saini, Advocate, appearing for Municipal Corporation submits that they will not permit respondent-4 in particular and other if raise construction in their jurisdiction without prior permission and in terms of Bye Laws 2010/2013 we can take judicial notice that the undertaking which the counsel has recorded in its order obviously after taking instruction for safeguarding the future interest and that being so, it will be open for the public to approach and inform this Court at any point of time in future. 9. But, at the same time, as regard-respondent-4 is concerned, since active steps have been taken and the matter is sub-judice, three separate applications of which already noticed by us, it will not be appropriate for this Court to record a finding or any observation may certainly adversely affects the rights of the parties pending application which are still awaiting decision of the authority. 10. As regard petitioners are concerned, it is brought to our notice that they are not so innocent social worker as prayed by them and in fact writ petitioners are holding shops across the road and running their business and we can take a judicial notice that such petitions are being filed to settle their personal scores, because of business rivalry or otherwise and this Court should always refrain from taking cognizance in such public interest petition where the parties for their personal scores take recourse of this Court. 11. As regard respondent-4 is concerned, it has been observed by us that once the matter is sub judice, it will not be appropriate for this Court at this stage to interfere that may certainly affect the rights of the parties but in totality of the matter, in our considered view, this petition has been filed in the garb of public interest litigation at this stage it is wholly frivolous and we do not find any ground to entertain such petition. However, at the same time, we direct the Municipal Council, Jhunjhunu, to take appropriate legal recourse which the law permits and respondent-4 shall not raise any construction without prior permission being accorded by the competent authority under the law. 12. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******