JUDGMENT 1. - In all these writ petitions common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ petition No. 10734/2015 is laid by a company registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Non-Trading Companies Act, 1960 espousing cause of its members against the impugned action of respondents. In the other connected writ petitions, laid by respective petitioners in individual capacity, or as firm, have ventilated their grievances against the impugned action of respondents with almost identical prayers. 3. For convenience, the prayer made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10374/2015 (Khudra Anaj Vyapari Sangh, Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is reproduced as infra:- "(i) The notices dated 01.09.2015, 02.09.2015, 04.09.2015 and 08.09.2015 and all consequential proceeding thereupon may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents may be restrained to interfere in the possession of the all member tenant shopkeepers of the entire area. (iii) During pendency of the writ petition, if any order is passed or any action is taken by the Municipal Corporation against the member tenant of petitioner Sangh, prejudicial their interest, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iv) Hold that the members shopkeepers are lawful tenants and are in rightful possession of the rented out premises which includes the Kota(shop), Chokadi (open space) and Chhaper (tinshed) in the Dhanmandi area. (v) The respondents may kindly restrained from cancelling the tenancy of the member tenant shopkeepers and be restrained from taking any coercive action in any manner against the shopkeepers of petitioner Sangh. (vi) The respondent authorities of the Municipal Corporation be directed to produce the original documents of the rented out premises to the shopkeepers of the Dhanmandi area. (vii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner, may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice; and (viii) Cost of litigation may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 4. Essentially, all the members of Khudra Anaj Vyapari Sangh, Jodhpur (for short, 'Sangh') are the shopkeepers of Sumer Market, Jodhpur (commonly known as Dhanmandi) and are doing business of food grains and other articles since time immemorial. Essentially, all the members of Khudra Anaj Vyapari Sangh, Jodhpur (for short, 'Sangh') are the shopkeepers of Sumer Market, Jodhpur (commonly known as Dhanmandi) and are doing business of food grains and other articles since time immemorial. It is averred in the writ petitions that members of the Sangh as well as other petitioners are tenants of respondent, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, and in the capacity of tenants they are in occupation of Kotha and chokdi for doing their business. 5. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner Sangh as well as other petitioners have challenged the notices issued to them by respondent Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, whereby they have been asked to submit requisite documents to show their authorised possession on Kotha and Chokdi. 6. Apprehending highhanded action from respondent Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, It is averred in the writ petitions that there is every likelihood of their possession being disturbed by the respondents pursuant to these notices. Questioning the sanctity of notices, it is submitted in the writ petitions that the notices are absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific in as much as there is no whisper as to how and in what manner petitioners nave violated law or encroached over the public land. Asserting their rights as tenants, petitioners have submitted in the writ petitions that the respondent-Corporation is not authorised to issue such notices to call upon them to furnish requisite proofs about their authorised possession. It is also specifically averred in the writ petition that officers and employees of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur have threatened them to dispossess and demolish their construction at the site. By pleading all these facts, the petitioners have craved for the reliefs mentioned supra. 7. On behalf of respondents, replies to the writ petitions are submitted. In the return, the respondents have admitted the status of the members of petitioner Sangh and other petitioners as tenants of the Corporation, however, it is submitted that they have encroached over some area, which was not rented out to them. It is also averred that on the respective chokdis allotted to them, they have erected illegal construction without obtaining prior permission from the Municipal Corporation. By stating all these facts, the respondents have defended the notices issued by them to the members of the petitioner-Sangh as well as other petitioners. It is also averred that on the respective chokdis allotted to them, they have erected illegal construction without obtaining prior permission from the Municipal Corporation. By stating all these facts, the respondents have defended the notices issued by them to the members of the petitioner-Sangh as well as other petitioners. In order to show encroachments by petitioners, maps of the site are also placed on record as Annexs. R/1 and R/2 respectively. The respondents have also submitted that notices have been given to the petitioners to remove illegal constructions as well as encroachments and therefore, no interference is warranted. 8. After submission of the reply to the writ petition, an additional affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents through Officer-in-Charge, Dalbeer Singh Dhaddha, Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. The recitals contained in the affidavit reads as under: "I, Dalbeer Singh Dhaddha S/o Late Shri G.S. Dhaddha, Aged about 50 years, at present working as Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, do hereby take oath and state as under:- 1. That I am the officer incharge in this case and am fully conversant with the facts of the present case. 2. That the Municipal Corporation Jodhpur shall not remove any part of Kotha's or existing Kotha's which were rented to the person concerned and who has not violated the terms and conditions of the rent agreement. 3. That the Municipal Corporation Jodhpur shall also not remove any kind of construction or tin-shade which are there on Chokadi with proper permission from the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. 4. That the Tin shade means tin shade with four pillars or poles with roof and with all the four sides open. That the tin-shade in no manne can be said to be the tin shade with covering from four side or any of the side. 5. That the contents of the said affidavit is true and correct to my personal knowledge and belief except the legal submissions made there of which are true to my information and belief. 6. That the content of the said affidavit has been drafted by my counsel o under my instructions." DEPONENTI, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of Para no. 1 to 8 of the said affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, nothing has been concealed therein. So Help Me God. Identified By : DEPONENT 9. That the content of the said affidavit has been drafted by my counsel o under my instructions." DEPONENTI, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of Para no. 1 to 8 of the said affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, nothing has been concealed therein. So Help Me God. Identified By : DEPONENT 9. The additional affidavit of the respondent is countered by Petitioner-Sangh by submitting its reply, wherein its stand taken earlier in the writ petition is reiterated. In its reply to the additional affidavit, Petitioner-Sangh has also craved for issuing direction to the Municipal Corporation for placing on record the requisite document, i.e. rent-note etc., by invoking provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 CPC. 10. Mr. L.R. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned notices have been issued de-hors the law, and therefore, these notices cannot be sustained. Mr. Mehta further submits that notices are absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific and there is no whisper in these notices as to how and in what manner any of the petitioners has encroached over the public land. With these arguments, learned counsel would contend that the impugned notices cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be annulled. 11. Per contra, Dr. P. S. Bhati, Additional Advocate General, submits that i the notices have been issued to all the members of petitioner-Sangh as well as other petitioners in complaince of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 2910/2008, therefore, grievance of the petitioners against the notices are wholly untenable. Dr. Bhati would contend that the Municipal Corporation has initiated drive to remove encroachments from Sumer Market (DhanMandi) for facilitating rehabilitation of Thela Vendors who are carrying on their businesses in the main Ghantaghar market area in adherence of the directions of the Division Bench. Dr. Bhati further submits that some of the members of petitioner-Sangh and other firms involved in the business of food grains have made encroachments on the public land, and therefore, it became imperative for Municipal Corporation to issue impugned notices for removal of encroachments. During the course of arguments, Dr. Bhati has placed heavy reliance on maps R/2 and R/3 of Sumer Market (Dhanmandi) to substantiate the allegation of encroachment by some of the members of the petitioner-Sangh and other traders. 12. During the course of arguments, Dr. Bhati has placed heavy reliance on maps R/2 and R/3 of Sumer Market (Dhanmandi) to substantiate the allegation of encroachment by some of the members of the petitioner-Sangh and other traders. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 13. Undeniably, the members of the petitioner Sangh and other petitioners are tenants of Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, and therefore, they are well within their rights to retain possession of the rented premises namely, Kothas and Chokdis. Although respondent in their return have made attempt to make out a case that members of the petitioner - Sangh and other petitioners have made encroachment on public land, but I am at complete loss to say that this sort of allegation is not traceable in the impugned notices. 14. As a matter of fact, the impugned notices are bereft of material particulars satisfying the requirements of a valid legal notice for removal of encroachment. In the impugned notices there is no whisper that which part of so public land is encroached by a particular trader. In substance, the impugned notices are absolutely vague cryptic and unspecific. For convenience, recitals of notice issued to one of the member of petitioner-Sangh, Narayandas/Gyandas, on 1st of September, 2015, is reproduced in vernacular, as infra: dk;kZy; uxj fuxe] tks/kiqj dzekad 86 fnukad 1-9-15 uksfVl Jh ukjk;.k nkl@Kkunkl lqesj ekdsZV] 173 fo"k;% nqdku@dksBk@pkSdM+h ls lEcfU/kr nLrkost izLrqr djus ds lanHkZ esaA uxj fuxe tks/kiqj }kjk orZeku esa lqesj ekdsZV dk losZ dk dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gS losZ esa Kkr gqvk gS fd vki }kjk nqdku@dksBk@pkSDM+h la0 173 ij orZeku esa dkfct gksdj O;kikj fd;k tk jgk gSA vr% uksfVl izkfIr ds rhu fnol ds Hkhrj vius dCtk 'kqnk {ks= ds leLr ewy nLrkost v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ ds le{k izLrqr djsA Sd/- jktLo fujh{kd ljnkj ekdsZV uxj fuxe] tks/kiqj 15. From a bare perusal of aforesaid notice, any prudent man can draw an inference that the said notice has been issued by the competent authority mechanically without application of mind. From a bare perusal of aforesaid notice, any prudent man can draw an inference that the said notice has been issued by the competent authority mechanically without application of mind. That apart, the affirmative assertion of the respondents, that they have initiated a drive for removal of encroachments, pre-supposes that there are possibilities that Municipal Corporation may take undue hasty action against the petitioners for removal of their authorised occupations on rented premises, in the guise of alleged encroachments. Therefore, any action against the members of the petitioner-Sangh as well as other petitioners pursuant to these notices cannot be countenanced in the legal parlance. 16. From bare perusal of the notices, it is not discernible that under what power and authority, notices have been issued and which part of the public land is encroached upon by the notice, That being the position, the impugned notices are legally unsustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 17. In view of above, impugned notices issued to the members of the petitioner-Sangh as well as other petitioners are quashed and set aside. 18. At this stage, I am constrained to observe that encroachment on public land is menace to the society and such illegal action of any individual, howsoever high he may be, is liable to be deprecated. However, in the garb of removal of encroachment, an incumbent, who is in lawful possession, cannot be allowed to be thrown away in an absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable manner. The respondents being quite conscious of this aspect of the matter have submitted additional affidavit of the Officer- in Charge, the contents whereof are reproduced supra. 19. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant petitions it is clarified that quashment of the impugned notices shall not circumscribe or otherwise curtail the powers of the respondents to initiate action for removal of encroachments within the area of Sumer Market (Dhanmandi). Therefore, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate action afresh against the petitioners for removal of their alleged encroachments on the public land strictly in accordance with law. 20. Therefore, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate action afresh against the petitioners for removal of their alleged encroachments on the public land strictly in accordance with law. 20. While taking the appropriate action in this behalf, the respondents shall act dispassionately without taking into account their earlier action initiated against the petitioners by issuing impugned notices and further appropriate orders in this behalf shall be passed by the respondents in strict adherence of the principles of natural justice.All these petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.A copy of the order be placed in all these files.Writ Petitions Disposed of as Above. *******