ORDER : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the sealing of the building on 2nd August, 2017. It is pursuant to the notice earlier served under Section 32 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short "the Act of 1982") and followed by notice under Section 34A of the Act of 1982. 2. Learned counsel submits that a notice was served on the owner of the building and not on the petitioner. They are running a clinic within the permissible limit yet it has been sealed. A reference of the Jaipur Development Authority (Region Building) Bye-Laws, 2010 (for short "the Bye-Laws of 2010") has been given where use of residential area to the extent to 25% or 100 square metres, whichever is lesser has been permitted for professional purpose. The petitioner is running a Dental Clinic thus it cannot be said to be a commercial activity. They are using less than 25% of the residential area for the clinic thus even the use is saved by the Bye-Laws of 2010. A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Noida and Anr. And Dr. Anupama Bisaria and Ors. v. Mange Ram Sharma (D) through L.Rs. and Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2115 has been given where the clinic simplicitor is permitted in the residence but a Doctor is not permitted to run the Polyclinic or Nursing Home in the garb of a clinic. In view of the judgment (supra) also, the sealing of the building should be interfered by this court. 3. It is also submitted that as per Section 32 of the Act of 1982, a prior notice is required to be given to the occupier. In the instant case, no such notice was given to the petitioner but to the owner of the building who may be even petitioner's father. Thus it has affected the petitioner. Hence, sealing of the building deserves to be interfered by this court even on the ground aforesaid. 4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 5. The "furd seal" has been challenged by maintaining this writ petition though petitioner is having alternative remedy of appeal/reference before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. Hence, sealing of the building deserves to be interfered by this court even on the ground aforesaid. 4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 5. The "furd seal" has been challenged by maintaining this writ petition though petitioner is having alternative remedy of appeal/reference before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. The remedy aforesaid has been availed by the petitioner's father-Om Prakash on service of notice under Section 32 of the Act of 1982. The appeal against the notice has been disposed of with a direction to make a representation to the Enforcement Officer within a period of 15 days. 6. It is alleged that after reference of the case to the Enforcement Officer, a notice under Section 34A of the Act of 1982 was given. A separate appeal was preferred thereupon before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority and is pending consideration. Therein, interim order has not been passed. In view of sealing of the building, the petitioner is unable to operate the clinic. 7. It has not been clarified as to why the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. It is moreso when according to the petitioner himself, By-Laws of 2010 permits 25% of the residential area for running a clinic. Learned counsel has made a reference of Para 6 of the writ petition to indicate as to how much area is being used for clinic etc., however, it does not give description of total area of the building so as to determine 25% of the area permissible for use of professional activities. It is also not clear as to whether clinic is run or is used for other purposes i.e. to run Polyclinic or Nursing Home. These issues involve question of facts. It can be determined by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. The petitioner's father has already preferred an appeal against the notice under Section 34 of the Act of 1982. 8. Learned counsel has raised another issue in reference to Sections 32 and 34A where notice has not been served on the petitioner though they are the occupiers. It is not in dispute that petitioner is residing along with father to whom notice was served. It is not that every family member has to be served notice under Sections 32 and 34A of the Act of 1982. It is not in dispute that petitioner is residing along with father to whom notice was served. It is not that every family member has to be served notice under Sections 32 and 34A of the Act of 1982. The petitioner is knowing about the notice to the father with further information about the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. 9. In the light of the facts given above and as question of fact needs to be determined i.e. as to how much area is used for clinic or it is used for clinic or any other purpose like Polyclinic or Nursing Home, the Tribunal can appropriately deal with the issue after recording finding of fact. The appeal is otherwise pending though in the hand of father. 10. The judgment of the Apex Court has been referred but it is in reference to the rules applicable therein. In the present case, reference of the Bye-Laws of 2010 has been given which permits use of 25% of the total area for professional purpose but in absence of details of the area of the building, issue cannot be determined. 11. Thus, while dismissing the writ petition, liberty is given to approach the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. The petitioner would be at liberty to maintain a stay application and if appeal is preferred along with stay application, the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority would be expected to hear and decide it expeditiously and on merit.